User talk:ChildofMidnight/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:ChildofMidnight. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Another song

Here's another song: [1]. Badagnani (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Snickers Salad

Thanks for all the info and advice! Very interesting. I love Wikipedia, but have had issues with certain contributors/users. Even if you do everything 'by the book' there's still so much grey area to be argued about! I like that it's basically a democracy with everyone working towards the same goal of having well-written, quality information. I'm always amazed by the variety of information available -- people write articles about the craziest stuff, I love it. Speaking of which...

I think I've heard of Snickerdoodle cookies, but I've never heard of Snickerdoodle salad -- sorry, I can't help much there. You should definitely write an article about Seven Layer Salad! I'll write one if you're too busy. Thanks for the "uff da" link -- my family says that all the time. I sent a link to my mom. Shatner1 (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ole and Lena -- hilarious -- my grandparents refer to them once in a while, but it was good to get a history lesson. We don't have any Dala Horses around the house, but I've seen them before. We do have a big Velkommen sign on my Mom's front door though. Kitchen Sink -- amazing coincidence -- my Dad just gave me the DVD, but I haven't had a chance to watch it yet. He said he saw it on TV one night and thought I'd like it. I'm still planning on writing the Seven Layer Salad article, but feel like I'll be busy for a while trying to save a few of the articles I've written that are up for deletion. I don't know why this SERSean deletionist guy hates me so much, he's really singled me out. Shatner1 (talk) 03:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome templates

Thanks for the message. I have a couple of templates that I have shamelessly stolen from other editors and customised: User:Ukexpat/welcome1 and User:Ukexpat/welcome2. – ukexpat (talk) 01:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Rashid Khalidi

Hi ChildofMidnight -- you've reverted me twice in the last day or so to replace material to Rashid Khalidi that I had removed with reference to WP:BLP. I have been discussing this on the talk page, but I do not see any comment from you in either case. Please read that policy carefully before doing this, for instance the section here. I am not sure if you are a returning user, as I see you have only been around for about a month, but you should know that editing these bios is one of the most sensitive issues on Wikipedia; as such I would strongly suggest waiting for discussion to resolve itself rather than reverting material back into place that has been removed per this policy. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 07:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. If there is improperly sourced material you can alter it or fix it to make it appropriate. The section you removed contains numerous citations to well established media. Wholesale deletion of well sourced material that you disagree with can be disruptive. I hope you'll make the edits necessary to fix any problems instead of simply removing all the text you find objectionable.ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It contains some citations to well-established media, but the question has been whether those sources are being assembled in a way that represents original research or original synthesis. Those are equally reasons to remove material under WP:BLP. As I said on the talk page, I have proposed another way to deal with it, but I think it is clear under WP:BLP that we should reach agreement on any version to be implemented, rather than just leaving it in the article and attempting to improve it as we go. In any case, hopefully any discussion can continue on the talk page. Mackan79 (talk) 08:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight, please stop adding versions of this material without participating in discussion. I granted above that you may be a new user, but it is a highly problematic way of approaching a WP:BLP, and if you continue I will ask that you be prohibited from editing this page. Please participate in discussion if you have a view on what should be included, where a number of people are discussing the issue. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 07:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have in fact participated in the discussion. I have also followed the discussion. There is no policy, that I am aware of, that says I have to comment on a talk page before editing an article. If there is a BLP problem you are welcome to correct it. Leaving out notable information is improper and I hope you aren't seeking to obstruct good faith edits instead of making corrections where needed. Endlessly objecting to well sourced material can be disruptive and result in your being blocked. I may be a relatively new user, but I don't appreciate threats and intimidation. I haven't violated any policies and my edits have been in good faith. I don't see anything in the content I added that hasn't been well sourced and discussed extensively on the talk page. If it needs to be modified please do so. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, the problem is that BLPs are considered extremely sensitive on Wikipedia, and are perhaps the one case where the standard approach of incrementalism is expressly rejected. Accordingly if editors refuse to respect this, then in general admins are very quick to protect and/or to block, since long term dispute resolution is not considered adequate. I don't know how else to put it. I know you have participated earlier, but there is an ongoing discussion with several editors actively participating, and which you seem to have left. I am attempting to suggest as clearly as I can that if you're interested in the page, then you should continue participating on the talk page to build WP:Consensus, not to pro-actively add contested material. That may work on other types of articles, but not with this type of issue on a WP:BLP. Mackan79 (talk) 08:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Article content that is well sourced to main stream media such as the LA Times is not a BLP violation. Your repeated attempts to invoke BLP violations whenever someone attempts to add well sourced content you disagree with is grossly inappropriate. I suggest you find sources to support your arguments rather than continue an uncivil campaign of threats and intimidation. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It is poorly sourced, and a BLP vio. Don't do it again, please, and respect the need to edit the encyclopedia in collaborative fashion.Wikidemon (talk) 08:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's well sourced, which is why the two of you are fighting the consensus to move forward and to include verifiable information. If you don't like the wording, take it up with the LA Times and the other reliable sources instead of engaging in a long term wikilawyering campaign of weasel wording to make a description more palatable to your POV. That kind of obstruction is bad faith, almost as bad as threatening the good faith actions of other editors. Shape up. And from now on stay off my talk page. Gracias. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

CoM, you can delete this if you like, but please consider that I'll assume your good faith if you assume mine. My issue isn't with you, but only with whether there are what I consider to be BLP violations on the page; I'm not an admin, and I'm involved regarldess, so I can't block other editors and I can't protect the page. If someone keeps editing the page to what I consider a BLP violation, then I have to take it to dispute resolution. I'm sure you're a good faith editor, and don't have any reason to question it; in fact, I read some of your other posts, and you seem perfectly reasonable. So, I apologize if I gave any other impression. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 09:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I quite understand why you attempted to add to the article well-sourced material that would not have been questioned were Wikipedia an a-political world. Wikipedia is a highly politicized world. I hope you will stop by the Rashid Khalidi talk page. We may be about to reach anconsensus on adding this material.Historicist (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I am also fairly new to Wikipedia, but I am beginning to catch on. Wikidemon has a playbook. Take a look at Pure argumentativeness. Wikidemon has done virtually everything on the page. He blocks people whose politics he doesn't like, repeats the same arguments over and over, threatens and bullies... it's all there. I'm very glad to see you standing up to him.Historicist (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Scalper?

XD really, is this what I have come to? Thanks for calling me a good person though, I appreciate it.

Beware! Scapler (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Too funny! ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyway it's more glamorous than being called a modern day scalper. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but certainly not as lucrative! (If you meet anyone in the market for scalps, tell me, the market is really drying up with this economic downturn) Scapler (talk) 03:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. It's not much of a "philosophy for life". I'm still scarred from seeing the other photo on the scalping page. Talk about a bad hair day every day. Yikes. No wonder beaver hats were popular back then. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't underestimate the scalping abilities of beavers, they are simply maniacal, case in point:

(I don't know if beavers are accused of racism towards Russians too, but something tells me they are, how many Russian beavers have you met?) Scapler (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears or friend Dimitri has been accused of sockpuppetry. Scapler (talk) 11:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Carlo Cattarello

Hi, I see that you added a notiblity tag to Carlo Cattarello, would being a member of the Order of Canada the "highest civilian honours within the Canadian system of honours" not qualify him to pass WP:BIO? Under additional criteria, any biography "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them."--kelapstick (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It might. Could you add a little bit more details about when the award was granted and why. Also any news coverage besides the two obituaries would be good. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I see that you removed the tag, in a way I want to thank you for putting it up in the first place, it gave me the WikiMotivation to get more information sooner than I would have otherwise.--kelapstick (talk) 03:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

New instruments

Hi, I hadn't heard of those, thanks. There must be a whole universe in Mesoamerican indigenous instruments that isn't generally known. Did you make those? Yes, I like tabla and Indian music in general, and have some friends who play tabla. Regarding watching pages, I just have a watchlist and don't know of any way of monitoring categories. Badagnani (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You can also get dried longans (圓肉; pinyin: yuánròu; literally "round meat") in the Chinese grocery store, which are used to make sweet medicinal Chinese soups. I don't like them much, though. They're kind of brown and shriveled. Loquats, which may grow where you are, are excellent. Also, if you can get your hands on fresh yuzu, please let me know. I think there are a couple of growers in northern California, but I'm not sure about SoCal.

Regarding tabla, some modern players use the tuning hammer to do a glissando, making the pitch go up or down. Other than that, no sticks are used as it would damage the head. Badagnani (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding my edit count, yes, I was up to 11th most prolific, and am now 14th. I was invited to try to become an admin once or twice, but I declined. At WP there are often two classes: content creators and those who enjoy telling others what to do (often in an arbitrary manner). Many editors, even admins, are quite young, you know (some as young as 12 or so). If they don't get to control people in their real lives, this gives them a place to do that. Others of us are only interested in creating and expanding articles, working with other like-minded editors to get them just right (as we've done) to our hearts' delight. Badagnani (talk) 00:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

CB is certainly an interesting character. Regarding the length of the sticks, I added a lot of sources. I don't know where you found the 9-inch citation. I found from 4.25 inches up to 14 for a super-huge monstrosity of an edible walking cane. Badagnani (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I see--I think that's a grin-inducing blue reference, not an actual candy stick length. If you do an additional search you can get more lyrics to that one, which reinforce this supposition. Badagnani (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yuzu

The yuzu is the most strongly scented citrus in the world. The Koreans make yujacha out of it and top chefs use it too. Read the NYTimes article at the Yuzu article. I actually called the old Japanese American gentleman who is interviewed in the article, but he wouldn't mail me any. He said I had to come to the farmers' market in California where he lives. Badagnani (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha, I said citrus--durian isn't citrus. I didn't used to like durian but my Vietnamese music teacher picked out a good one once and it wasn't half bad. Jackfruit is okay but hard to find fresh. Badagnani (talk) 02:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Wow, every time I began to get angry in my conflict with Dimitree, you completly came out of nowhere with some witty comment. You made me laugh with every single one, without fail. You are truly an architect of genius, diffusing a conflict so deftly with little, ridiculous, one-liners. Thank you and cheers! Scapler (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special Entertainment (2nd nomination)

The nom feels your succinct opinion requires expansion. Feel up to it? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Seven-layer salad

Just put up a Seven-layer salad article. Add, subtract, or change away! Please let me know if there are changes you'd like me to make or things I should have done differently. Shatner1 (talk) 08:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the good news about the salad; why don't I just take you through step by step how to upload a free photo from Flickr? Badagnani (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Bill Scott (author)

No problems. I've just fixed it up. haven't deleted anything you've added. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

no problem, I've finished for the moment. thanks. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Cool. Thanks again for cleaning up the refs. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It's ok, I definitely think you're working in good faith, but other editors are trying to discourage me in my normal practice as an experienced editor. Appropriate action has been taken. Thanks in any case. Michellecrisp (talk) 11:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page : ) --RedKiteUK (talk) 09:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Suggestion

Thank you; I appreciate the suggestion. I see it was removed for me. Of course, that guy really invites a comment like that, but I know, take the high road and what not. - Biruitorul ^Talk 10:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Bad news, Good news

So, where does this go from here? He has gotten this close to consensus several times. Indeed, he has signed on to a consensus twice, allowed the material to go up on the page, then come back a day or two later and reverted it. Is there no way to stop such a manipulative fellow?Historicist (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I am attempting to put this information into this article as an experiment, having been told by colleagues that it is impossible to get accurate information to stick in a Wikipedia article on nationalism. I do appreciate your advice and your wisdom. I am beginning to understand this process. Once before we reached consensus. I put the material up. Mr. Pure argumentativeness decided he objected to what he had previously agreed to and took it down. then one of his allies suggested that as newbie I would be best served to politely revert the material and seek further consensus. I did. And here we are, still trying to get it back up. Several rational people have come for a while and given up. Mr. Pure argumentativeness never gives up. I now understand that it is all part of a strategy. What I wonder about is whether it is on the increase? Was Wikipedia always this bad? It seems to me that the Wikipedia playing field is so badly slanted in favor of highly politicized, obstreperous editors that it drives the well-intentioned away. Who has time for this? Many days, especially when confronted with truly absurd and sometimes vile information that someone is citing to Wikipedia, I wholeheartedly wish that Wikipedia would simply collapse. The history of Poland on Wikipedia is politicized to the point where it would be laughable if it were not being taken seriously by students and the ignorant. I am sure there are other examples. I am by no means certain that the Wikipedia "experiment" is a force for good in the world. In too many areas it is a source not merely of misinformation but of race-hatred.Historicist (talk) 04:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Please cut it out, both of you. I am editing in good faith and by the above admission Historicist is conducting a breaching experiment that, while not unethical off Wikipedia, is antithetical to how we do things around here. You are not supposed to cause trouble just to make a WP:POINT. And misleading others about who you are and why you are here is definitely against policy. College professors have made class assignments to experiment on Wikipedia, and as I recall we had to contact them directly to ask them to stop. The dogged, seemingly inexplicable effort to add the real WP:TRUTH even though it is not supported by Wikipedia's content policies, makes a lot of sense in that light. However, if Historicist is truly a scholar as he claims, and interested of all places in the Mideast with its plethora of strongly held but incompatible accounts of the truth, justice, and morality, certainly he must understand that reasonable people can disagree about what the evidence actually says. And if a professor, I certainly hope he has more respect for his fellow academics than to call them names when he disagrees - our standards for civility are higher here.

I don't know what you mean by "twice" but this was the last implementation of an attempted consensus[2] (note that the flock of quotations in the footnotes was not agreed to, nor was the heading). Historicist himself had added a caution that the language in place was the result of a consensus discussion, presumably to warn editors against overturning it.[3]. Yet that version lasted less than one minute before Avi began editing, four hours later adding a 4 paragraph long analysis of why Khalidi was supposedly lying in denying the "irrefutable" evidence that he was in fact a PLO spokesman.[4] Either there was no consensus or Avi broke it. Historicist made clear that he wanted to add the material too, so he obviously was not signed on to the consensus version either. Historicist has been using this against me ever since, making up nonsense about me going back on my word, being uncivil, playing games, and using the compromise wording I said I would not object to as the baseline for inserting more derogatory material. In hindsight, this must have been part of his "experiment".

I must tell you, the results are unscientific and the interpretation poor. The way to "stop" me is by behaving in a collegial manner, not making accusations or threats, keeping your word and not misrepresenting mine. You two seem to have convinced yourself that I have a nefarious plot to stall you guys while I eviscerate the article so as to protect a political hero of mine - you have both said as much. The insults on your talk pagess[5] about me not being a legitimate Wikipedia editor and the great patience and magnanimity you are showing by dealing with me are lame, especially given that you're here to make a point rather than improve the encyclopedia. I do gather that both of you sincerely believe I am some kind of bad guy, which is ridiculous. You are talking the talk about productive editing, but you both seem to be blinded by something, one by a project to show that Wikipedia is a failed endeavor. If you really were trying to create an encyclopedia instead of getting involved in Wikidrama just so you could talk to your associates about it, you would need to take deep breath, approach it with an open mind, and stop assuming the worst.

There seems to be an agreement as to text, but not everyone has signed off and the agreement does not specify the footnotes or the heading, where we know there is a difference of opinion that became an issue last time. I want to make sure the participants really agree, and that we are not going to have a repeat of last time. Surely you cannot propose that it is okay four hours later that someone adds four paragraphs of blogs, editorials, and a letter to the editor arguing that Khalidi really was a PLO spokesman and is lying about it. If anybody is planning to "discover" new material about Khalidi, the time to do that homework is now, not after you have already agreed to something different. Wikidemon (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

In discussing Mr. Pure argumentativeness, I didn't mention anyone by name. Apparently, Wikidemon recognizes himself and his methods of editing in Mr. Pure argumentativeness Historicist (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you reread his comment. He says his experiment is to try and see if he can get accurate information into an article that is the subject of nationalistic dispute. Judging from his difficulties in dealing with an obstructionist wikilawyering editor, I'd say the jury is still out. I've asked you not to post on my talk page, so your doing so is an unwelcome and uncivil intrusion. Your behavior on the Rashid Khalili article has not shown you to be a reasonable good faith editor who is willing to compromise. You continue to issue ultimatums, threats, intimidation tactics, debunked arguments, delaying tactics and other obstructions. The other editors have been willing to compromise, have made proposal after proposal, and have tried to work with you in good faith. Stay off my talk page and focus on article content. You have an opportunity to conclude the disagreement with a very reasonable comrpomise. I suggest you do so once and for all instead of creating more frustration and hassle for no good reason. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, his information is wrong. The thing about the WP:TRUTH, it is established by good faith editors trying to report what the sources say, not by people using Wikipedia as a petri dish. I am aware of no request to not post here, but in case I have forgotten something you do not own your talk page, and if you are going to use it to conspire with another editor how to "stop" me, I am free to respond. My response was intended to talk some sense into you and Historicist to try to end all the accusations and trouble. Incidentally, your accusations of bad faith are along with Historicist's deception a rather serious violation of Wikipedia behavior policy. Again, cut it out, be civil, do not make threats, and assume good faith. Otherwise you will truly throw a wrench in the consensus progress, and have nobody but yourself to blame if this needs administrative intervention. You really don't need to go there. Calm down and try to work on consensus. Wikidemon (talk) 05:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I stoppped by to tell you that I have made another try at consensus, including both Mackan's and Wikidemon's issues. But, my goodness, reading Wikidemon is a remarkable experience. I believe I now understand a bit of what alice felt after stepping through the looking glass.Historicist (talk) 13:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Civility caution

Please cut this out.[6] Do not further disrupt Talk:Rashid Khalidi and attempts to reach consensus there by accusing editors of bad faith, etc. You have asked editors to not "harass" you on your talk page about this. Accordingly this will be my last warning on the subject. Since you have been unresponsive to repeated requests to stop, next time I will take it to WP:AN/I. It would be much easier to simply be civil to other editors. Wikidemon (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of AFD comments

Your removal of the comments from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neeraj Gupta was probably not a good idea regardless of how much or little you felt the comment added to the discussion. It would have better to just tag the unsigned message and leave it be. Regards, -- Whpq (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The Valley (MTV series)

It relisted the old afd because you forgot to add (2nd nomination) to the end. I removed the afd entirely since it fits speedy criterion G3 (blatant misinformation). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The easiest way I can think of is to go into your user preferences, under "Gadgets", select Twinkle. This is a tool that automates the whole deletion process. I've used it for almost two years now and I don't think I've ever seen it make a mistake. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, Twinkle won't screw anything up. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

One way to do it without using Twinkle is to put the afd template up and click "show preview". If "This page's entry" shows up blue, that means it's had an afd before, so change it to {{Subst:afd|name of page (2nd nomination)}}, then save. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Bill Scott

Regarding Bill Scott (author), I have made my case, Medal of the Order of Australia passes WP:BIO, and although the sources that there are for him are not great, I would say that he would pass the notability guidelines (and I am sure that if someone looked there are some very reliable sources out there, it is just doing the legwork). I also cleaned up the references that were in it by adding cite web templates, it was pretty messy. I have no doubt that this will escape the trash bin.--kelapstick (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

One more thing, it looks like you have expanded the article five fold, which means that it would be a candidate for Did you know? on the main page, if you can find an interesting piece of information that is directly citable you should nominate it (or I can nominate it if you want), If the AfD comes down before the 5 day window of nomination is up.--kelapstick (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

One hook that I thought was good was ...that Order of Australia Medal recipient 'Bill Scott began writing poetry while serving in the Royal Australian Navy during World War II? Good luck working on the article!--kelapstick (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Also...looks like the AfD has been pulled.--kelapstick (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Go to gal...HAHAHA...Maybe I should have a gender userbox on my page :D!--kelapstick (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Play on words it is, rather than taking my last name my wife thought that we should combine them, kelapstick was the result....wonder why I didn't agree...anyway I nominated it for did you know? with the hook I had suggested, if you have another one feel free to add it as an alternative, you can check on its status at WP:TDYK.--kelapstick (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, you did ask for it

Ecoleetage (talk) wishes you peace!

Spread peace and goodwill by adding {{subst:WikiPeace}} to other's talk pages with a friendly message.

Do I have to wear tie-dye? Thanks, man! Word. Cool. Peace and Love. Keep it real man. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Sub Page

I see that you keep your WikiReferences on your main user page when you are using them, ever thing of putting in a sub-page for that? I keep mine here, with my sandbox here.--kelapstick (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but if I created a subpage I'd forget where I put it. Anybody know where I put my keys??? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

True, That is why I keep a link on my User Page, under "See Also"--kelapstick (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You make it all look so easy! But you weren't any help about my keys! ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

rhmed

It wasn't a template as far as I know, it's a handwritten message with a (!) around it. It's warranted IMHO. Just my opinion, but he didn't exactly deny it- although he is funny:) Warnings do need to be highlighted a bit sometimes I think, so later people can easily see the earlier ones. And I doubt this is Rhmed's first one, in fact the comment above mine is pretty much one. He probably takes them as par for the course.:) At some point, if basic messages from other users haven't worked and you see it again, you have to give someone a proper one. Not that mine even was a template, as I said. I rarely do templates as they're not personalised to the situation. Sticky Parkin 00:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, he's amusing, bless him.:) And seems to grow more creative in expressing himself. Sticky Parkin 00:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

OMG!

random! srry, :-(......;-)MidKnightHunter (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Accident Move

I assume if I did this one wrong, I did all the rest as well. I was trying to place my item last or in some order. I would appreciate any help you could provide. As I am 'thick' I would appreciate it if you could explain it again 'slowly' and send it to my Wiki e-mail. I am also reading your post again.

Thank you in advance Royalhistorian (talk) 05:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Refernce to wikipedia

I can't find any mention of not being allowed to use links for reference. In fact if you look up wp: citing wikipedia in the search box you'll find lots of ways to cite wiki. It seems to me a moot point anyhow since the Heidegger article itself cites sources for this.84.203.39.11 (talk) 04:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Looked for this section you mentioned and I can only find evidence to the contrary. Could you be more specific and quote the prohibition that you have found? wp: citations lists a whole host of ways in which to cite wikipedia, yet you claim wikipedia should not be cited84.203.39.11 (talk) 12:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The prohibition is in Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia, or other websites that mirror Wikipedia content, may not be used as sources." Hope that helps --RexxS (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Snickers salad

I saw on your user page that you were looking for some sources for Snickers salad, and I had to take a look. I found this in the Wall Street Journal and this in the Orange County Register. Hope one day you can make that red link blue! BTW I expanded Carlo Cattarello to be long enough to be a candidate for did you know?, turns out he got his Bachelor of Arts at the age of 80 (an interesting tidbit for the main page I thought).--kelapstick (talk) 05:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm writing this here so this won't be archived. I still want Snickers salad included ASAP. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Khalidi

Hello, CoM. While I agree with you that what is shaping up to be the consensus version is not optimal, it is better than what we have there now (which is nothing) and it does seem to comply with the major concerns of all interested parties on all sides of the I/P debate. The footnotes/references will have the appropriate links that readers may follow for more information about each of the points. Outside of it not being specific enough in the text, is there another issue that concerns you with the "consensus version"? -- Avi (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

If we can get the consensus version up on the article page, I will be satisfied. Yes, I think that some editors have been more willing than others to compromise, but that is neither here nor there now. With four (or five including yourself) editors working on the article 2(3) v 2 is not enough to claim consensus lies with the majority, thus we have to work out something acceptable to all parties. If we had seven or 10 editors on one side and 1 on the other, the argument would be stronger, but I doubt that will ever happen here. Wikipedia is never going to be the best reference on politically-charged articles, no matter whihc side you may be on. The best I hope for is that the appropriate links are brought in the footnotes so that reliably sourced data is accessible THROUGH wikipedia. It's nowhere near perfect or optimal, but it's what we have.

As an aside, once the conversation starts turning to ad hominem attacks, whether deserved or not, the side making those attacks usually loses credibility. A large amount of patience is necessary to edit politically-charged articles, by necessity, on an encyclopedia whose contributors literally span the globe. I'm sorry you had to get caught in this frustrating situation. -- Avi (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

RMS Andania

I saw your question on Belhalla's talk page. Normal way to disambiguate is by launch year. Thus "RMS Foo (1899)", "RMS Foo (1927)", "RMS Foo (1966)" etc. If the ship actually carried the number the that is used, thus "RMS Foo", "RMS Foo II", "RMS Foo III" etc, Mjroots (talk) 09:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome templates, revisited

Sorry I only just spotted your recent question on my talk page. The proper code is:

{{subst:User:Ukexpat/welcome1|ChildofMidnight|Welcome UKexpat! I know you're going to be a good contributor.}} - note the lower case w in the subpage name. Hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Please use it as you wish, I have no pride of authorship as I shamelessly copied it from someone else! I have recently modified it to work with WP:Friendly, so it no longer signs automatically, you will have to add 4 tildes at the end to sign. – ukexpat (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Bánh

See Bánh for more info on Vietnamese things like that--I don't know this particular one. Have you searched online yet? Yuzu would only be known to Japanese and Koreans, basically. Badagnani (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you misspell the thing you asked me about? Is it like this one? Badagnani (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Haha, OK, tell me, is it hard or soft? Did it come with condiments? Badagnani (talk) 02:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't Rice paper explain how to prepare them? You have to boil water, then put the water in a large mixing bowl or platter or whatever, then dip the hard rice paper into it and it'll soften. Then you can wrap yummy sweet things in it and eat it. Ask any Vietnamese you come across and they'll tell you their recipe. You must know some there. Badagnani (talk) 02:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The manner of preparation should be added to the rice paper article, then. There must be lots of websites about it. I think my Vietnamese music teacher told me how to do it. Lobster candy is extinct, and I don't want to get lead poisoning. Badagnani (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I added it to rice paper. I don't know about Esperanto. I just say "s/he." There are tons of Vietnamese where you live; get out there. Many of them operate nail salons and you can always find Vietnamese grocery stores. Badagnani (talk) 02:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

See [7]. Badagnani (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Everyone knows Vietnamese do nail salons in America. Do a YouTube search on Anjelah Johnson Vietnamese Nail Salon and watch that video. Badagnani (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The Persian sour berry sauce was probably zereshk (barberry). They usually use basmati rice instead of jasmine rice. Badagnani (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I've tried the coconut milk "ice cream" sweetened with agave. It's very good. Badagnani (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Micronations

Thanks for your help with Westarctica and for the information you sent to my talk page. As you have seen these nominations get really repetitive and I think we need an FAQ on the Micronation WikiProject page (WP:MICRONATION). Over the years there has been this constant opposition to micronation articles, not because they could find any reason to do so in Wikipedia policy, but because they themselves found the idea to be "unusual", "not normal" or the more frequently used "hoax". That is why I thought of an FAQ page along with the convention that we already have (WP:MICROCON). Would you like to join the WikiProject and help me with this?

I don't know much about why Gene Poole was blocked, but could you please give me an idea of what is happening?

Thanks - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 14:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

sup

hey, hows the Midnight flowing? anyways, this editor has nothing to do. please ruin his userpage. (not really)MidKnightHunter (talk) 01:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

so what do you think your going to get for christmas? I think i'm going to get a coby 4gb mp3. people should realize coby. they offer a competing product for a much more reasonable price.MidKnightHunter (talk) 03:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

ChildofMidnight, my very best wishes for the festive season stay safe and talk to you in 2009.--VS ^talk 11:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Pump up the volume

		The Original Barnstar
		For pumping up the Wikipedia volume and making the project a fun place to hang out. Thanks for the great input! Ecoleetage (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I am unaware of any CD soundtracks from the race films, though I wouldn't be surprised if some indie label has an offering. YouTube has plenty of clips from the revue films in the genre. Thanks for noticing my work there -- Wikipedia was sort of lacking in coverage on that subject, so I am filling in the voids the best I can. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

You'd be surprised what I stumble over. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 01:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

		Merry Christmas!
		Christmas medley A chiptune medley to annoy Ironholds :D Problems playing this file? See media help. ChildofMidnight, here's hoping you're having a wonderful Christmas, and here's also hoping that all your family and friends are well. Lets all hope that the year coming will be a good one! If we've had disputes in the past, I hold no grudges, especially at such a time as this. If you don't know I am, I apologise, feel free to remove this from your page. Come and say hi, I won't bite, I swear! It could even be good for me, you know - I'm feeling a little down at the moment with all of these snowmen giving me the cold shoulder :( — neur ho ho ho^(talk) 00:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

You too

Sticky Parkin 00:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Veggie pho

Enjoy -- veggie pho can be gotten at Van Hanh on Bolsa in Westminster. I've only been there once. See [8]. Watch out for the "bot ngot" (MSG), though. Badagnani (talk) 00:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

A Nobody^{My talk} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--A Nobody^{My talk} 02:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Christmas

Merry Christmas!--WillC 07:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I will and you as well.--WillC 08:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

In case you missed my reply to you at my page. I repeat it here.

ROFL! ChildofMidnight that's brilliant! After all those years of wondering how one man could give gifts all over the world in a single night, finally someone tells me ... someone else is actually co-ordinating the operation! Perfect and so true!

Happy holidays to you ChildofMidnight! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 00:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas ChildofMidnight ... and of good humour! :D Alastair Haines (talk) 16:30, 25 '2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas to you, and have a Happy New Year. You were fine at AfD. my name inc 15:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

		Merry Christmas!
		Have yourself a Merry little Christmas ChildofMidnight! - Scapler (talk) 21:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Thank you very much! All the same to you and even much more :))) You are the only one here who's attitude towards me is very friendly... As for the projects you are invited me to participate: with pleasure if I only can improve them... --Dimitree 22:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikibreak

Yes, I was taking a wikibreak, for Christmas and family, you know? Anyway, I am sure you managed without my glorious presence. As for Heart of Darkness, I enjoyed the book quite a bit (though I had to read part three twice, that's what I get for speed reading the thing!). It was an excellent classic; it truly revealed "the horror! The horror!" :) of what the Europeans did to the Africans during colonization. I am seriously glad much of the world has gotten past the strangling grip of slavery. Scapler (talk) 00:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks friend for contributing on Roja Ramani article. I really appreciate your effort to dig through and add some references. What's painful is the way it has been labeled, even after discussion it was going nowhere. Randhirreddy (talk)

I'm signing this so it gets archived. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Kishka, again

Hey, thanks for wading in and maintaining a good attitude. I had been rather frustrated.

Splitting off the article wouldn't be my first choice, but perhaps it is the best compromise. Kishka (food) already serves as a sort of main article for kaszanka. But then blood sausage and sausage are the super-articles.

Cheers. —Michael Z. 2008-12-10 01:22 z I'm signing this so it gets archived. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Polka Hall of Fame

You are right. Walt Solek is in the IPA Polka Hall of Fame, and there is anothe in Euclid. How close is Cleveland to Euclid? Is there a third Pola Hall of Hame? Pustelnik (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Ho Ho Ho!!!

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!--right back at you! and happy hanukkah, and humanlight, and kwanzaa...all of them! Drmies (talk) 23:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Night of the Radishes? That's what I love about this place--there's something new every day. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Child, just regular old Christmas at the Drmies household, though without Latin mass the last few decades. I just threw them all at you to see what would stick. Santa brought me a nice headlight and a detective novel. Hope you got some nice gifts too, and see you at the next AfD. Maybe we'll even agree on something! (PS: Guido Boggiani?) Drmies (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Dandelion coffee

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For working with LinguistAtLarge in rescuing Dandelion coffee from the jaws of deletion! MuZemike (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats ChildofMidnight! (I think you did more work on it than I did) LinguistAtLarge 00:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, MuZemike beat me to giving you this!

By the way, thanks for the holiday wishes! You are correct about the captions on the GGLF article...the gnomes got the best of me that time! —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 04:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Nazi philosophers

Are you still trying to cleanup "List of Nazi philosophers"? It is becoming more sprawling. I just deleted the massive "See also" section, and deleted the list of degenerate artists. The author will most likely just revert again. It is a jumble of concepts, encompassing anybody associated with Nazism. The list itself is useless, there is zero context to tell me why I should click a link. I added context to one or two and added years of birth and death. It also uses Wikipedia as it's references for inclusion, another no-no. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Joan's on Third

Hey, I cleaned the article up a bit, fixed the cites, expanded the lead and did some copy editing. Take a look and tell me what you think.

Yup, Merry Christmas.

On another note, the history of the shop states that the shop came after the cafe had opened for lunch. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 02:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry the image is not quality COM, but it was the only acceptably licensed one I could find... : P Scapler (talk) 02:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Scappy New Year

Scappy New Year, ha, I like it! At the moment, I am still trying to find additional references for Yellow Moon (Akeboshi album), but I have expanded it a little further, what do you think? Anyway, I have also discovered the ridiculous amount of songs which have albums yet have no notability outside of the original album recording, so I am trying to alleviate the problem, so far I have:

All songs I enjoy that should not have their own articles, so I guess I am one of the people annoying you with their AfDs! :D Cheers and Happy New Year! Scapler (talk) 03:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose, I just like really obvious and evident concensus, mhh... Scapler (talk) 03:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, umm, redirecting my entire talk page to Scapling was rather unexpected....... you almost had me crying with laughter! Scapler (talk) 03:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose things just get heated with an AfD. Being civil with him feels good, like stretching your legs after decades of road trip! Scapler (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Chronic endothelial injury hypothesis

I just ran across this question while talkpage stalking ScienceApologist; as SA has passed on the article, I shall comment here. Nothing jumps out at me right now as immediately suspicious regarding the article, but allow me to introduce you to User:Orangemarlin and User:MastCell as friendly reality-based editors who concentrate more on medicine. You might also consider the Doctors' Mess. Then again, I may have entirely misinterpreted your question, in which case just ignore this. Cheers, - Eldereft (cont.) 04:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The Coalition Coupon

Thanks for your tweaks and clean-ups on this page. It's good to know someone's reading the stuff I put up. Happy New Year.--Graham Lippiatt (talk) 13:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User talk:Scapler appears highly ridiculous and has been throughly keelhauled and scalped. Please use User:Scapler/thatotherpage for any over-the-top oddball stuff. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 03:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome, you may not be aware, but one of your recent edits appears to question the will of your all-powerful overlord Scapler. This is WHOLLY UNACCEPTABLE as outlined in this Wikipedia policy. Any further attempts at questioning your supreme leader and holder of all knowledge (including making any edits which do not, in their entirety, recognize his greatness) will result in a block. Just kidding... you have awoken my wrath already, and you have been blocked indefinitely. Not only this account, but your DNA has been sampled, and anytime someone with at least a 75% match to your genetic code attempts to access Wikipedia through ANY computer, it will explode - hopefully creating rather nasty shrapnel and absolute destruction. Also, your internet privileges have been permanently revoked...and for good measure, you are limited to two minutes of hot water in the shower. Now bow, and cheers! Scapler (talk) 03:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This is your only warning.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of Scapler policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did by saying Scapler had "waaaay too much free time", you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Groveling is an acceptable apology Scapler (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Robert Manuel Cook

You have changed the intro to my article on Prof Cook from a statement by me that he was "a leading authority on Greek painted vases" to a statement that he "specialized (sic) in the study of Greek painted vases."

The intro should indicate why the subject is notable and has a claim to inclusion. In my view, being a "leading authority" achieves this as it relates the subject to the rest of the world, whereas a statement about an individual's specialism is just that, a statement about an individual. Being a specialist does not make one notable! Subject to what you may say in reply, I would therefore propose to revert.

My version also avoids the problem of how to spell the verb that is cognate to specialism; being English, I abhor the 'z'!! The Sage of Stamford (talk) 10:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy to compromise on "expertise".The Sage of Stamford (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Very happy with your revision to the introduction, which is certainly now an improvement; my only minor quibble would be a stylistic preference to avoid the use of "scholar" and "scholarly" in consecutive sentences - however, a very small point!

Your elaborate sentence peppered with American spellings raised both a smile and a chuckle! Do Americans get as irritated when they see the English variant of their familiar US spellings as often happens vice versa? I think it is particularly the 'z' that offends, being so rare in English spelling that it leaps off the page and shouts whenever it appears in substitution for an 's'.The Sage of Stamford (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

More on the Coupon

I don't really want to say too much in the Coalition Coupon article about the War or the impact of the war and the 1918 general election on British politics and the Liberal Party in particular because that would replicate material already in the article about the general election itself (and elsewhere, in the Liberal Party pages or those dealing with LG and Asquith for instance). The original purpose of the coupon article was really just to explain in a bit more detail what the coupon actually was, i.e. just a letter to candidates, what the text was and why it came to be known as a coupon. I think the article has already grown enough from that original idea and there are plenty of links to other pages for people who want to follow up on the issues in the election or Liberal history. Hope you agree. Cheers.--Graham Lippiatt (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Why are we smirking?

The above message says it all, why the smirk? why? why? Scapler (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm just out of sorts today, sorry... Scapler (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I will help anyway I can, of course Scapler (talk) 00:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe you are Wikipedia's biggest sockpuppet operation..... Scapler (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Don Corleone.JPG

Is this bold enough for you? A Man Needs a Maid (song) Scapler (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Coupon clipper

I have added a sentence giving the context of the end of the War and the general 'hang the kaiser' attitude which I hope explains a bit why the coupon was important to the candidates who got it and damaging for those who didn't. Hope this is what you had in mind. --Graham Lippiatt (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Photos

That depends on the photo, now doesn't it? What exactly are you trying to upload, can you link to the original source? Scapler (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Go to this page. Once there, choose a file, and fill in the requested information (description should just be a general overview of what is in the photo). After that, you must choose a license from the drop-down menu. As the page says:

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) – This license allows anyone to use the work as long as they credit you and distribute any modifications to the work under the same, similar or a compatible license.
GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) – This is the same license that you release all of your text contributions to Wikipedia under. It requires that a record of others' changes to the work and a copy of the 3,000-word license be included when distributing printed copies of the work. Any modifications to the work must also be licensed under the GFDL.
Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) – This license allows anyone to use or modify the work as long as they credit you.
Public domain – You give up all rights to the work.

Note that all these licenses allow anyone to use your work, not just Wikipedia. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

All of my own photos that I have uploaded have been multi-licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 and GNU. Note that this is the one that has (recommended) following it in the drop down menu. Scapler (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

For me, the drop down menu gives, verbatim: "Multi-license with Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 and GNU Free Documentation License (recommended)" as the third option, after "I do not know the copyright license" Scapler (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are supposed to edit it before you upload it, and we may be seeing different things because I am using an Apple Mac Mini, but it is only a year old, and I'm not even Jewish (though I really like Jewish people, and latkas), but thanks for the slight against my lovely computer :D Scapler (talk) 01:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

After my mention of potato pancakes, I must go eat, so I hope you can fend for yourself, good luck! Scapler (talk) 01:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Cartoons

= :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 07:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Content

You don't seem to understand the difference between primary, secondary and tertiary source and have restored Herodotus's word which is considered hardly reliable by modern historian. Quoting Herodotus as actual history is not how wikipedia works. As per state department, they are not neutral and you need to use neutral sources.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 08:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually Briant who is quoting Herodotus states: "It is hard to separate history from fairly tale in Herodotus". Please read WP:RS. I have no problem with what scholars are stating but you can't present Herodotus as a fact. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 08:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS with regards to primary and secondary source. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 08:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually we have better sources including Persepolis fortification tablets and Babyolonian documents. This is what scholars use as their main source today and it overrides Herodotus. The problem is that Herodotus is being selectively quoted here and it is up to scholars to summarize the state of slavery (secondary sources). Note I quote from WP:RS: Wikipedia articles should be based around reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources.. I think we can summarize Herodotus into one sentence and state he claims there was slavery after this and that battle and also state something about his reliability. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 08:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I do think though this source [9] does not claim what was written. Slavery actually in Islamic world is not the same as slavery in the West, and what was written seems to violate WP:synthesis. But the state department source though is not saying there is slavery in Iran, it is saying Iran serves as a transit route. Well so does almost every other country in the region (as the source states). I am not sure if that is related to slavery in Iran. The only country I know that is practicing slavery in the Muslim World is Sudan.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 08:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, although the US state department cannot be considered a WP:NPOV source with regards to Iran, but the allegation seems to state: "Iran is on the U.S. State Department's Trafficking of Persons list as a tier 3 source, transit point and destination for women and children trafficked for the purposes of involuntary servitude.". Transit point yes, but I would like some neutral sources for destination point. Note while Iran was the number one country fighting drug trafficking, the US department never gave the credit to it and at one time, it considered it as a drug producing country. Given the hostility between both governments (I am not taking sides here), I would really appreciate neutral source with regards to "destination". --Nepaheshgar (talk) 09:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Also the article is titled "history of slavery". The modern stuff should go to another article in my opinion. Slavery(and again there is big difference with the term being used in the West) was practiced I think in the Qajar era, but definitely not after that. Forced prostitution and servitude is in every country but it is not sanctioned by the state and possibly should go in another article rather than history of slavery in Iran.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 09:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well is there a precedence for every country? I think a better place to put is in human rights in Iran and clearly state that it is a state department allegation. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 09:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Expresso (film)

I don't think it's a good idea to summarize an article in the lead when the entire article can almost fit on one screen. It would just be a whole lot of repetition since there's not really a way of rewording the information without it sounding odd. I'm afraid I can do little about the fact you don't know Norman Wisdom. Perhaps some nifty hook writing could also include some highlights of his career to show his importance? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine

I'm fine, why do you ask. And you are welcome for my help, I am happy to help anytime I am needed. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I don't mean to seem defensive, I guess emotions sometimes come across oddly when you are typing your words...

See the stone set in your eyes
See the thorn twist in your side
I wait for you

Scapler (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yikes! :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I see you can only handle the pleasant parts of "With or Without You" :-J Scapler (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Star Tales

Hey CoM,

Thanks for your note and for thinking of me-though I have to decline, in the kindest of terms of course. I'm working on the death metal list out of some interest I can't even explain and am trying to stick to that (in terms of metal anyway), so it doesn't get out of hand. Besides, I'm really not knowledgeable enough to tackle much beside it; even in the death metal list, I am mainly cleaning up, not adding much in the way of references. Others have much more and better access to sources that allow them to do real work on the articles; I'm just a garbage man. ;) But thanks, and see you later, Drmies (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know it was an album; what I meant was I don't really care for the band. A blatant case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, haha. Right now I'm banging to some tunes on AfD, none of them really good. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Award

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For being one of the few Wikipedians with whom I have had a war of words, but after has shown the fortitude of character to let bygones be bygones and keep on interacting positively, I award you this barnstar. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Bill Scott (author)

On 29 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bill Scott (author), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK nom for Leaving Springfield

Hello and thank you for taking a look at Leaving Springfield over at Template talk:Did you know. Separate from the discussion about ALT hooks and such, do you feel you could evaluate the hook and article according to the DYK criteria, and mark it as Verified if it meets that criteria and is appropriate to appear at T:DYK? That way at least whoever is preparing the Next update batch will know that the hook is okay, and that editor can then take whichever ALT hook they feel is best. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 08:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome template

I stole your welcome template to welcome someone here, so I hope you do not mind my pilfering. Scapler (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Nazi Philosophers/ or what ever it is called today

It seems we have an equal split on what the title should be. Is everyone is open to an uninvolved individual looking through and giving his or her opinion on the subject matter? I’ll live with what every they say. I was thinking DGG? Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Also there is a thread at wp:ani#Move, renames, lost history, that mostly got ignored for spicier fare :) It looks like someone reunited the edits separated from discussion page (although most of it doesn't seem to show up in the actual history). I haven't looked to see about the edit history on the article. Salva and the anon need to make sure that things are done properly, and we should all avoid overreacting or exacerbating what is merely an encyclopedia building dispute. I'm happy to work collaboratively towards a good outcome. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No, that is not a problem. The only thing I noticed with RFC, though a good idea, rarely works. Great concept, just poor participation. I usually find, asking uninvolved individuals, who I believe are balanced and forth right, which I view you as one, but you are already here, works a lot better. And like all things here at Wikipedia, everything eventually works out Don't Worry, Be Happy:-). ShoesssS ^Talk 19:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks

For leaving the courtesy note on Writegeist's talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No worries. My own take after the briefest of perusals of the dispute is that you might be well served by taking a break from that particular article and engagement with that particular editor. Both will still be there when you "get back". And I think a little space and fresh air might lower the intensity level. That said, I appreciate your efforts and they are clearly good faith. It's been my experience that once frustration takes hold, trying to do right can become a fanatical pursuit that's not very fun. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ha, I'm not even editing that article. I only waded in to try to calm the talk page down and get discussion moving forward. I fail to see how my being driven off by one whiner among the many who had become heated will help matters at all. Given that most of the others are now attempting to remain on topic and civil, and that one is campaigning to malign me, I confess I am not inclined to be chased off. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Like I said, I didn't delve into the dispute in a lot of detail. It just seemed stressful to me. Have you ever seen a Chihuahua get a hold of something? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Zarqa River

I've re-done the merge to address the concerns of material left out. NoCal100 (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:CSD issues

Thanks for your contribution, as I said on my talk page, I am still trying to make my head round the policies and am now creating an account to follow the procedure. Just wanted to say thanks on here too (still not sure if you are notified if I write anything on my talk page - lol!). Cheers, Anthony 62.103.147.54 (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, happy new year too! (seems like I've created a mini-war on User_talk:RMHED.. Just gonna give up on this one, I'm really confused!

Anthony 62.103.147.54 (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your messages on my IP talk page. I know what you mean. I've now created an account and will take the issue through the Afd process, which is probably the right one. I thought some things were "common sense", but apparently sense is anything but common. Phew, thanks again and Happy New Year! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiouk (talk • contribs) 01:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've responded to your comment on my talk page, you are more than welcome to add your giant template, lol! Do I have to somehow add it or can you edit my page?? Antiouk (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right about Manning_Marable! I've responded on my talk page, off to bed now, but will do some more research tomorrow. I figure it's better to research something deeper first rather than assume it's not as important as it seems on first sight. If only people would reference better..... sigh! (we all have our preconceptions, don't we?..) Thanks again! Antiouk (talk) 02:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Jujyfruits

I begrudgingly agree my edits to the candy page were not sourced, although I wish I had a way to get a good reference. I grew up next door to Andrew Heide and his wife and their son drove that company into the ground. Note that Andrew died the same year his son sold the company. Do you think the details on the Heide company should be moved into the Heide page, which is now just a stub?

Gerbera (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources vs References

If you look at the Artisan page you will see a Sources section and a Reference section. This seems to be redundant. Can you please explain the correct use of these and suggest a correction.

Thanks!

--ArtisanTony (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Artisan Article

I hope I am responding correctly, I am a new user. I got your message regarding my edit of the Artisan Page. I am an artisan and a design-build contractor. I was curious about what Wiki had to say about artisans and was surprised to see very little about artisan concepts.

I had quoted Louis Nizer’s work in my edit which I thought legitimized my thoughts. I suppose that I did that incorrectly. I do hope that you will making some additions to the page from someone you trust, otherwise Wiki will not even come close to capturing the essence of an artisan.

And yes, I would like to have any help with my new page you can offer, Thanks.

--ArtisanTony (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

When the clock strikes midnight...

DYK for Burnt Hair Records

On 30 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Burnt Hair Records, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 03:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Very nice! Congrats on this! Ecoleetage (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Thank you

I recieved your message(s)regarding the Atlantis article, and I am extremely grateful for your suggestions and your help in general. Unfortunatly I am currently not quite as adept as I would like to be concerning the editing of these articles and as per your suggestion would love to request a third party opinion. However I can't locate the talk page for Atlantis article to do so. If you could guide me in the right direction I would be greatly appreciative. Thanks again. JonasAngelis (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

...for your help with the Creepmime merge. It looks great, and I really appreciate you picking up my slack. Drmies (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

IIY

Thanks for the note. The Swiss IP address on a couple of posts (guess where this IIY is?) is also indicative and I'm sure more could be dug up on Google, but probably best not to bother with that. WP:COIN is starting to get very touchy about WP:OUTING these days, treating it as harassment (as if these self-promoters aren't harassing the rest of us!) so demonstrating probable association with an organisation is sufficient. Happy New Year likewise. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Crepidotus versutus

I don't mean to be rude, but I think that you embarrassed yourself in questioning the DYK hook of Crepidotus versutus by Sasata (talk · contribs), and thereby disrupted the DYK process. If the name of the mushroom is sourced to a reliable academic source, then we would need something much more reliable than your personal conjecture about why it might be named that way to question it. See also WP:NOR. Best regards, Sandstein 07:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if the above sounded harsh, and I thank you for your efforts to improve our encyclopedia. Questioning the veracity of our articles to improve is a good idea, of course, but per WP:V and WP:NOR we must stay strictly within what published sources say. If our source says "perhaps it's because of the fungus's growth", and we find no source saying otherwise, we must report what our source says. Proposing own ideas instead, even if they sound more sensible than what the source says, is just an idle waste of time because WP:NOR strictly prohibits it. Sandstein 08:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation, and to you, too, a happy new Year! Sandstein 08:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The family

Yeah, you're right, I know. I took the author's own words to heart (he actually agreed to edits, though grudgingly, I'm sure), but maybe I shouldn't have, and I'm laying off of it. BTW, if you knew how many times I did NOT hit 'save page' after responses to his comments on AfD. Anyway, I did want to say thanks again for your helpful suggestions on Creepmime; I appreciate your patience. You also said you had work for me to do--were you joking? I don't mind helping out with whatever you're working on, even if it's symphonic metal, haha. I do wish access to metal sources was a bit easier. One of our colleagues has stacks of Kerrang and other magazines laying around, but there simply aren't a lot of notable references on the web. Hey, enjoy the last day of the old year, and all the best in the new! Drmies (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Creepmime, for the last time (for now)

Dammit Child of Midnight, will you stop finding my errors!!! It's embarrassing! Alright, an extra glass of champagne for you tonight. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

...before I forget and the Freixenet takes over...

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for all your help! Drmies (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Child, I think I might like some of that Txakoli--you found some fascinating drinks, I have to say. Well, we're in Central here, so I got another four hours to go, but have already had a couple of glasses of Freixenet (and birthday cake--I made a practice cake for my daughter's birthday next week). Oh, it's been fun hanging out with the Mongolian experts; I learned a lot, about epics and a host of other things. That's why I like AfD so much: always something new to learn.

I meant to tell you, given that you made a culinary New York reference a while ago: tomorrow, here in the South, it's Black-eyed peas, cornbread, and greens, for good luck, wealth, etc. We'll save you a plate, and I'll let you suck the meat off the ham hock. Take care, and enjoy tonight and tomorrow. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, that video, it's the silliest thing I've seen since this Washington clip. You sure like your food, don't you! I'm glad to have run into such an expert, though I have the feeling you're spoiled where you are--we don't even have a Japanese restaurant here...no one even sells cake flour in this town...(though I learned to make it myself). Now, your red velvet cake, I know that's some Southern favorite, but I've never eaten or baked it. I got a regular Alton Brown-inspired yellow cake here, with a layer of homemade dulce de leche in between, and pink frosting. Preeetty tasty, if I say so myself! OK, I just looked at the WP entry for devil's food cake--looks sinful. Oh, one more thing, "Genghis Khan" is also one of my favorite Iron Maiden songs, so there. Prosit! Drmies (talk) 02:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, boiled peanuts...only had em once or twice, and the last time, they were stale. Don't much care for them. Cake flour, I learned, can be imitated: 85 gr of AP flour + 15 gr of cornstarch... Now BBQ, that I love. Great thing about the South, and I make it purty good (on a little Weber grill, no less, with oak chips saved from carpentry projects). Sweet tea is good, sure, but even though I have an artificial 'organ' from [Medtronic|these guys] I try to lay off the sweets. The cake, well, that's for the others in my household. Quiet Riot? Brrr...! Ha! Yes, I remember Trader Joe, from the first time I was out in LA, back in 91 or so--looked like paradise to me. (You asked about languages? I flew direct from my home in Amsterdam to LA, maybe that answers your question.) And my last time in CA, just going through the supermarket in Sacramento, delicious. We just don't get that kind of variety out here, I'm sad to say.

I'd love to cook up some BBQ on Jan. 2, to munch on while my alma mater, the Crimson Tide, plays in the Sugar Bowl. But we are expecting another baby girl in the next couple of days, so I got plenty to do, haha. Hope I still remember how to change a diaper. Roll tide! Drmies (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Humor warning

Dear ChildofMidnight: Your edits have shown traces of a sense of humor, which is disruptive of the serious, somber, and relentlessly grim mood that so many other good people in all walks of life have exhibited just before burning out entirely. Be advised that if you continue on this present course, you run the risk of enjoying yourself while at work on this project, and you may even have a similar effect on other editors. Please consider very carefully whether you want to be responsible for such consequences. Thank you. (This refers to your naming of this section.) -- — Sebastian 19:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

College football players

Than how come the user:Iceflow got away with nominating Dez Bryant for speedy deletion, when that article had references and everyting on it. Sorry but I disagree with you and the other user, these articles are definitely eligible for speedy deletion according to Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Notability. --Yankees10 03:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, still disagree--Yankees10 03:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be deleted--Yankees10 03:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolutions for the New Year

Make friends with my enemies.
Be victorious in editing.
More cowbell.

ScienceApologist (talk) 04:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerraud Powers

...eh? Auburn? Doesn't that qualify for a speedy delete? Roll tide! Drmies (talk)

You know, I actually scoured the www.montgomeryadvertiser.com archives looking for mention of that award--nothing. (Granted, their search engine sucks the big one.) That award, every school must have one, and it's regional at best I think. Ha, yes I watched some of that LSU game, and I'm not surprised it was a blow-out. I never even thought we could beat them (but we did!). BTW, you're right about the coaching decision--no one seems to like the new guy already; a lot of Auburn fans wanted some other guy, forgot who, but a better-known person. And if your season is bad, there's little you can do to make anything good happen. Tubberville did them a lot of good though...six Iron Bowls in a row... But his offensive waffling this year did him in, I reckon. Well, as they said it best in my old bar in Tuscaloosa, Aubs Eat Boogers! Gotta go and be social. Happy new year, one last time! Drmies (talk) 04:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Aubs Eat Boogers

Sir, I've responded to your baseless accusations on the AfD page for that Auburn rascal, and I even extended a hand (well, a link) of friendship to you, to show you that we, in good Alabama tradition, are above such petty discourse (unless it concerns the War of Northern Aggression, of course). Now, for that tradition, is this what you're thinking of? Probably not notable enough for an article, but it does have Shaun Alexander's TD run against Florida in the SEC Championship, and that magnificent catch by Tyrone Prothro. Both, I can assure you, were incentives for heavy celebratory drinking. And you, sir, get yourself some beers and some BBQ sandwiches (oh, we do bourbon shots at the start of every quarter which we shoot after reciting the magic chant "Ooh goddamn roll tide shit"--we're a classy outfit!) and get ready for the 2009 Sugar Bowl. Drmies (talk) 06:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Am I being followed?

Are you creepily stalking me, editing every article I create? :) Seriously though, thanks for helping with The Green Bible. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year to you as well! Thank you for the compliment on the interesting nature of my articles too, good luck to you in '09! Scapler (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Need Help with article Albert Beckford Jones

Hi Child of Midnight. I'm Simplynetworked (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I posted the article about Albert Beckford Jones as my first wikipedia article.

You have flagged the article with an advert tag. If you could please give me some guidance as to what aspects of the article you see as problematic?

Some Background. The fellow I'm writing about is working for a Non-profit organization and he wanted me to post some information about his background, education, civic involvement etc.

What sections would you cut out or remove?

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome on my talk btw. Simplynetworked (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Black-eyed pea

Hey Child, check out the third picture--that's good eats! Drmies (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Micronations FAQ

I started coming up with some basic "Micronations FAQ" questions in my sandbox. Feel free to edit it. After we get enough questions, we could move it to a subpage of the WikiProject. --Micromaster (talk) (contributions) 22:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Latvian Mobile Telephone

I made two changes and took the tag off for copy-ed. (Saw it on your Welcome list on the talk page of the creator of Anya Bast. You'll might have to find a replacement now.... Sorry. Peridon (talk) 13:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Korean Genghis Khan

Hi, ChildofMidnight. Maybe I mis-remembered a bit... By coincidence, my wife prepared Genghis Khan for New Year's Eve, and it didn't have the grill up on top, only the circular "moat"-type thing, in which we boiled the meat, with mushrooms and vegetables. After scooping out the food, you dip it in a sauce before eating. Once that's all done, you plop the rice & gim into the remaining water to make the gruel. I mentioned to my wife that I'd remembered that we grilled the meat on top first-- as I described on my talk page, and as it looks like the Japanese version does-- and she said that there are several different ways to prepare "Genghis Khan", and that that is one... So I probably remember that from a restaurant in Korea years ago... Dekkappai (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vereniging Basisinkomen (2nd nomination)

Thank you for looking at the Vereniging Basisinkomen article. I have posted a further comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vereniging Basisinkomen (2nd nomination) which may be of interest. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a non-notable dutch neologism for welfare. I don't see anything wrong with covering the subject in the appropriate political articles, but I don't see notability for an article on this subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Check out Basic Income in the Netherlands--some exciting reading! As for football and all, bleh. I'm also a Colts fan... AL has one or two good receivers (Jones, and the tight end Walker), but I think the Tide just got outcoached and outplayed. Grrr. What's your college fave?

BTW, please have a look at that welfare discussion again--'merge' may now be an option. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Haha, I love the Colts, and that's hard for me, since I was at Alabama when Peyton M. was strutting his stuff. So I'm having a bad week! I don't know where Wilson might go. Brodie Croyle went somewhere, so he might too. He certainly is a tough kid. Ha, I'm sure Andre Smith made a wise move not coming back for his senior year--Tuscaloosa wouldn't be kind to him. Hey, I'm just biding time here--we're about to go into labor. Keep your fingers crossed, Drmies (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ownership

Hello luv, hopefully you have had a marvelous Holiday Season :-). As it is a new year, and all things start a fresh, I believe it is now time to address the issue of Intellectuals and Nazism or any given name it may bestoed under Richard's direction. I believe we have a server case of ownership here. The article, or list, has wandered significantly from the orginal concept, and has now become just a hodgepodge of individuals from Martin Luther through Alfred Rosenberg that now needs the approval of Richard to be included, along with his approval of sources. Any suggestions? Once again, Happy New Year. ShoesssS ^Talk 21:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment -LOL – I agree with the headache part. You handled it exactly right. Back off for a while, let it run its course and revisit later. As I give the advice, I also take it :-). Regarding the title, its current one List of Nazi ideologues is not that bad, but a little misleading, in that the piece is about the thinkers and not the ideologues. Possibly naming the piece Nazi ideologue proponents would be closer to the truth? As to the content of the piece, I am a little confused as to the criteria for inclusion or exclusion. We have Martin Luther on the one hand, but discount individuals such as Reimond Tollenaere. Again, areas that I will address later. In the mean time, tons of things to do at afd to keep me busy :-). Happy New Year. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Citing sources

Suggestion: When Wikipedia:Citing sources, please follow this convention:

Author (last name, first, middle/initial; year if book). [Link (optional) "Article Name" (in quatations)]. Publication (book titles and newspaper names italicized). Date of publication (articles only). Page(s) #s (if book). ISBN (if book). Retrieved: 2009-01-04.

Thus, this:

Sproles, Chargers shock Colts 23-17 in overtime upset by Jarrett Bell, USA TODAY Jan. 3, 2009 USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2009-01-03-colts-chargers_N.htm

Looks like this:^[1]

^ Bell, Jerrett. "Sproles, Chargers shock Colts 23-17 in overtime upset". USA Today. January 3, 2009. Retrieved: 2009-01-04

Article titles are not italicized. Don't abbreviate months. Words like "by" are just extra fluff-n-stuff that are not needed. If you copy something from a source that is in ALL-CAPS (article name, author name, publication title), take a minute to re-type it in lower case were needed.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

- 4.240.78.11 (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Different editors use different citation methods. I try to follow the established method in an article. I prefer one that presents the information in a useful form and that's not unduly burdensome to format. I don't like your format. I don't know why the author should come first, or why it has to be last name first, first name last (which is not the order in articles so requires additional editing when copy-pasting which causes more errors). I think the title of the article or book is more important than the author's name. So I like that information first. I'm not familiar with random authors, but I can tell the difference between a source that has the title "Sproles greatest running back of all times" and "Ohio State crushes Kansas State again". I also don't like the date last, because a lot of people put the access date there, so it's confusing. I also like to see the actual HTML link, unless it's unduly long. It's annoying to me to have to go to the edit page or to have to click through to actually see the web address, and to have to guess what the actual source is. The main thing, as the article on citations makes clear, is to provide the needed information. As you're proficient in dishing out advice, I wonder why you aren't using an actual account as is encouraged. I hope you'll do so in future. It's more pleasant to communicate with a user name and someone with an account and history than with an anonymous IP address. The "How to Format Citations" section here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources supports various methods, FYI. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Also long strings of hyperlinked text can be hard to read, and authors tend to cut short titles. I'd rather have the link be separate, include all of an article or book's title, and show the online address (which often has little or no connection to the article or book source) as the link that it is. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Many are supported, but obviously, some are preferred. All of the citation templates (whether in the {{Citation}} format or the {{Cite x}} format) have the author first, with last name first. So it's clearly the preferred format. Bongo matic 04:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Why?

Why ask why? Bongo matic 04:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Tastes great. I try to provide reasons for my opinions and avoid the "everyone else is doing it" arguments. It makes sense that the templates would follow a common format. Why are press releases done differently? Why is the author not listed in that order in the actual articles? I try to make information accessible. So if there's no reason for a protocol, and good reasons to avoid it, I'm happy to try alternatives. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm being thick here, but I don't see support for any use of first-name-first in either of Wikipedia:Citing sources or Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style. Press releases don't have authors, which is why the author doesn't come first. Wikipedia article titles aren't references, but . . . uh . . . titles, so the name order on them doesn't seem terribly probative. Bongo matic 04:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Rosie

Hey ChildofM,

Rosie came out this morning at 9:20, after a long, long night... She weighs 4 kg and is very healthy--got a great set of lungs, already pays attention to Dutch lullabyes, and nursed cheerfully. Take care, Drmies (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Additions to Black-eyed pea...

...good man! Bon appetit! Drmies (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Kapap Reference List

Hello,

Thanks for coming on board to help with the Kapap article. I started trying to add some 3rd party stuff, but an unregistered user keeps deleting it. I really appreciate the assistance with the clean-up. May I ask why you chose to start a reference section, but left no footnote for it? --KravTeacher (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello again, I just read your commments. I understand how they would appear, I just noticed you chose not to do so and was cusrious why. I will read the links you left me on my talk page and will see if I can find an anser to my question. Thank you. --KravTeacher (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Kapap References

You can disregard my question, I overlooked the citation..... however, I would prefer if it read something to the effect of "Kapap History from Israeli Educator" in the notes section. Moshe is an Israeli Martial arts representative to North America, mostly, though I hear he is currently planning tours for New Zealand, Australia and Italy. He trains under Itay Gil from the Human Weapon series and is very knowledgeable. Thank you again for your help, with so many rules and regulations it's hard to decide what applies and what does not. It seems that this scenario meets partial criteria for several flags, but I could not find one which fits 100%. --KravTeacher (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Nick Savoy

Hi ChildofMidnight,

I saw you made some good edits on the Love Systems page that I've been working on. Thanks for that.

I've also been working on the "Nick Savoy" page and I was wondering if you could give me some feedback on the page. Anything that might needs to change, let me know! This page has to go through DRV to get it back up. Any feedback is much appreciated. Thanks in advance. Coaster7 (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Reliability of Sources

To begin with, the sources in question themselves may or may not be reliable. In all fairness, they seem more promotional than otherwise. My information comes to me via a conversation with a YAMAM instructor who has researched Mr. Nardia's claims. It is not Moshe Katz, but someone he and I know in common. I have questioned him about Mr. Nardia's claims to have trained certain units, which he has been part of. The situation is that Mr. Nardia's YAMAM claims in his advertising and articles are greatly embellished. However, I left them alone and only wished to cite sources/references/whatever to show another side of Kapap as Israeli's, living in Israel, view it. The common view's of Marital Artists in it's country of origin deserve a place of recognition, in the Wiki-article, which conveys current views on the subject at hand. Mr. Katz and I have neither one ever met Mr. Nardia, and frankly he is not a concern to me other than that the unregistered contributor seems content with their citations/references/sources being there, but nothing from anyone else. Mr. Katz has establisehd himself as a authority through 15+ years training in Israeli Martial Arts and other Self Defense/Combat Systems and travelling across North America on semi annual educational tours. Here are a few of his tour itineraries: 1 and 2. The page I have chosen to use as a reference, from his site, is not of a promotional or political nature. It is educational and informative. It gives insight into the views of current Israeli Martial Artists. I have posted on a mediation page, asking for this to be investigated and blocking of the IP address of the unregistered user to be considered. I have not hear anything back yet. I hate to do this, but perhaps you are right, it may be the only solution.

Back to the articles, I decided a few days ago to flag the Wiki-article for Conflict of Interest. The article I chose from Mr. Katz' page plainly shows Kapap as an antiquated term and that Lotar doesn't really even refer to an actual system, but rather a way of operating against terrorism. This may bother them as they may feel it makes them look illegitimate. I am not sure of the motive, however, I can see where it may bruise one's ego a bit. I make note in more than one comment on the unregistered contributor's talk page the I respect Mr. Nardia's attempt to revive Kapap as a modern term and modern system, but for things to remain neutral, even a slightly opposing view needs representation. If Mr. Nardia's article(s) remain sources/citations or whatever, it should somehow be explained that the system he teaches in NOT the Kapap taught to Palmach. They learned explosives arming and disarming, shooting, radio commmunications, navigation, survival (wilderness and desert), and a myriad of other things all under the term Kapap. He does not teach all of these things. Others do, Dennis Hanover for example, who chose to call his system Dennis' Hisardut (or Dennis' version of Survival). The only question I have is; if it is true that Mr. Nardia was never operational as a YAMAM "fighter", then all of his articles become questionable by virtue of a showing of lacking integrity, would they not?

I hope this explains my view clearly enough. --KravTeacher (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Rosie

Hey, I'm all about Rosie the Riveter--great character, and she makes for good writing assignments. For Rosie it's a bit early, but her older sister already has power tools and helps her papa do carpentry (she's almost three). She also has a real kitchen knife (sharper than mine) and, when she was two weeks old she wore a Motorhead onesie. So I got no problem with Rosie the Riveter! We just came back from the hospital; everyone's doing well, and tonight everyone will sleep. Hey, thanks for putting that picture up there--it really livens up the joint!

Remember Creepmime? I just got their first album in. It's not bad (for a bunch of Dutchmen), but it ain't great.

A final note on football: grrrrr. I love Alabama, spent 8 years there, but I love offense--my favorite soccer team is AFC Ajax, and that's why I root for the Colts also, and for Florida, for instance. Never cared for the Ravens, don't know why.

Yes, AfD--did you see I got a note on Nazi ideology? It's an interesting list, but I'm not well versed enough in that matter to really make remarks on content. Later!

Haha, yes, I followed you to the Nazi list (from the note above), but I beat you to it at AfD. That Dutch company, that is one awful, awful article, but can easily be rewritten. I just hate writing articles for companies, almost as much as I hate reading PR masquerading as encyclopedic knowledge. Oh, thanks for the Sugarcubes--brings back a lot of memories! Drmies (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit War?

I have tried to leave messages on the Discussion page, from work so I did not log in. The unregistered contributor does not reply. I have also left messages on their talk page to no avail. Is it just me or does it seem as though this person is getting away with murder here. I simply added some relevant information which meets wiki guidlines and now I am accused of edit warring? Where is the neutrality in any of this? I followed your suggestion and did not revert any more and this is how I repayed for following requests? This seems biased to me.... pray tell how else am I to feel when the currently protected version is excluding material which meets requirements as well or better than the material left up?

--KravTeacher (talk) 05:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. I forgot that your edit after mine was just to revise the citation. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I suppose I am just getting too sensitive about it all. Be well. --KravTeacher (talk) 06:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I hope you don't mind - I've combined your 3RR report with KravTeacher's as both related to the same set of edits. Re the Kapap page, as a first step I've assumed good faith and simply protected it for a day to encourage discussion. Any views you might have on this cotnent dispute would be welcome at the article's talk page. Euryalus (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Additional comment at the 3RR page re combining the reports. Both Kravteacher and the IP broke 3RR. I have not accused Kravteacher of edit-warring, and note he stopped reverting when asked. Page protection simply assumes good faith and that one or both parties might not be that familiar with the 3RR rule. If the IP continues reverting without discussion when page protection ends, there will be an opportunity for stronger action. Euryalus (talk) 07:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I want thank you and Euryalus for trying to help. While I do believe Moshe is an authroity on the subject, I can see why it might be percieved as less than objective. However, I stand by my original assessment of him. As an Israeli, living in Isreal, and a long time student of martial arts; I think he deserves a place. He is no way connected with Kapap or any of those people and his article has been on the internet for some time. In fact, long before I began trying to use it as an external link. I will read the other reference material you sent me and check it for accuracy. Thank you again. --KravTeacher (talk) 05:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added a suggestion to the Kapap talk page after reviewing the information you sent me. I discovered there is a LOT of oniline misinformation about Krav and Kapap. So I used two (one you sent and one I found) to attempt to develop consensus. If you get a chance, will you please take a look at my suggestion and the sources I think might work? I'd like to hear your thoughts on putting it together. --KravTeacher (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Korean cuisine

The edits you reverted which I removed were not necessary as the text was already sourced from a secondary source, the tertiary web sources are not necessary and do not follow the academic source provided completely, at either rate they would just be redundant.--Chef Tanner (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, please don't take any of my tone in the improper way, I am away on vacation and attempting to keep as brief as possible so I can go out and enjoy myself. I think we can come to a compromise as long as the articles fit the context of the statements, the context can be made with better articles in my opinion, and I agree more sources might help. I just don't have the time to do so right now as I am in Boston and should not be sitting at a computer, I'm sure you understand. I will talk to you soon, I don't want this to turn into another huge issue.--Chef Tanner (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I just read the articles that were used from BBC, they had little or nothing to do with the lines they were used to cite, they were a stretch if anything. I agree it would be good for multiple sources, just not these sources, and it has nothing to do with the controversy of the articles. I'm going to spend some time looking for some more sources to help out.--Chef Tanner (talk) 05:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, you are really using sources that so stretch the information that you are attempting to source, with an obvious attempt to push a POV that dog meat is controversial which is highly inappropriate. for instance, using an article that talks about sanitation of dog meat stands to source that dog meat consumption dates back to antiquity is utterly absurd.--Chef Tanner (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Jingisukan

Hi, before adding that youtube link to the article Jingisukan again, can you please provide evidence that it is not a copyright violation? To do so, you need to show that the original authors (eg. the musician Niiyama Yukihiro who created the song) have given permission for it to be published there. As you certainly know, linking to copyright violations or other illegal content is not permitted on Wikipedia. --Latebird (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot read Japanese. Badagnani (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Big Al says hi!

File:Big Al (mascot).jpg

A friendly greeting from your neighborhood elephant.

Keep the faith, brother! Keep on deletin' them Auburn playas! Drmies (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Google cache

Hello ChildofMidnight. I saw your whitelist request. I think you *don't* want to whitelist the Google cache, you want to request whitelisting of the original link that it is a cache of: www.associatedcontent.com/article/907333/native_american_musician_douglas_spotted.htm.

This link probably can't serve as a reference for any matters of fact, since Associated Content is unlikely to be considered a reliable source. The author of the article, Joshua Givens, is an undergraduate, and the article cites no sources except the subject's own personal web site. Sources to justify keeping the article would still need to be found elsewhere. This link still might make the grade as an WP:EL. EdJohnston (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Your question

Hi, thanks for your interest. The field of Native American music isn't well documented to begin with, and this particular case is interesting because the musician in question seems not to be of Native American heritage. There are dozens of prominent Native American musicians with active recording careers who don't ever state one way or another, on their websites or anywhere else, whether they're actually of Native American heritage or not. By avoiding the issue, they can continue to do well in their careers, keeping their heritage private. This article provides the most comprehensive background and explanation of this. It's centrally important to having a properly comprehensive and encyclopedic article on this individual. Badagnani (talk) 07:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly it's just about that source. The article is about a certain individual, basically no details about that individual are available anywhere but that article, thus to have a properly comprehensive and encyclopedic article about the individual, the source is needed. Badagnani (talk) 07:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Re Rashid Khalidi

Thanks for your note; I've left a response on the article talk-page. Regards, EyeSerene^talk 08:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Tricky vandalism

This is bad. This vandal you also reverted is making false references to his edits. [10]. And is intentionally introduce incorrect information to pages, se here [11] to Chokladboll, almost correct but false. He was blocked, how can he go on editing?

Warrington (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A brilliant idea!

Warrington (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome template

Thanks for your message about the template. I am glad that you are using it! If it spurs someone, anyone into jumping in and getting involved, that is a good thing! – ukexpat (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD discussion

Hi CoM,

I was wondering if you care to weigh in on the AfD discussion for Geoffrey Eggleston. I know we have agreed and disagreed on deletion proposals in the past, so I would value your opinion. Rgds, Bongo matic 02:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Another editor pasted your comments into the AfD, and I formatted them as a !vote. Rgds, Bongo matic 02:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Peter Hill

Hmm...I'm really not that much of an expert...his list of credits looks pretty impressive (though all these bands are a bit young and British for me, haha) but Google really delivered nothing but that NME Kaiser hit. I didn't yet speak out on AfD, but I think the prospects are bleak. As for the movie, there's a couple of movie buffs who can dig this sort of stuff up easily--MichaelQSchmidt comes to mind, and there's a few that specialize in Eastern movies. I think Erik's question on AfD should be taken seriously, but I don't speak Chinese. Or read it. I even eat it only rarely. Oh, as for the Dutch, don't worry too much. They don't have a basic income yet and are unlikely to get it any time soon. But I'll be glad to put in a word for you--start by memorizing the Sinterklaas article and as many of the Sinterklaas songs as you can! PS Baby came home today--strange, another living being in the house. Drmies (talk) 05:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

With love from Assam

I'm glad that you are interested to know more about Assam. Please be in touch. Feel free to drop a massage regarding that anytime. I'll will try to provide you detailed facts of Assam through wikipedia.

(Footage (talk) 06:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC))

Bush ballad

I'd say for Bush ballad an image of one of the early published collections of bush ballads (usually lyrics only), or the title page thereof would be best. The photo you found is good but would be better at Bush band. Badagnani (talk) 07:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's the email I sent via Flickr mail. Do you have a Flickr account? It's a good tool to have one, as an active WP contributor.

“

Hello,

I am one of the thousands of volunteer editors at the English-language Wikipedia, where I edit various music-related articles.

We have an article on Australian bush bands, but so far have found no photo to illustrate this type of band.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_band

Your photo of a bush band trio playing outside a shopping center in Adelaide seems to be the best one on Flickr, so I wonder if you would be amenable to our using it at that article? In order to upload it, Wikipedia requires that photos be licensed under a free license such as Creative Commons (but without non-commercial stipulation). The reason for this is that, although Wikipedia is not for profit, they wish all the photos that appear there to be freely usable by anyone who finds them there, for any purpose, including educational, commercial, or any other use (however, both Wikipedia and anyone else down the line who uses the photo must credit the photographer and make a link to the photographer's page). Wikipedia is now the eighth most visited website in the world, so I think it would serve a great educational purpose, and you would likely get a lot of views.

If that would be okay with you, would you please let me know? Thank you very much for your consideration. If you agree, I'd love to let the band know, if I could find their contact information (maybe you could hunt them up by phoning up the Royal Adelaide Show?)

By the way, I play in one of the very rare bush bands in the U.S. (I estimate fewer than a half dozen total, in all 50 states). I know it sounds strange, but in Australia you guys have a lot of country singers and bluegrass bands, so maybe the bush band tradition will grow here eventually.

Best,

--

User:Badagnani

Kent, Ohio

USA

”

Badagnani (talk) 07:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if that was meant to be humorous, but to respond to your point, if someone was insisting on deleting something notable and properly sourced from an article (as the photographer who took the bush band photo was not), my tone may have been different. Badagnani (talk) 07:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I was going to post something on your page inquiring about your Bush band, but it's so nice and tidy now. I'll have to see what I can dig up... ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Try to watch the videos I added; Warren Fahey is one of the real historians of this tradition there in Australia. Badagnani (talk) 08:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The big issue that I ran into that I stopped to ponder for a while and was waiting to see if anyone chimed in, is the inclusion exclusion criteria. There is a blurred line between the poetry and the lyrics, being a bush band (geographically) and a bush ballad (musically). So I was trying to get that clarified in my mind a bit. Any band in Australia in the 19th century is in some sense a bush band... and there are no clear lines, but I have a better idea now where I want to go based on the sources and information that I've found. Thanks very much for your cleanup. I found a lovely Waltzing Matilda rendition on the web, but I don't know if it's copyrighted. There's shockingly little on youtube (not that any of it can be used much for sourcing) but even just for background. I was very surprised not to find an article on this topic on Wikipedia. It seems critical to Australian culture and traditions. I'm experiencing the same phenomenon in dealing with tiki. There are various cultural biases and then an academic bias as far as how it can be covered, or so it seems. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Bush ballads DYK

Out of curiosity.... at what point did it become a 5x expansion? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if it can be further expanded, put a copy in a sandbox, expand the heck out of it, and then add the the larger version informations en-masse to main space once its 5x. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Ayn Rand

A number of warnings are present on Talk:Ayn Rand about unnecessarily personalized messages directed at editors rather than arguments. Consequently, I regret your comments about another editor being ignorant. You could have made the points you wished to make without directing them at the editor as opposed to the argument. Please do not do this again. The amount of trouble and disruption to that page by uncontrolled personal attacks and similar behaviour means that it is necessary to move to qickly stop any such comments being made. I suggest that you strike out your comment and replace it with one which does not make the personalised comments about the editor. Remember, two people have been blocked for making personal attacks and continuing them after the last strong warning about this. I do not want to put you at risk of being the third. Thank you. DDStretch (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, I was actually headed back to revise my statement at the time I received your message. I have done so now, and if you don't think it's enough please let me know. I would point out that having never heard of something is by definition being ignorant of it, but I agree that gentler phrasing would have been more prudent. Thanks for your comment. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, it's my understanding that the flaunting of academic acheivements for the purpose of winning arguments is frowned upon on Wikipedia. I'm sure it's deeply upsetting to those who have spent their lives in academia, but we're all supposed to have equal standing here and to have our arguments measured based on their merit rather than the number of degrees held by their author. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes you are going to or have already made. I certainly agree that flaunting academic degrees as a means of bolstering one's arguments is quite unacceptable, and one that, being an academic myself, I constantly criticized others for doing, though it was almost never well-received. Argument from Authority in this context advises that the quality of a position is better solely judged by the arguments one advances in favour of it, and not the eminence or authority of the person advancing them. DDStretch (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for your respectful guidance and discussion. Much appreciated. As you agree with me, at least in part, you are clearly a very wise fellow. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Party on, dude,

...with the Claw Boys Claw. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Haha, thanks for the tweaks! (Can you tell I translated from the Dutch article?) BTW, I left you a shitty note on the Basic income in the Netherlands talk page--I'll give a translation as soon as I've had a nap. Drmies (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Square milk jug

Being the food-minded individual that you are, I thought that you might be interested in square milk jugs, lots of interesting facts for DYK (a shocking number actually). If you know anything about this subject let me know (or fix it up if you see anything wrong), I will put it in the mainspace soon, but want to get some pictures of them, and the "regular" style too for it before I do. They bottle them here, but I have never seen them, although the grown onions here and you have to beg borrow or steal to get any of them too!--kelapstick (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Dubious! WHAT!!! Actually I think there is something in the NYT article that said that the milk was in the cow that morning and in the store that evening...I think the only thing fresher is putting a glass under the udder...But that doesn't sound so appealing...Anyway I am done with it for a little while, so if you have anything to add feel free, and well done on the leading sentence...I had a hell of a time with it, much more gooder.--kelapstick (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the freshness claim was because they can be packaged faster, and shipped sooner. Unless I missed the section of the article about the magical properties of the square (perhaps a new section?) I haven't seen any benefits of the old shape, other than being more labour intensive so creating more jobs. I will poll 100 dairy cows on my way home tonight to see what their thoughts on the matter are, but I think they will all say tell the farmer to get his hands off my udder--kelapstick (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

HA! I can appreciate the skepticism, glad I brought you in on this, it is always better to get someone else to check your work and see where the holes are. I have the criticism section, but all I could find was they didn't pour well (pour poorly), and the people who hated them hated them for only that reason, relearning how to pour a milk jug isn't that great a hardship (I will let you know when I try), but it still needs some work.--kelapstick (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

In Soviet Russia, milk pours you!--kelapstick (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No padded cell...Yet....Although I think I have one on standby somewhere. Yes the talk page was where I put the hook for Hoist (mining) when that article lived in Sandbox 1. I found an article that says that they may have made it as far as Washington State, but it might be worth some research.--kelapstick (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Rand "amateur"

Since you have read the source, I suggest you move the word "amateur" out of the article head (it is only one source's opinion) and add it to the philosophical criticism section. Something like, "Anthony Quinn (not to be confused with the movie star and notorious father of many love children) writing in the oxford dictionary of amatuer philosophy says..." Of course you should use appropriate wording. Make sure you move the citation there too. Then I will back you up. The matter is simply absurd. The current citation discusses her status as a philosopher. The matter was debated ad nauseam, and the editor refuses to address the prior consensus in the archives, after I invited him to do so. Welcome to wikipedia. Kjaer (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It is Steve Wolfer's and my position that there was no consensus for the radical edits that have been made to the Ayn Rand page since the end of Dec freeze. If you wish to keep fighting each little nibble piecemeal, you can try, but since no consensus was reached, (although they keep asserting it) we believe a rollback to that version is appropriate. Changes with actual consensus can be made from there. If you agree that these radical changes have been made without consensus, please join us by stating your opposition under the request for comment once it is posted. Kjaer (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The RFC asks "was there consensus for the deletions since the freeze was removed?" Over one quarter of the article was removed or turned to criticism, but the response to criticism section was removed. Was there a consensus for this? Rand has turned from a philosopher with a system based on reason to a political adviser of alan greenspan's - based on a consensus that is not there. If you want to keep battling alone on the presumption that every little deletion, like Rand not being a philosopher, should be battled separately, when all this has been addressed at length for years - read the archives - then fine. But all I am asking is that you type ' ' ' o p p p o s e ' ' ' under the RFC if you think there was not consensus. Simply add that comment if you agree that the matter is still in dispute. Since you do not see any consensus, no vote, no RFC by those with whom you are mud wrestling now, that should be clear. Kjaer (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

you smart alec...

...I should put you on salary: grrr. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah refbuster, I had a look at your Ghostbusters. Who you gonna call? (I'm watching FL score right now...yeah SEC!) Seriously, I think this sort of stuff is really sad, and brings down the level of WP--but no lower than the average city paper that writes this nonsense (BTW, I'm NOT talking about Ayn Rand here, haha). Then again, WP has six million articles on Pokemon stuff, so I can live with this one thing... Drmies (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Including paranormal researchers from Jersey doesn't bring down the encyclopedia. The subject is what it is. Bias, quality issues, and neglect are more serious concerns. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Faked references are pretty sad. Look at this. Bongo matic 02:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but I came here for the historical and scientific articles...paranormalics from Jersey, that's just depressing...! Oh, Bongomatic, nice work! Drmies (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed your focus on serious historical and scientific articles *cough* *cough*. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Bush ballads

The Bushwackers are good but very rock-influenced and don't use the authentic tea-chest bass (they use electric bass and drum set, to be louder and appeal to a wider audience). Regarding bush ballads, it should be made clear that some of the early poets, like Banjo Paterson, didn't sing their poems, but the poems can be either sung or spoken. Also, people like Tex Morton and John Williamson are more country singers, though influenced by bush balladry. There is a lot of overlap. Badagnani (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Rand

Replied on my talk page, though it might be better to copy it to the Rand talk page and continue there. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Who is John Galt?

First, Moloch, horrid king, besmeared with blood

Of human sacrifice, and parents' tears;

Though, for the noise of drums and timbrels loud,

Their children's cries unheard that passed through fire

To his grim idol.

--John Milton, Paradise Lost

TallNapoleon (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Rand comment

Hi, If you want to remove my comment from the Rand talk page, go ahead. I'm done. It may not be helpful but it's true. It's a waste of time to try to get an accurate piece, it will only be changed by another Rand hater if you do suceed. Wikipedia is far less perfect than the world and there are better way to spend my time than playing around with people who pretend to be about NPOV when they have a very considered POV. It's laughable. They are fighting over nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan a dawe (talk • contribs) 11:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

John Parker Wilson

Thanks for pointing this out--I left the user a stern but Tide-friendly warning. Hey, great game last night...at least the SEC won the UNDISPUTED national championship! (right?) Oh, with the help of chemistry I actually slept some last night, and I'm ready to rock. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, that paranormal thing is getting wacky! If someone makes a good argument for why those regional sources are really local, or why they should not be considered *that* strong, I might just change my mind. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Haha, I hope you'll regift my gift! ;0

And I hope, incidentally, that some of the big wigs will weigh in on the Jersey group. It's not unlike the Auburn dog-bitee: where does "trivial" begin? Drmies (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Got milk?

I moved square milk jug to the main space, and put up a DYK, I wanted to include the cookies but couldn't get it to work in the 200 character limit, anyway i put you up as co-creator as you did a lot of work for it. Thanks!--kelapstick (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The great square milk jug pour of 2009 went off without a hitch,^{[dubious – discuss]} while it does require a different technique to pour than a traditional jug, there was a significant lack of "milk spilling everywhere" as had been predicted by earlier reports. I could see how pouring it may be difficult for children (the problem is likely that a gallon of milk ways 8-10lbs, which is quite a chore for children to pour regardless of container layout) and possibly adults with an inner ear infection. A potential modification would be to make the opening a little smaller (perhaps the size of the old one), but really I don't see what the fuss is about. Maybe I should upload a picture of the proper pouring technique for the page, or maybe a page devoted to square milk jug pouring technique?--kelapstick (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

How-to guides are discouraged, but a Wikiversity program might be beneficial. Making the opening smaller might cause the glug-glug and spillage of air not being able to get in smoothly. I think a video of you pouring it would be a valuable external link. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought since the cows live about 3.5 miles (1,100 rd) from the bottling plant (in this case a juggling plant I suppose), which is 1,000 feet (3,000.0 hands) from the bakery where I got the milk which is 1.1 miles (1.9×10⁻¹³ ly) from my house, the milk only traveled 25,288 feet (4,215 fathoms) to get to the glass, so I was willing to take the milks freshness at face value as indeed I was preoccupied with getting the pour right.--kelapstick (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you really need a gallon? I think a quart or two might have been enough for you. Also, you've made no indication whether it was skim, 1%, 2% or whole. Would this affect the pour? It seem to me that you may be trying to cut down on visits to the bakery? Do they have some good stuff? And what about raw milk? Goat's milk? Soy milk (which comes in tetra paks)? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

They only juggle it by the gallon (cuts costs I guess), but we usually get a half gallon. It was 2%, although they have skim and whole, maybe higher fat content would slow the pour? We currently have 50 litres (you want to see stacking efficiency) of rice milk in the garage (in tetra paks) for my son (it is far cheaper in Carson City than it is here).--kelapstick (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a silly joke

Here is a nice infobox that might ineterest you...

This user really enjoys dark and stormy nights.

Take care, Warrington (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Was the Dark and stormy night reference inspired by my Dirty Harry reference?

Yes. And your username, of course! ChildofMidnight. Nice. But indeed not all nights are dark, like the nights when the moon is shining, out in the nature or especially on water. You can notice the stars shining too, differently than in the city.

Night haiku

Clouds hide the full moon,

the cat creeps slowly towards

her prey: life or death?

Still dark, yet nearby

a blackbird sings; liquid notes

spill into the dawn.

At sunrise the breeze

stirs the windchimes; there is

laughter in my dreams.

Warrington (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it is politics, you say? My impression of the username ChildofMidnight was a sharp, dark, dramatic figure, mysterious, and reclusive in gentlemanly way, from a long line of strong men. Alternatively a dark beauty, who enjoys cooking (something like Nigella Lawson...

Warrington (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You do not have to answer this question, if it is too private, but I was curious what kind of historical dawn. "Born to the tumults of history", are you talking about?

Warrington (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The only thing your description reminds me is Russia and the new free countries.

Warrington (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

		The Red Barnstar
		Yu have been awarded this because your username is awesome!

Welcome, welcome. Yes I did that, but I wasn’t trying to make your photo look less glorious. It is not my shot, I was stealing that picture from the Norvegian Wikipedia. Oh, what a lovely picture, thank you! I can see the magnificent lion. This kind of guardian spirits have been in use since ancient times. Mine are ancient Chinese. Similar ones were used in the Forbidden City.

Warrington (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK

Hi, I noticed you replied to what I said at your DYK. It goes from the date of creation not the date of nomination. I think you could still get it in because, as of right now, 1 January is still in the "expiring noms" section. If you moved it down and maybe said that it had originally been at a date further up someone might review it and it might turn out fine. Good luck! --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T_# :) 03:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the note

i tend to veer toward the controversial but try to keep an open mind. don't know about the medication but a bubble bath and some wine/chocolate/smoke/heroin would probably do me some good. ;) this place is addictive. i see your point about rome and am taking more time off between slackjawed surfing episodes. thanks again, and wish me luck. Untwirl (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Pen and Quill

If you'd like me to send you the whole NYT article we were talking about, just so you can verify I'm not being unscrupulous (I know we assume good faith but as the person who opened the AFD it's easy to think I have a little bias!) please let me know and I'll email it to you! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Newfoundland Trail

I went ahead and added the trail info to the Spruce Woods Provincial Park article... essentially and for all intents and purposes a "pre-emptive" merge. Someone had slapped a speedy on it and it might not have lasted until the end of the AfD. And point of fact, it reallly does belong in the larger article... where it has context and where readers might expect to read information about that trail in that park. I explained as much at the trail AfD with one of the most polite "delete" !votes ever made. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

On your good example, I have modified my "delete" to a "merge/redirect". Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Expolitics

Could you remove all the 'Drs', 'PhD's, etc please to conform with our MOS? Thanks. The Michael Salla article actually starts off well but then someone started adding 'Dr' although he should be just Salla in the body of the article, which I've fixed (which makes it consistent now). dougweller (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Hi again. I thought you might be interested in this merger proposal in light of our recent discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Bush ballad

On January 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bush ballad, 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.

Royal broil 04:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

SPAs

Apologies if I'm teaching you to suck eggs, but I noticed your comment on a single-purpose account which cropped up at an AfD here (there appear to be a couple of others in that debate). There's quite a useful template, ({{SPA}}, which can be used in such a situation, where (for example) using {{SPA|Gb}} generates : "— Gb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. " Hope that helps in the future. _Gb^T/c 09:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Exopolitics (Institute)

Be reasonable

Could you please stop these constant reversions. We discuss all changes on the talk page, by consensus, thanks Peter Damian (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've avoided making reversions as much as possible. I've tried to compromise and move forward in collaboration. But that doesn't mean that I can't make edits to "your" version of the introduction, even if you make a bet that people will correct your mistakes. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Please work with the Consensus

Based on the RFc on the Ayn Rand page, there is no consensus to support the edits and deletions made by one faction following the Dec 31 freeze. The vote as to whether there was a consensus for the changes was 9 to 3 against, 7 to 5 if one counts only experienced editors, and adds votes for two editors who commented but did not make an explicit vote. In either case, a minority, no matter how vocal (the talk page has never been so large, and so empty) cannot claim to have established a new consensus.

Hence, we shall revert to the actual consensus version of Dec 31, and I respectfully request that all editors accept and defend this long standing consensus version as the starting point for new edits. Reversions to the controversial shortened article should not be supported against the vote of the RFC. I request that those who wish to modify the article state the changes they want on the talk page, and request a vote for the changes they wish to make. I request that editors not simply assert that there is a new consensus for deletions as has been done, since the RFC clearly shows that this is not the case.

If you have suggestions for improving the article (I support trimming down all sections which have their own separate wikipedia article, such as Objectivist movement) please discuss them, conscisely now, but let us not revert to an edit war. Kjaer (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, CoM, this is the exact same message that I put on everyone's talk page, the wording was chosen to be neutral, and I commend you on your good work on Ayn rand, with which I am in full agreement. Please do read specifically what I said, and try to help keep the version on the Ayn Rand page the actual consensus one per the RFCKjaer (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

RfM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

You've been gored by a bull for your impudence! Scapler (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope that guy is wearing a cup. The bull doesn't look like it's faring too well either. I prefer to "shoot" things with my camera and to "fight" for the right to party. But I'll eat just about anything... I would like it noted that poking the bull with little spears until it dies doesn't seem like the most humane butchering method. At least they don't scalp 'em ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

inre Christopher Rojas

WP:MUSICBIO has a long list of attributes... and if ANY ONE OF THEM applies, then the artist is accepted as notable. Even if he does not have major write-ups in the press, if one goes down the list of attributes it would seem he meets 2 or 3 of the neccessary criteria. He does pass WP:N per the applicable guideline. Or am I crazy here? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look now at your tweaks... as I am answering this before having done so. I plan myself to give it a major facelift to re-adress its assertions and format as advised at the talk page over at talk page for Notabilty (music). It may be deleted before all improvements are in (unless relisted to give me more time), so I will be copying improvements to User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox Christopher Rojas as I progress. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Will do so now. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look here and advise on this work-in-progress: User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox Christopher Rojas Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand Collaboration

In the spirit of mediation, I think we should try to bury the hatchet and work together. The reason that most current edits appear "anti-Rand" is that the article used to be unreasonably pro-Rand. This is not my "agenda", as Steve likes to call it, but the fact that the article was stripped of its good article status because the criticism section was deficient and the article as a whole inflated Rand's reputation (the reviewers' words not mine, we appealled the decision without success). A number of us have been editing this article for some time (JReadings, TallNapoleon, and myself) and we are willing to make compromises, but because the article before the changes was considered too "Rand-friendly" to become a good article, some improvements towards good article status will likely not be Rand-friendly. You seem like a reasonable person (you haven't engaged in the AGF rhetoric that Kjaer, Steve, and some "anti-Rand" folks prefer) so I just wanted to explain myself a bit in an attempt to keep the dispute from escalating so that the mediation can hopefully resolve matters. Idag (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Pink's Hot Dogs

Hey, it's 1:20 here already--bow 'bout we meet for lunch? I think I want an Ozzy. Drmies (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, this edit was hilarious--how do you find these things?? Drmies (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

useful?

Thanks--but just as I had read up and was going to take the case I found that the plaintiff had already removed it... Drmies (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand.

For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite

00:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Ayn Rand

The mediation request has been rejected because of you, even though 10 others had agreed already. [12] Was that your intention? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I may not be involved, but keep in mind that five other people would have had to accept it before it could pass, so it is not wholly his fault, and it appears doubtful that some of these others would have signed. Scapler (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that 10-1 doesn't look good, but as Scapler points out, a block of involved editors did not sign on. I'd like to see more of an effort to work together before expanding the drama to new fora. I'm certainly willing to reconsider if those who didn't sign on express in interest in mediation or if attempts to work out difference on the talk page fail to produce results. At this point I think a cooling off period may be the best thing, but it's very possible that I'm wrong. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

And just to clarify, no, I wasn't expecting that my indication would immediately nix this opportunity for mediation. I was under the impression that people would have the oppoprtunity to discuss it with me and the other editors not yet signed on before a rejection would be issued. Live and learn. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

They didn't sign on because perhaps they were unaware of it, perhaps they had other things to do and were getting around to it, or perhaps they don't live by their computers day and night. Either way, it's unfortunate that by explicitly rejecting mediation you scuttled a genuine attempt at conflict resolution. I, too, would like to see less drama and a greater collaboration based on a genuine interest in writing a balanced article following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Let's hope that your re-direction to the Ayn Rand talk page leads to better results the fourth time around. Regards, J Readings (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as mediation goes, there is a lot of heat and some light on the article discussion page. The protected version is the most recent one, so it's not like the side that hasn't signed on to mediation is getting their way. I would like to see what the other have to say in regards to mediation. I am under the impression that mediation is not a magic wand that will solve the disputes of 16 or 20 editors with the wave of a wand. I think some of the issues can be solved with compromise and then if there are still issues unresolvable it would be appropraite to move to more intensive dispute remedies. If you think otherwise please let me know why. I'm open to input and willing to reconsider. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

CofM, if you didn't intend your objection to nix it, please make that clear to the chair of the MedCom, and he might consider reversing the rejection. The page did state clearly that if anyone objected, it wouldn't go forward. As things stand, a Request for Arbitration has now been filed because the mediation was turned down. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I will do so now. Thanks for the suggestion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. I did not understand that not going forward and immediate rejection were the same thing. My concern was that it would move forward before all parties were ready/ willing. I would like to hear from the parties that feel the article has been trampled on without consensus. My focus has mostly been preoccupied with the introduction, so frankly I haven't had a chance to review all the changes, but some of them looked very shakey. I don't approve of the section on homosexuality being removed in its entirety or to new sections sourced to a single attack piece being added. I think a more reasoned and collaborative approach is needed. The philosopher issue for example has drawn some good input. I guess my perspective may be skewed by the fact that I haven't been involved in the dispute as long as others, but with newcomers comes naivete I suppose. I still have optimism. Are you sure that immediately embarking on mediation is preferable to a time out and some consideration before moving forward? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that, CofM. We have, I believe, seven days in which to sign up, so hopefully everyone will get on board by then (or will at least remove their names if not interested so that the rest of us can go ahead). I can't see any other way forward at the moment, as people are just talking past each other on the talk page, and continually reverting to older versions. We can only benefit from having someone uninvolved help us out. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

A request for arbitration has been filed with the Arbitration Committee that lists you as a party. The Arbitration Committee requires that all parties listed in an arbitration must be notified of the aribtration. You can review the request at [[13]]. If you are unfamiliar with arbitration on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration. Idag (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand

The explanation is that Rand is no doubt well-known and influential in the US, and Quinton is not. But this doesn't make Rand a philosopher, though no doubt she did write on philosophical themes, and devised what one might call a philosophy. Being influential, and writing on philosophical themes, and having/inventing a philosophy, and being a philosopher, are four different things. I could name quite a few philosophers who have had little influence and who don't even have articles in Wikipedia. In philosophical terminology, writing on philosophical themes and having a philosophy are necessary but not sufficient for being a philosopher, and being influential is neither necessary nor sufficient. Ben Finn (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Nothing wrong with political philosophy, it's a perfectly respectable branch of the subject. And for all I know, Rand might be a philosopher, but if she is not generally regarded as such by existing professional (which in practice means academic) philosophers, then I don't think she is. Arguably if even just one or two philosophers do say she is a philosopher, and none say she isn't, then she is; so you may be right. But it is the professional philosophers who are in a position to know (and we are not qualified to contradict them) who is a philosopher and who isn't. I don't take much store by newspapers calling her a philosopher - they use the word very loosely. And I don't take much store by her not getting discussed by most philosophers - philosophers just wouldn't discuss a non-philosopher's work - why would they? - this doesn't count as 'ignoring'. But if it is the case that some discuss her work and call her a philosopher (even if a bad one) then that probably does make her a philosopher. There may of course be contradictory sources saying she isn't a philosopher. Personally I think 'amateur philosopher' may be accurate (though admittedly with negative overtones), or I am quite happy with e.g. saying she developed a 'philosophical system', which seems quite accurate.

C.f. (in a turgid analogy) if A claims to be a structural engineer and BCDEFG ordinary folk say A is a structural engineer, but the structural engineers say A is not a structural engineer but a charlatan who's got no qualifications and whose buildings would fall down if you built them, then A is not a structural engineer (it's not just that A is a bad structural engineer - I think you'd at least need the qualifications for that) - though you could accurately say she designed buildings. For only the structural engineers are qualified to know what structural engineers do, e.g. how to ensure buildings won't fall down, and hence who is doing structural engineering and who isn't. It's just possible the structural engineers are wrong, and may later hail A a great undiscovered self-taught structural engineer, but until that time comes, the non-structural engineers (and Wikipedias) don't have sufficient grounds for claiming otherwise. Ben Finn (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Re the student of engineering who wrote about it and then engineered a series of built structures - 'student' to me means someone who at least is working towards professional qualifications! And there's also the issue of whether the structures fall down or not. I think the analogy you'd like to make is the one you make elsewhere, of painting - anyone can call themselves a painter as long as they do enough of it, regardless of their training/qualifications or indeed quality of the results. But I don't think the analogy holds: philosophy is an academic subject with professional qualifications. Granted, in ancient Greece it wasn't, so if you developed a philosophical system and were influential with it then you'd count as a philosopher. But this is no longer the case.

Philosophy is much closer to the sciences than the arts - perhaps on a par with economics in that respect. I think one could only call oneself an 'economist' these days if one were employed by a financial institution with 'economist' in your job title, or if you were an academic involved in teaching or researching economics. No doubt there are people who write about economics, e.g. for newspapers, but who are not economists (you might call them economics journalists or writers on economics). If they developed their own economic theories, then they would be an anomaly, but unless and until recognised by economists as an economist (which would probably entail being influential on at least some economists) I don't think you could call them that. Anyway, I'm sure I've got my point of view across by now. Ben Finn (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Greek philosophers would be (and of course are) recognised now as philosophers - not because of their academic credentials, but because they are regarded as philosophers by those who have the necessary academic credentials. You asked what the professional qualifications for being a philosopher/economist are - I say simply, having at least (say) a PhD in philosphy/economics! (And to actually be a professional philosopher/economist as well as having the qualifications to be one, you'd then need to be being paid to be one.)

Anyways, I'm leaving Ayn Rand, as I am no expert on the subject (indeed know nothing about her) and hence have made no edits to the article itself. I left a message on the talk page summarizing what I thought the whole problem with the article was, which is the same as the problem with much of Wikipedia (not enough experts + too many idiots = poor quality results) - but it seems criticism of the Wikistate is so unwelcome that it's been deleted from the talk page! Hey-ho. Ben Finn (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Years ago I was attending a university and stopped by the Philosophy dept. I mentioned Atlas Shrugged at the time not being aware of the animosity toward her in some circles. This prompted one of the professors to make a comment to the effect of "oh, yeah that Ayn Rand crap..." Further inquiry revealed that she'd never actually read the book - or any others of Rand, but was simply reflecting word-of-mouth bias and had concluded it wasn't worth her effort to investigate any further. Yet her contempt was absolute. This was a paid "professional" in Philosophy.TheJazzFan (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Square milk jug advocacy comity

With regard to this edit, I would say I am more of an advocate of utilization than a pioneer in utilization. And to correct your comment on the DYK page, I was able to pour the square milk jug without spilling while simultaneously juggling kittens....on a unicycle.--kelapstick (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The jug did fit on the door, but a regular jug of milk does too since we have a pretty big fridge. However after reading about the horrors of drastic temperature changes,^[1] affecting the milks longevity, we have moved the square milk jug to a place of honour in the mainspace of the fridge. As for being a part of the magic that is square milk jugs, you may have to rush out to a Costco or Wal-Mart to get one for yourself.--kelapstick (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

^ "Costco's square milk jug curses milk consumers" (HTML). Retrieved January 8, 2009.

A couple of questions

(from your post on my talk page)

I am curious to know what your opinion is of the introduction as written. I would also like to know what your view is on mediation and whether you plan to participate, why or why not. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Mediate what? After the RfC the Rand tolerant faction was extremely moderate. Look at the edits that followed it. You will see simple reversions and all on the part of the Rand critical faction. TallNapoleon broke the 3RR rule. The critical faction (an that is a generous name) had issued over 100 edits in the hours after the freeze was lifted. Not one single one of their edits was based on mediation or consensus. Every single edit either deleted relevant verifiable information or was purposefully couched to make Rand look bad. Now, after their unilateral edit war, after the RfC showed there was no consensus for their radical revision of an article, now they want mediation? We don't need mediation, we need adhernce to wikipedia principles - no deletion of sourced material, no pushing of a POV which is what several editors have explicitly said is their goal, no deletion of valid material, but rather expansion into a new sub article if there is too much info. (Note that I fought pro-Rand forces to remove her embarrassing remarks on homosexuality, fought ARI supporters who want Rand to look blameless in her split with Nathaniel Branden, have never tried to delete references to opinions that she was cultish - since these opinions do indeed exist.)

The call for mediation, besides being unnecessary, and an attempt at an end run around the RfC, is improper in that it includes admittedly hostile editors who have already said that they themselves are not qualified to edit the article, includes new editors who have been recruited since the RfC who had not edited the article, but who are apparently "qualified" in the view of one faction befcause they are Rand-hostile, and excludes Jmaurone and DAgwyn who are Rand sympathetic editors who have edited the article recently and who participated in the RfC.

As for the current lead as written, I oppose commenting on it specifically, because to do so would presumes its legitimacy. It was imposed without consensus by a POV faction who simply ignored wikipedia policy, removed cited data, and used their own opinion of Rand as the criterion by which to judge the relevance of any comments. Suffice it to say that it is both heavily biased and factually flawed and is not acceptible in any case.

I will be busy with personal matters for the next week, and may go for some periods without editting or contributing. Feel free to contact me by email. Kjaer (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll chime here, univited, but with an opinion. I see no value in mediation when there is no recognition of the RfC results, no recognition of the blizzard of negative edits that followed the previous freeze, nor an honest admission of the degree of bias in the editing of those that dislike Rand, nor even a consideration of returning to the last stable point - where we were at the time of the previous freeze. That version of December 31st was the last honest version, the last version that represented consensus and a period of stability and acceptance. It was frozen because the edit warring over radical changes could not produce an honest article - edit warring never does. We were actually reaching a consensus on the Influence section and might have been able to find common ground for moving forward from there. But, after the freeze, it was an anti-Rand feeding-frenzy and the resulting article doesn't represent encyclopedia standards. Editors piously call for others to stop imputing motives, while in practically the same breath smearing other editors as 'randoids' or 'cultists.' That is not an environment conducive to productive mediation. --Steve (talk) 07:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It is DAGwyn and Jmaurone. Kjaer (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Nicknames

Hello there ChildofMidnight. I thought I'd come here rather than carry on the thread on my talk page because I want to clarify an important point. When you called me Ry Ry, I presumed you were mistaking me for a user who used to be User:RyRy, before being renamed to User:RyanCross. We get mistaken quite a lot and I was only trying to tell you that I wasn't RyRy. I've just read what I wrote to you again and it appeared that I was being abrasive. That certainly wasn't my intention, I was just short of time so I apologise for that. I don't mind nicknames at all - I've grown up being called "Poss" by everyone including teachers at school and lecturers at university so you're more than happy to call me whatever you like (as long as it's not something like "Idiot Ryan" ;-) ). I hope that explains things and I'm sorry if you thought I was being off with you - that wasn't my intention. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You're fast becoming my favorite inclusionist

I think you just knocked User:DGG from his previous post as such. Yeah, you get to be a cabal member. The pin can only be seen remotely, though. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

on the subject of New Jersey, did you see that the Junior Senator from the Garden State challenged the incoming Energy Secretary because his entire state has been designated a high-priority corridor for the creation of new power lines? [14] Poor state really can't get a break. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

A Room

Will a courtroom suffice? I don't even known what the joke is here, But I had to try something? :) Scapler (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

What are you implying? What, what?!?!

Scapler (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

String quartets

There are a lot of non-notable rock bands, and also a lot of non-notable string quartets. A young quartet that doesn't have CDs out, for example, should wait until they do to write an article about themselves. I don't see that this quartet (who are probably in their early 20s) have put in their dues to be able to get an article about themselves. Badagnani (talk) 07:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I've recorded soundtracks for many independent films yet don't presume that I deserve a WP bio page. Badagnani (talk) 08:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Tex-Mex

I agree with the premise for your movie, the titles of a number of "cuisine" articles has bothered me for some time. Tex-mex is a style of food and drink, not a cuisine itself. I'd actually prefer the term "Tex-Mex food and drink" but I am happy for the term "cuisine" at least to be removed from the article. There are a number of other articles with the same issue, like "Cuisine of New York', we do not have a "cuisine", we have ingredients and restaurants, those alone do not make a cuisine, a specific culture needs to be created with a universal culinary practice throughout a region along with a number of other sociological elements. Anyways, if anyone argues with you on this element, I will certainly back you up.--Chef Tanner (talk) 13:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Rojas

Thank you for your note, as I had not yet learned the results of the AfD and it came as a pleasent surprise. I am gratified that it was a "no consensus default to keep", but I will work toward addressing concerns that led to "no consensus", as certainly there are ways to more strongly underscore his quailifications under WP:MUSICBIO. Again, thank you very much. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_revisions/Trial#Straw_poll_on_implementation

You might want to take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_revisions/Trial#Straw_poll_on_implementation. Badagnani (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Anarchism a 'free for all'

I'm somewhat perplexed somebody at the article for anarchism would perpetuate this misconception. Please read the article. Zazaban (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't be perplexed. Just use your dictionary: "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness" ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

A "state of lawlessness" is a neutral phrase which does not imply "a free for all." It merely indicates an absence of state enforced edicts: laws. Whether such a scenario would impact positively or negatively is left unsaid. Further, understand you are quoting "Anarchy." Understand that the popular definitional use of "anarchy" is entirely removed from the term "anarchism", a socio-political philosophical tradition which posits that governments are at best ineffective, or at worst harmful, in maintaining social harmony, and provide theorized/speculative social alternatives to harmonize society. I must press that you should read the article. --Cast (talk) 03:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I used the term free for all on the article's talk page. Your idea of a lawless state and mine might be a little different, but free for all sounds about right. Anarchy and anarchism are closely related linguistically and ideologically. I think your distinction is hard to support. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Linguistically the two terms are linked, however you are largely mistaken in the view that they are ideologically linked—especially given that anarchy-as-term is not an ideology. I will grant that it has been argued by post-leftists that anarchism is at its best when it is critically developed as a non-ideology based philosophy, and so use the term "anarchy" in place of an "anarchism". You would be incorrect in your supposition that my distinction is hard to make. I have a whole list of notes and over 169 years of history which makes the case. --Cast (talk) 03:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're right that one is the ideology and the other is the state of being. But as far as a difference beyond that? Not so much. Of course I've been wrong before. But the online dictionary seems to make a good case for my being right. Are you sure you're not turning subtle academic distinctions into giant ideological rifts that aren't significant for a general encyclopedia? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Reading the article 'anarchism' will support our view. Please read it, I beg of you. Zazaban (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't. I think I'm elaborating on a major philosophical tradition and getting nowhere. Have you started reading the anarchism article yet? These distinctions are hardly "academic" and insignificant. Anarchism has had a direct impact on the global history of the world since its inception. It is tremendously disheartening that you feel internet dictionaries can properly counter a library of philosophical literature laying out anarchist philosophy.--Cast (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I cry for the future of humanity. Zazaban (talk) 07:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

St Joan

I did the redirect for the school. though it is in Queens, the relevant diocese is Brooklyn. Some of the earlier version were vandalism to the extent that nonsense wasn't an absurd thing to call them. DGG (talk) 03:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Flagged / bush band

Haha, did you find my bush band? You can always add links to audio and video (I do). Regarding the flagged revisions, I'm personally against it, as a newly created corps of "surveyors" will be needed to approve each new edit before it appears to the world. That's what Citizendium calls "constables." These "surveyors" may not know anything about the subject in question, or drag their feet in approving a queue of edits by editors lower on the rungs. That's why I support our current mode, where editors such as us watch pages we care about and are knowledgeable about, and do that same job, reversing questionable edits and vandalism quickly. The reason they're trying to do this (and have done at de:WP) is that they're embarrassed by vandalism that shows up briefly, and they don't even want it to appear to the public even briefly, hence holding new edits until "surveyors" can either approve them or throw them out. This is likely due to WP's reputation and (probably more likely) its market share, which is tied to its reliability. I don't believe it's a good trade-off. And, by the way, they want you to think it's over your head and not give your opinions. The comment pages have been moved several times and discussion posts asking for wider community input removed more than once, in an effort to discourage wide community knowledge or understanding of this crucially important proposal. Badagnani (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

...take a youtube break...

...whenever you get tired of Ayn. Here's the boys for you, playing an old Iggy tune: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX6n8YX3UZI. Later! Drmies (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

In memoriam

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GX-pVhTZg0U

I'm not much of a fantasy island fan. What happens at the end? Weren't they trying to get off an island, or onto one? Wait was that Gilligan's Island? That show was great! ... a three hour tour... a three hour tour... I'm actually using a computer powered by coconuts. The pedaling is quite a workout! ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not either, but Ricardo Montalbán died yesterday. I thought a little bit of "The plane! The plane!" would be a nice balm. Bongo matic 08:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

They say it's the thought that counts... I assumed it was the little guy that passed, but I think he kicked the bucket a while back. Several of Gilligan's Islanders are gone now too. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust I suppose. Spartacus (Kirk Douglas) was a real loss, and Paul Newman of course. Only the beat of the tribal drum, the bongo, seems to go on for ever... the rhythm that is life and death. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey, There...I really appreciate the advice on getting an article going. ;-) Take Care! Anthonylpeterson (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Of course you can be a great help of mine. It'll always be my pleasure. You too take care. (Footage (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC))

...its been a pleasure having you as my friend and my tutor at the same time in the other side of this keyboard. Stay Cool and Nice always. Thankz a lot!!! Happy New Year too my friend. Jjskarate (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind message

Thank you for the kind message. I am greatly appreciative of your friendship. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

PS, almost forgot:

Ecoleetage (talk) wishes you peace!

Spread peace and goodwill by adding {{subst:WikiPeace}} to other's talk pages with a friendly message.

Power to the Faroe Islands

Well, I had another few looks at Knút Háberg Eysturstein, and decided that (with a little bit of work) it is worth keeping. You see, us anarchists from the Old World stick together, haha. Take it easy brother! Drmies (talk) 05:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

Would you mind picking a position on the mediation thing? I'm not trying to be catty, but I just spent the last hour making an ArbCom request, so I'd rather not scrap all that work if we're not going to mediation. Essentially, the way mediation works is that an uninvolved editor helps us iron out a compromise. Since Kjaer and Steve's big concern is that other editors are pushing some type of anti-Rand agenda, a neutral editor will help solve that problem. However, everyone has to agree to the mediation or its rejected. I have to step away from my computer for a time, but if you do agree to mediation, would you mind scrapping my arbitration request and notifying folks of the change? (I've already notified everyone involved of the arbitration request) Idag (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, hold off on scrapping the ArbCom request because there's a good change that Kjaer will reject mediation anyway. Idag (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your good faith efforts and I apologize if my misunderstanding of procedures has contributed to your doing unnecessary work. It was certainly not my intention. I do think rushing into any new process seems imprudent moments after a lock down of the page. I want to hear from the editors who haven't had much to say of late except to push hard for a roll back. That's the approach that seems most appropriate to me at this point. But I am willing to consider all suggestions and comments. For what it's worth they are stuck with the most recent version of the article page, so it's not like they have some kind of obstructionist self-interest in refusing to discuss (something I have very recently experienced in other disputes that went on for weeks over what I consider to be trifles as opposed to the reworking and writing of a contentious article as is the case here). And I appreciate your earlier comment and you should know I am not one to hold a grudge or to carry a hatchet. There is no time, but the present, or something like that. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way Idag, as I had objected to the last mediation request, wouldn't it have made sense to discuss it with me before initiating a new request? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you would now be on board for this mediation request, since it is every bit as flawed as the previous one and nothing exists that has changed things. Please read the various comments that Kjaer and I have made explaining why this mediation process would be bad for the article. --Steve (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I filed an arbitration request because the mediation request was denied at the time, and I was not aware that it was possible to reopen those. Hence, I thought the only option left was arbitration. Though at the current rate it unfortunately looks like we'll be going to arbitration anyway. Idag (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for third opinion

Please, would you mind, as a menber of the Food and drink WikiProject and a food minded person taking a look at this article: Apfelstrudel and give a third opinion on it?

We did not agreed about a thing or two (ingredients, preparation) about this pastry with an other editor, like this edit which is not a reference at all, and looked like this: (ref name="butter">In this recipe good olive, or other oil may be substituted for butter, according to taste</ref, (even if he-she added it like a reference).

But now things are getting out of control. The other editor is upset and is taking things personally, and is making his-hers best to find as many faults as he/she possibly can.

He (let’s say he), started it by critisizing:

the lack of Strudel history, so I added history,

than he tagged it (and many other thingsas well, like served sprinkled with powdered sugar, or with coffe, ) and I made some new clarifcations on the time periods and added references where taggs were.

Then he was critisizing the references, so I added some new.

Now he is critisizing the article in the last edit summary that is: The article is more like a recipe and how to guide than an encyclopaedic article about the dish. It is also very Austrian biased despuite this dish now being global.

First the fault was that it was Hungarian biased (because of the references), now is Austrian biased because the new references I added, and doing this in spite of the fact that he refered (on the discussion page) to the fact that he knows about the dish because his father is Austrian. Now his new problem is that the article is more like a recipe, and he is trying to say this when his first contribution sounded like this:

a straightforward process that appears complex. The dough is kneaded by flogging often against a table top to align the starch molecules, rested, rolled out to the size of a large serving platter, bushed with melted butter and than stretched by hand onto a floured cloth. The dough should be very thin, and holes are disregarded,

se here the contribution: [15] Saying that the aricle is like a recipe is not logical, because he was the one himself who added a lot of the directions all by himself.

The only thing I can do is to add some more international references like this: Real Homemade Strudel Doughand give up...

I do not want to be called a Strudelfascist any more (mark, that I never made any personal attacs on him), and the person decleared that he does not want to have any more contact with me.

An other weird thing about this is that while he was having this conflict with me my computer was hacked extensively, and also crashed several times. All this strangely stoped imediately after I left a message about this on the page. It is hard if not impossible to prove anything about this, but this is what happened, and I do not feel either going on discussing things with him any more.

I would apreciate to have a third opinion from somebody who is knowlegable about food and is a menber of the Food and drink WikiProject.

Warrington (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to give any form of opinion, I suspect we may need to make it substantially more formal within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You may wish to look at this. Whatever this is, it has got out of hand. I am somewhat bewildered by the strange accusations of a fellow editor, but I suppose that is life.

I'm open to your suggestions. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

[BellJ-USAT-2009-01-03-1] Bell, Jerrett. "Sproles, Chargers shock Colts 23-17 in overtime upset". USA Today. January 3, 2009. Retrieved: 2009-01-04

[uow-2] "Costco's square milk jug curses milk consumers" (HTML). Retrieved January 8, 2009.

[1]

[1]

Another song

Snickers Salad

Welcome templates

Rashid Khalidi

Scalper?

Carlo Cattarello

New instruments

Categories

Yuzu

Barnstar

Seven-layer salad

Thankyou

Re: Suggestion

Bad news, Good news

Civility caution

Removal of AFD comments

The Valley (MTV series)

Bill Scott

Well, you did ask for it

Sub Page

rhmed

OMG!

Accident Move

Refernce to wikipedia

Snickers salad

Khalidi

RMS Andania

Welcome templates, revisited

Micronations

sup

Seasons Greetings

Pump up the volume

Merry Christmas!

You too

Veggie pho

Merry Christmas

Christmas

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Wikibreak

Thanks

Kishka, again

Polka Hall of Fame

Ho Ho Ho!!!

List of Nazi philosophers

Re: Scappy New Year

The Coalition Coupon

December 2008

More on the Coupon

Why are we smirking?

Coupon clipper

Re: Photos

Cartoons

Content

Fine

Award

DYK for Bill Scott (author)

DYK nom for Leaving Springfield

Welcome template

Nazi Philosophers/ or what ever it is called today

thanks

WP:CSD issues

Jujyfruits

Sources vs References

Artisan Article

DYK for Burnt Hair Records

Thank you

Thanks!

IIY

Crepidotus versutus

The family

Creepmime, for the last time (for now)

...before I forget and the Freixenet takes over...

Humor warning

College football players

Resolutions for the New Year

Aubs Eat Boogers

Am I being followed?