User talk:Ched/Archive 11


 * October 2009

To Follow up on
Since we're maturing as a community, maybe it's time to revisit these things. — Ched : ?  15:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Administrator Code of Conduct
 * Admin accountability poll

User:ObserverNY
I'm starting to reconsider. You can see this discussion. Frankly, I don't think vandalism, pretending it's not you, and then brushing it off doesn't show the type of conduct we want. I've suggested an IB topic ban, but I really don't know anymore. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to request that you reconsider the unblock of ObserverNY. His reverts and attitude behind them are non-productive and overly heavy-handed, IMO.  For the most recent example, please see the Glenn Beck talk page and section "Break" for my personal concerns.  Thank you. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, I appreciate you letting me give someone a second chance. Some people learn, some don't.  I tried to give good advice at the time, but I didn't try to monitor or be a mentor to anyone.  I didn't even think that a block at the time was "wrong", I just requested a second chance, with the understanding that I would offer some "do's and don'ts".  I appreciate you allowing me that.  If there is disruption, then by all means it should be stopped by whatever means are necessary.  I don't really have time at the moment to review these things in detail, so ... hey ... I trust your judgment.  Whatever you think is best for the wiki.  I'll try to have a look tomorrow if you'd like, but I don't feel it would be right for me to just outright "block" without looking.  If you're familiar with the situation, and believe in your heart that it's the right thing to do - please don't hesitate on my account.  Best. — Ched :  ?  21:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am willing to give a second chance, but if someone doesn't learn (or want to learn), that's enough. He's been indefinitely blocked again, and the first condition to returning in my opinion should be a topic ban on all IB-related pages.  His behavior elsewhere, while probably enough to get more people blocked, is at least somewhat tolerable.  Let's see if he can get a third chance.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Apology?
Why on earth should you apologize? So far as I can tell, you did nothing which would seem to require any sort of apology. John Carter (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you John, that is very encouraging. I also believe that as well; however, I realized when I accepted Pedro's RfA nom that I would be held to the highest degree of integrity.  I also realized that I was accountable to the community as a whole, therefore my moral compass pointed to speaking outright, and offering myself for review.  There are a great many people screaming for justice (or at least that's what they are calling it), and I am remembered of the poem First they came....  I could not stand by silently while those I know stand before a stoning mob without stepping up to face the music.  I would rather fall for what is right, than to stand for what is wrong.  Thank you for your kind words. ;) (link for those who are wondering.) — Ched :  ?  23:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you've done anything wrong
From what you have said, you did not do anything wrong at all. From the very beginning I have maintained that nobody is obliged to rat on a friend (or anybody else). You have no duty to report. You only have a duty not to falsify. Knowing that Law == The undertow a few weeks ago did not put you into any sort of conflict of interest with Wikipedia policies as far as I can tell, according to the principles that I believe in. Regards, Jehochman Talk 00:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So we're letting Ched off ? I was getting amped up for the stoning. How utterly disappointing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you Jehochman, I think there a lot of bad things going on in regards to the whole situation, but I have far less knowledge of WP history than many others. I see that undertow requested a review of a ban/block that was handled "off-wiki", and ArbCom did not respond to the request.  I also see that Law was a good editor, and a good admin.  I'm having trouble seeing any justification much of the current treatment and accusations being tossed around.  Other than that, I'll let ArbCom handle the issue, I'm here if anyone has any questions.


 * CoM, I'm assuming that your comment was meant to make me smile ... thank you. ;) ... Just in case it wasn't though ... My recall page is now posted at: User:Ched Davis/Recall — Ched : ?  06:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

+ me. I see no need nor reason for an apology from you; I gently reject it as unnecessary. You remained silent; you did not deceive nor aid and abet anyone to violate an ArbCom ban. You found out well after the Rfa; so you couldn't have been a party to the breaches of trust which have many of us concerned. The policies that have been broken have been neatly outlined by Barberio: and you have done none of those things. Finding out after the fact and not being a whistle blower is not a policy violation nor a breach of trust. If anything, those who placed you in that difficult position owe you an apology, but otherwise, I see no reason for an apology in your case at all, and certainly not from you. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 22:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Banning policy — Overturning and assisting the overturn of a ban without the consent of community consensus, or the Arbitration committee, is forbidden by any means.
 * Sock puppetry — Alternate accounts must not be used to avoid scrutiny; mislead or deceive other editors; edit project-related discussions, such as policy debates or Arbitration Committee proceedings; or circumvent sanctions or policy. Collusion to support this is a grave breach.
 * Civility — Aiding and abetting someone's breach of policy is a hostile act against the community. Engaging in a cover up is a hostile act towards the community. They are a grave breach of civil behavior.
 * Administrators — Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities.


 * Thank you puppy! I really appreciate the leader of our puppy cabal taking the time to offer such kind words.  Honestly though, nobody even hinted that I should say anything ... except for my own conscience.  The thing that I hate is all these folks that I admire and respect who are bickering, pointing fingers, and looking for a person to blame.  I thought the "Law" account did some great work here; both as an editor and as an admin - and I hate to see that laid to waste.  I never knew "the undertow", so I can't really comment on that - except that it appears that he did request through ArbCom channels to have his block reviewed.  I get the impression that it was lost through technology (rather than being ignored), and the whole "system" was something that needs to be improved.  I guess I've been so very lucky on so many fronts here at WP.  First the great folks like Huntster, Royalbroil, and Pedro who took me in and taught me how to work here.  Then - I work largely in the NASCAR articles ... and that's just a such a special group of folks.  We'll bicker and all, but at the end of the thread - we laugh, and find a way to improve the content.  I understand that when folks work together for an extended period of time that hard feelings build up; be it an oppose at an RfA, an XfD, or some content issue.  I know that those types of things are unavoidable.  It's just that as I see it - we're in some uncharted territory here, growing as a community, and I think we have to work to fill in the gaps rather than trying to find someone to "blame".  Just IMHO thoughts.  Cheers and best .. "woof" — Ched :  ?  00:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was told by at least two people, back in May and July, that Law had been the undertow, but like you that name meant nothing to me. I didn't follow ArbCom, I don't even now. It was just a "Oh yeah, right." --Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point Malleus. Knowing the user's former identity does not necessarily mean knowing about all the circumstances. That's why I've focused my concerns narrowly, just on those who I'm pretty sure did know the full facts of the matter and helped him through RFA nonetheless. Jehochman Talk 01:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the RfA is worrying. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I disagree with Kww, who feels that those who knew Law was a ban-evading sock should be summarily de-adminned - although I can see his point - but that the nominator and two of the most vocal supporters at the Rfa knew is much more serious IMO. It doesn't help that althoguh the nominator has expressed some regret, he seems to think the concern is largely personal and not about corruption and nepotism etc - and the other two have been defiant and self righteous in every post I've seen so far. For those like you and Ched who didn't have the backstory, and didn't know or realize it was an Arbcom-enacted sanction evading sock, no concern or blame at all is directed your way SFAICT. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 18:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Trolling by JohnHistory
If you're going to claim to be objective, you need to keep your word. Get your political cohort to stop his trolling NOW. --Calton | Talk 03:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough .. could you point me to a link please? — Ched : ?  04:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

List of Daytona 500 pole position winners
I see you're quite distracted right now, but I do have a question on what we've been developing. Are you sure the second round of qualifying still applies for the Daytona 500? This source doesn't talk about it and neither does that gray matter memory chip inside my skull. There used to be second round qualifying about 10 years ago. You've used a book reference that I can't access. My jayski source looks excellent for polishing off that section about exactly how the Daytona 500 field is currently set. I knew that something was missing!  Royal broil  04:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sigh ... you know RB, I tried so hard to just stay away from the drama stuff and concentrate on content, I really did. Occasionally I'd see something that wasn't quite fair, and I'd try to balance things out - or see someone getting the short end of the stick and try to offer a helping hand.  Sometimes I'll see a person getting insulted and attacked, and I'll try to stop it.  But here recently I found that some folks were getting really mauled for something they didn't say, but simply knew about.  Actually, lots of folks knew, and I knew a part of it too.  My conscience wouldn't allow me to stay silent - but I know it's all stuff you avoid, so ....

Ahh ... I could send you a photo of the page in the book I used for reference so you can check to see if my wording accurately describes what is said. The book was published in 2000, so if you think it's better to just eliminate it - I'm not going to be upset - whatever is best for the article. That Jayski source looks great!, I have no problems with any re-write on this stuff. I haven't looked over it, but did notice you'd been working on it, and I'll run through one more time to see if I see anything too. I noticed one thing in my last proof-read that really made me laugh. A line in there said the restrictor plates had been in use since 1998 .. instead of 1988 ... had been there for over a month I think. Anyway, I'll take a look, and drop a line on the talk page if you're about done. Cheers. — Ched : ?  04:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What's in the article was correct in around 2000, now it's changed to what's on jayski. I suppose the article needs to state both scenarios, it would be an improvement to expand the history. I'll need some time, of course. I'll probably head all the way to Rockford Speedway tomorrow for the day, so I guess the article will have to wait a bit... I hope that problems can be resolved swiftly so that everyone can focus on building an encyclopedia instead of drama. I did notice your catch about the year of the restrictor plate; I hope that I would have caught it in my thorough reviewing that I'm doing right now. I hope to be done with the article this week before Thursday Oct 8th because I'm on a road trip from Oct 9 - 11. I'll be coming home with pictures from the LaCrosse Fairgrounds Speedway for that upcoming article. I need to do the major rewrite to David Pearson's article before I can get to that article. I want to let the Daytona polesitter list/article sit for at least 1 full week before we propose it at FLC.  Royal broil  05:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. I doubt the problems will be resolved quickly, but I don't have plans to get involved too much other than to answer any questions that are asked of me.  I'm going to concentrate on a couple DYKs here for a bit, and get back to cleaning up some BLP uncat stuff.  Folks know where to find me if they want me, and I'm not ashamed of anything I've ever done here.  I've made mistakes as we all have - so I'm content that I've learned a lot in my short time here.  Enjoy your road trip - I'll be gone for about a week starting Oct. 14. - driving an elderly couple to Flordia for the winter.  Not sure how much I'll have access to the net, but I'll check in when I can. — Ched :  ?  05:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good plan about the sitting back part. I dug around a little to see what's going on, and it sounds pretty big. No need to comment on my last sentence or this part of my comments - you've said enough. I'm not fishing for a response; I'd prefer that you didn't/hadn't responded. That type of stuff makes my head ache and I fortunately lose interest pretty quickly. Let's wait with attempting FLC until after you get back from the trip. I want to finish up the article before you leave and let any dust settle while you're gone. I read the article twice and I think it's almost there, the main thing is that I need to rework the pre-Top 35 lineup vs. the post-Top 35 lineup. There are a few sentences that flip topics too fast without a smooth transition. I'll try to rework them or bring them up to you to see if you have ideas. I'm off to the races (tee hee)!  Royal broil  12:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey .. I gotta admit ... I'm actually getting really excited here. Featured content is ... it's just so cool!  Hope the races were good for ya too. ;). — Ched :  ?  00:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I keep trying to find time for the article. Honestly! Every night I seem to have something, whether it be garden work, races, Packer game :((( or a meeting. I did read it a few times and I'm struggling with how to redo the article with the way qualifying was with 2-3 rounds before the Top 35 and 1 round after. Any thoughts? I have a meeting tonight, maybe/hopefully/possible a little time on Thursday night (if the predicted rain doesn't kill my connection), then gone for the weekend to La Crosse, Wisconsin.  Royal broil  23:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

←Hey, NP. Real life has to come first, same on my end. I hadn't looked at the article, or really thought much about it since you started the copyedit. I'll take a look tomorrow, and think about how to do it in the meantime. Packers fan eh? ... sorry about the Vikings game. Steelers fan here of course. Hey I got a nice burning bush planted last weekend, and next year is a definite that I'm gonna be doing some "FOOD", fresh from the garden is the best! I've heard of La Crosse, and I think I've been through there once - either way .. have a great time! I'll let you know if I do anything with the 35 vs. 3 rounds. Sorry for the delay in the reply, I had to walk away from WP for a bit so I didn't post something emotional that I'd regret later. Cheers. ;-) — Ched : ?  02:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

JohnHistory Issue
Okay, that's what I have been hoping for just to come back to some new tirade of insults and personal attacks. But, I would point out that I have tried extremely hard to not go to the level that Calton has, in a carefree way, in this "discussion". However, the issue with me was not Calton, but getting some guy, who confidently claimed I was a sock puppet, names wrong and then telling him, in good faith just like the story, to not become the boy who cried wolf which I thought was an appropriate allusion and good healthy example given the circumstances and evidence put forth. JohnHistory (talk) 05:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory


 * BTW, I have not been on in awhile and I didn't see the thread, or what have you that you said was started about me and ObserverNY. In that link, I just found something about her and nothing by you. JohnHistory (talk) 05:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory


 * You essentially agreed that "the boy who cried wolf" is a threat, and not a basic advice, and that the colossal difference in language between the allegation of a threat (boy who cried wolf) and Calton's "A lesson for your ass" about ObserverNY block, and the use of the word "cohort" by him some how was the equivalent to what I said to the guy who confidently, yet falsely accused me of "sock puppetry". I totally and completely disagree with that assessment.  Not only were they two separate issues, but two totally different things. JohnHistory (talk) 06:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory


 * I didn't look real close as I noticed that MuZ has posted before me. Basically I'm saying you two shouldn't post to each others talk  pages.  Too many variables to always get exactly the right responses.  Too many threads get missed and not read by admins trying to stop the disruption, too many admins and other editors who will side with someone regardless of the facts, and too often it ends up with both editors being blocked.  Some admins block for WP:CIV - others won't until WP:NPA.  I know it's not fair, it's just that that's the way it is.  I'm not sure who filled the sock report - but that obviously got laughed at because it was so ludicrous.  Calton's history is known to many, I'd simply suggest just staying away from his talk page all-together just to be on the safe side.  If he keeps coming at you - save the diffs, and if it becomes outright violations of NPA or harassment, then ask at WP:AN/I in a calm, non-accusatory fashion that the diffs be reviewed.  Stick to the high-road, and nobody of any consequence can every come at you, and you'll end up further ahead in the long run.  If you have any questions, feel free to stop by here (my page) anytime, and I'll try to help as time permits.


 * I'm not sure what happened with ONY. I requested an unblock for her a while back, gave her some links to read about NPA and dispute resolution - somewhere she to blocked for WP:3RR - not sure why.  Then she got blocked again today - again, I'm not sure why, but if she keeps her cool, she can get unblocked.  If she mouths off in a smart-alec way, even if she's right, she likely won't get unblocked.  Calm, professional, mature conversation is the way to achieve acceptable results in the end.  A lot of folks who were perfectly correct in what they were saying have been banned because of the way they responded to things.  Stay cool, be patient, and stick to the high road - it'll work out in the end. — Ched :  ?  06:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay fair enough, but we had an edit dispute so can I please post my little late night continuation to your pre great advice thing? I'm going to do it!!!  here it goes in all it's debauchery and glory...Anyway, I understand you must purify and adjudicate yourself, but at some point you bite into the margins of the man.  You kill a little something of yourself.  That is something akin to a bullet in the head to me.  Now, don't get me wrong, the whole Calton thing was unhealthy at this point since he refused to deal with the issues and instead was just slandering, but the ohamaunited (I thought obamaunited) sock puppetry thing was totally separate from that and in no way what Makenzie (sp?) was alleging. Anyway, lay me prostrate upon the cross of Wiki, may my blood run and not boil.  May it license itself to the hereafter and not the here within.  May it run and not thicken in my assessments of the totalitarian nature of this foul year of our lord, two thousand and nine, and all that has becomes her. JohnHistory (talk) 06:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory


 * *smiles* Point well made .. and taken John. ;) — Ched : ?  06:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2009 Newsletter
The September 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy 's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

ahhh.. awww ... geesh ... I don't even know what to say here. I mean .. THANK YOU!!!!, it's just that there are so many great folks here that probably deserve this kind of thing. Thank you Rlevse, I am truly honored and humbled by this. — Ched : ?  00:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! I celebrated by having a calzone, stromboli, and mango. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I told 'ya. Actually, Ched, I think you should've gotten yours back when I did... in April. ;) Rlevse is the best, isn't he? Makes you feel all happy inside. :)  ceran  thor 11:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Congrats on your own day Ched. -- Pedro J. the rookie 18:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Administrator
Good initiative, Ched. I'll join (but will wait for admins to join at the top of the list!). The lead is very nicely written, except for the very end: "and this project is an effort to consolidate those efforts". I'd have changed the first "effort", but can't think what to put. Over to you. ("Attempt" would be OK, but not positive enough, IMO. Or just "... this project aims to consolidate these efforts."?)

Have you seen WP:New admin school? I stumbled on it a while ago; you might consider linking to it, but I must say I haven't looked at the Admin coaching page properly, so they might be too similar. Tony  (talk)  04:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep ... one of the first things I did actually.  Not sure it's on the project page ... if you get to it before I do, please add it.

Thanks for starting this, Ched. It is serving a very useful purpose. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Trypofish .. we're all in this project together. ;-) — Ched : ?  00:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked
Just in case I'm not able to edit when I get back ... I'm only trying to help .. honest! — Ched : ?  05:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No ones gonna block you for thinking of ideas. If I'd been blocked for each time I voiced an opinion, popular or unpopular, I'd have a block logas large as Australias foreign debt. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  08:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Support block It's time to teach young Chedsky a lesson about how we do things here on Wiki! No mercy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Boy, you folks take your spam seriously around here. ;) — Ched : ?  18:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked, time you take time to think what you did in WIKI we have rules man. -- Pedro J. the rookie 18:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * <* smiles *>. For those of you wondering .. I started-up WikiProject Administrator after following up on some of LHvU's work and talking to him.  Once I moved it out to main space - I spammed a WHOLE bunch of folks.  It's tongue in cheek humor.  Of course ... if the "thought police" ever establish a beachhead here ... I might be in trouble for some of my thoughts of the outright crap that's been going on lately. ;) — Ched :  ?  18:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

BRC
Thanks for your note, which is a great example of "AGF". I've corrected my post at RfAR, and I apologize for the error.  Will Beback   talk    21:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I know that 99% of the folks here are here because they want to help the project. — Ched :  ?  18:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion
Hey Ched, would you mind deleting User:Ceranthor/Awards? It's a stale page, I don't use it.  ceran  thor 21:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Requested, in a longer sentence structure, via IRC. This is to prevent people from thinking something dubious happened or that Ched and I are mind readers.  ceran  thor 21:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

FG
Family Guy is now a GA thanks for helping me with that around this month, Thanks =D. -- Pedro J. the rookie 18:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey .... Congratulations! ... glad to hear it. ;) — Ched : ?  18:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Pedro J. the rookie 18:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

WPBio
A while back, WP Biography decided all bands would be tagged with their project. Did that change recently? Chubbles (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The last I knew there was a discussion on one of the BLP talk pages that indicated that Bands and/or groups would not be included. Let me see if I can find that link - if you could find the link you're referring to, I'll have a read through that as well and we'll see what should be done. — Ched :  ?  20:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * this is the one I was looking at. — Ched : ?  20:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Rich Farmbrough went through and tagged several thousand band pages many months ago. I think bots were also tagging them, too; there are probably tens of thousands so tagged. I just hope you all can make your mind up about it. Chubbles (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey... you're part of our family too ;-) ... I just don't think that having "bands" as part of the BLP project is what we're looking for. I'm open to community opinion on it, do you have a venue you'd prefer to discuss it at? — Ched :  ?  20:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've opened a thread about this here. — Ched : ?  20:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sometimes I wake up to find 1200 edits on my watchlist, all courtesy of taggers for WPBio. Not that anyone should edit with the goal of keeping my watchlist small, but it makes me wonder whether the time isn't better spent doing something else. I don't actively work with the project and am content to leave that to the pros. Chubbles (talk) 13:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, this is a hobby for me - I haven't gotten a single paycheck yet - lol. The only thing I'm a pro at is Computer services, but I enjoy it here. (for the most part).  By the way, since there wasn't a consensus to change - I put those half-dozen articles back they way they were.  Thanks for alerting me to this, Cheers and best. — Ched :  ?  15:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ched you are a friend (even if that is bad)
Maybe one day you can understand, but until then I consider you a beautiful human being in a land of toxic craters. You are a true oasis in a sea of gasoline, a clear path in a minefield, and I hope...a friend. JohnHistory (talk) 07:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory


 * Wow, not sure what I did to deserve such praise, but thank you. I'm always proud to make another friend John. ;) — Ched :  ?  15:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

RE:just a note
Thanks ched i have gotten this far thanks to you and Steve helping and givein me advice, so thanks i can remember just a few months before when i started editing, a little trobulemaker, LOL. =D. -- Pedro J. the rookie 20:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that
I didn't mean to offend you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Accepted, and OK — Ched : ?  02:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I really am sorry. I think it's a NY cultural thing to give a hard time to amigos. I meant it as banter and a respectful jab. That's all. Sorry. Cheers. Thanks for all your generous efforts on behalf of your fellow editors and exceptional kindness and collegial approach to contributing here. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, I don't hold grudges - life is too short for that. I believe and AGF that it wasn't meant the way I took it.  I've been to NY before and understand that they have a different culture and communication style, so no harm done.  Cheers and best — Ched :  ?  14:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You're not trustworthy
Let's be blunt: it's not just that I think your simplistic equivalency is because you don't understand the situation, it's that it's apparent to me that you're actively protecting those you've explicitly claimed as your political cohorts and, frankly cannot and should not be trusted as an honest broker concerning them. So no, your words cut no ice with me. Reality check for your false equivalency: he not only started it, he persisted despite multiple, escalating requests to stop doing so. I realize that pointing out the obvious will make no difference here, as you've already chosen who and what you're going to line up with, but a word of warning that if you continue to push the envelope regarding the use of your admin authority to support the disruptive and the POV pushers, other people WILL notice.

Meanwhile, I invite you in joining me in congratulating your President, Barack Obama, on his winning of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. Surely as a true patriot this cannot be the least controversial for you, can it? --Calton | Talk 14:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I must say that your post has certainly opened a window to which I am able to view your character. I have to say that I am rather disappointed at the lack of civility, the lack of insight, the lack of ability to assume a NPOV, the lack of collaboration, and in general the lack of integrity.  In your own words: "To be blunt [...] Do I look like Montel Williams?"  Your inability to abide by WP:AGF is a rather disappointing thing.  This type of approach certainly explains many of the entries in your block log.  I understand that those who are inexperienced in civil discourse can become enraged when chastised; however, as you have a history to which your blocks for personal attacks were escalated to the point of a two week block, I must ask you to please step back and reconsider your approach to editing here.  I'm not sure what your post here is an effort to achieve, especially since I don't actively edit in any of the political areas that you seem to be so concerned about.  If there are any particular edits that I've faltered in, please provide the diffs.  If you are upset that I blocked you for explicitly implying that another editor was mentally deficient - well, sorry, you're not allowed to do that here.  If you feel that the community is unable to trust my judgment; you are free to initiate a request for my de-adminship at: Community de-adminship.  You are also free to request my recall.  If you do so, please have the courtesy to notify me with any links.  Beyond that I'm afraid I'll have to deny any further comment on our interactions.


 * As far as Obama winning a Nobel Peace Prize, of course I congratulate him. I'm not sure why you consider it "controversial", but that is up to you.

Kind regards — Ched : ?  17:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Ched. People get frustrated. I hope you don't take any of the outlandish accusations personally. Thanks again for your good work and collegial approach to editing Wikipedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * People get upset and need to blow off some steam I guess. Seems that a LOT of folks have been operating on the raw edge lately.  I propose that we shut down Wikipedia for two weeks .. and EVERYONE take a break! ;) — Ched :  ?  18:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The trick is be/stay friendly, smile, put on deodorant and brush your teeth. Pick 3.--Buster7 (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But Ched, if we shut down Wikipedia for two weeks, what am I supposed to do? On topic, I find the best way to AGF is to ignore everyone ;) — Huntster (t @ c) 23:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The trick, I think, is to be able to tell the difference between those who're for the right reasons and those who aren't, whether you agree with the latter or not. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I have noticed that the longer I'm here, the more I see people that I respect and admire on opposite sides of an argument. I'll try to stay out of the middle of things that don't concern me, unless I'm requested to do otherwise.  I think we're all here for good reasons, to build on the sum of human knowledge, but the vast differences in culture, upbringing, and beliefs often leads to disagreement.  Perhaps many people attempt to inject the foundations of "real life" into our project.  Civility, integrity, respect and kindness are wonderful ideals - and something we should all strive for.  But "real life" isn't always what we thought it would be when we were younger.  I'm not sure that Wikipedia is the place to try to build the "world" that we wish we had, and I highly doubt it is capable of dealing with those aspirations.  This past week has certainly been interesting, and indeed very educational.  I have a few articles that need some attention, so I'll try to work on those for a few days.  Then I believe I'll take a bit of a break and head out on a little road-trip late next week.  Perhaps when I return, some of the dust will have settled, and I'll have a better perspective on things.  At the moment, I'd simply settle for a little less fault finding in others, and a little more work on improving the project, rather than trying to engage in the behavior modification of others.  I suppose this is all part of our project maturing, I just hope that it is doing so in a manner that will be beneficial in the long run.  Ignore everyone eh? ... I'll have to give that a try - Huntster has never once failed me when offering his sage words of wisedom. ;) — Ched :  ?  23:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wait, um, was I supposed to be offering sage advice? Okay, scratch my comments.... — Huntster (t @ c) 00:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't help but laugh every time the "You're not trustworthy" bit pops up on my watchlist. I knew I shouldn't have lent you those 5 bucks! ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think the project is maturing, I think it's disintegrating. And I for one will be walking away from it unless it gets its arse in gear, and quickly. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You certainly have a valid point there Mal. I would have been more accurate to say "changing".  And I agree, I don't like a lot of the changes I've seen in the last 6 months.  I'm sure that time frame extends beyond 6 months, but that's all I really have a personal perspective on at the moment.  I imagine that time will put things into perspective.
 * @ CoM ... I wonder if the starter of this thread would be willing to spot me a fin or sawbuck? ;) — Ched : ?  04:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Calton just posted again on my page. He is definitely stalking and obsessed. Is there anything I can do to get this guy to grow up? JohnHistory (talk) 04:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
 * Not unless you've got a time machine; growing up takes time. Chill bro. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 04:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (smiles) ... ^what Mal said!^ — Ched : ?  04:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

← Hmmm ... I'd say just delete the post, and post "WP:DENY comment" in the edit summary. Children like this will soon get bored if you just ignore them. If it continues, I'd say a trip to AN/I would be in order (with diffs), and eventually this type of behavior will be banned. I would definaltely not go to his talk page and respond, that simply lowers you to his level. Stick to the high road, and with patience, in the end it will be stopped - one way or the other. I'd post a warning myself, but I've really just had my fill of drama here lately - it has exhausted me. I'll try to keep an eye open though, and if necessary, I'll do what is required to put a stop to this harassment. — Ched : ?  04:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't get on here the other day in time to heed your advice, but I think it worked out perfectly, so.

Hey, sorry for the way people have dragged you down, maybe I shouldn't post here, but it seems that that would just be feeding into it, and the absurdity of it all. I used to be much more acquainted with the ins and outs of wikipedia, but have forgotten much of it. I was never that technical before so I was wondering if you could help me learn to do some simple things, or have a really good link. Just basic things like citing and showing examples of what others have said I have forgotten, especially when it comes to having it correlate at the bottom. I guess it's not like riding a bike.

P.S. I'm glad Calton and I can't talk to each other, that was exactly what I was asking for, and I don't care if I can write on his page because I had no intention to if he would stop it and though I probably shouldn't have responded I am such the fatal educator sometimes, and didn't think I was being offensive in the process, but you were right to not say a thing. I always seem to miss these things and I would have liked to explain this to them, and refute their whole ridiculous idea that I was the "baiter" in this. One need only look at the language he used v.s. mine and you can tell he was x10 more offensive and "baiting" then me. Believe it or not I was really trying to educate the guy in the beginning, but all's well that ends well. I thought it was ridiculous that some of them accused you of being biased because you and I are able to communicate and have a joke once in awhile, while they, specifically the editor "Guy" went to Calton's page on the 11th or 12th and told him to wait for this "neocon" (me?) to get "baninated", which I wished I could have posted in the discussion. Anyway, at least I don't ever stoop to the point of using phrases like "baninated". So, hopefully this is the end of the drama, at least with Calton and I understand if you don't want to be involved in drama, but I think these people will come at you no matter what, and friendship or not they won't care and are often huge hypocrites. So, let me know if you would help me with becoming a better technical editor, or have a clear cut place for me to learn and not just wiki mumbo jumbo. I remember sourcing things years ago, but I'm not sure I ever did the example citing of others comments which would be very helpful to me. Thanks either way. JohnHistory (talk) 02:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory


 * No worries here John, and all are still welcome here. Before I get into the assistance part with the refs, I'd be happy to address the topic at hand.  I don't feel that anyone has "dragged me down" in any way.  I learned long ago that when there are weights which attempt to pull you down, it's best to cut the ties that bind, and rise above it all.  There are times when people will attempt to cherry-pick at things in an effort to strengthen their arguments, unable to view a situation objectively.  I'm reluctant to attempt any continued edification when this happens, as it tends to breed a sense of discord within the group.  I am aware that I issued equal warnings to both parties after the "attack", and I am fully cognizant of the fact that my efforts were an attempt to reduce the drama, and find a resolution that was equitable to all parties involved.  Perhaps some editors feel that that their tenure here affords them the luxury of violating our policies, this is not the case.  It is natural I suppose to go seeking support from sympathetic sources when one is caught with their hand in the cookie jar - so to speak.  I hold no grudges, and I bear ill-will towards none.  Human nature is what it is, and the situation has simply given me a chance to view the methods of others here that I had previously been aware of, but had not personally interacted with.  I can't deny that I am a bit disappointed in a few folks that I expected more from, but it's not something I intend to lose sleep over either.  I was also pleased to see a few other folks remain objective and simply weigh the facts, and comment on the issues objectively.  I admit that I wish you would have heeded my (and Mal's) advice, and simply removed the post from your talk page, and declined to comment further; but, I understand that you do as you feel you need to.  As this project is an educational venue of sorts, you'll often come in contact with people who are still within the educational system; hence, they have no real-world knowledge of how things work outside our liberal educational system.  They fail to realize that what looks good on paper, does not work in the real world, simply because they haven't experienced the real world yet.  I have had to stand by and see several folks that I respect endure some reprimands simply because I was aware that they were in the wrong.  There are obviously those here who will either fail to see this, or see it and choose to ignore it.  I try to offer advice when I can, but I can't force anyone to take that advice.  It's not always what you say - it's often how it is said that's important.  In the end I know that I can look myself square in the eye when I gaze into a mirror, and that's the defining point for me.  Hopefully this is the end of this particular drama-fest, and we can all move on to more productive efforts.  For myself, I simply reviewed my web-page Desiderata for a bit, and I was at peace once more.


 * As far as the referencing goes: You'll want to review WP:REF. I found early on that there is a great tool available to us under the "my preferences" link at the top right of your Wikipedia page.  On the gadgets tab you should see the option to check off the "refTools" ... this is a great little addition to the editing window which offers you the easy option of filling in the boxes for the references.  It doesn't have all the possible references (movies, TV, etc.), but it does have the basics; news, web, books, etc.  I think you'll find it very useful.  At the bottom of the page you'll want to have a "References" section.  There, you'll want to put the code: , which has become more popular than the old " " tag.  That's really about it until you get into the more advanced note stuff, but I wouldn't worry about that for now.  I hope this helps, Cheers and best. — Ched :  ?  10:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI
There is a discussion in which you have ben involved. wp:ANI Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

RFC
In your view, you fail to take into consideration that Bishonen knew there was a sock puppet and either did not interfere with it being used to edit war, did not prohibit its use in banning proposals, and many other problems that were in violating of the sock puppet policy while benefiting from the result. It is one thing to be a friend, it is another thing to benefit from problems. A family whose father stole money does not get to keep the money, for instance. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK ... I am fully willing to look at anything I may have missed. I am not familiar with "George", and I don't believe that I've ever crossed paths with him.  If you have a link to where either "Bishonen" or "Risker" actively and knowingly either assisted in any violation of policy, or even encouraged someone else to violate policy - please provide me a link to this, and I will adjust my view accordingly.  Hey Ottava - I know you are a great writer, and I admire your skills; but I'm just not in favor of trying to find faults in others, and holding them up to an unfair spotlight.  Wikipedia is not a behavioral modification clinic in my view, I just think that more effort should be directed towards articles and projects - and less in trying to single out people for perceived slights or personal preferences.  — Ched :  ?  21:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ched, I have a section in the evidence that directly shows where Bishonen was participating with -both- Utgard and Geogre. As I stated before, one such item was in a ban proposal she started. Another was a 3RR that she defended. There are many, many more. Please look at the evidence in that section and see how if she would have told people they were one and the same, Geogre would have been blocked quite often for incivility, edit warring, and other problems, and they would not have held any sway in terms of consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I looked at a couple more. I'll look at the rest shortly, but I really need to get some copyediting done that I promised I would do.  Will get back to that in a while. — Ched :  ?  04:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Notice of request for deletion of editor Ched Davis :)
Ched Davis, the editor you are, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that you satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space. Your opinions on yourself are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at User:GlassCobra/Editor for deletion and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit during the discussion but should not remove the nomination (unless you wish not to participate); such removal will not end the deletion discussion (actually it will). Thank you, and have a good sense of humor :). --Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 02:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a note
Just wanted to leave a note for folks stopping by here. I'll be leaving Thursday am. (Oct. 15) EST. and will not be accessing WP on a regular basis until the following Wednesday (Oct. 21). If I get the chance, I'll check in a couple times when possible. Hopefully it will NOT be too often. Not that there's anything wrong with WP or myself, but the past month has left me feeling like a break would be beneficial. Cheers and best to all. (Look Jamie, no smiley face.) — Ched : ?  17:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

good luck on you break Ched. -- Pedro J. the rookie 19:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * :-) Jamie  S93  19:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

good to have you back ched-- Pedro J. the rookie 19:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron Help
RE: Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron

I hope that i am not the only person who has responded to you. Our wikiproject, despite the big numbers, has few active participants, and the active pariticpants have been distracted lately. I myself havent visited the Article Rescue Squadron for days. Better than userfication would be incubation, so several editors can work on it. WP:INCUBATOR

also the editor can use the findsources template. I will suggest both of these to him. Ikip (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * looks like both of the articles were tagged for speedy deletion. I removed one, based on sources, but the other one I could not find enough sources, so it was deleted. It can always be resorted per above. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 04:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey Ikip, sorry for the delay, I was out of town, and out of touch for a bit. I just got back, and I'll take a look as soon as I can. — Ched :  ?  18:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"No rational reason to oppose"
Given that, what keeps you out of the "support" column?&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Obama Article
Hey, I understand you may be gone for awhile, as I just read, but I have some questions and I wanted your input on a couple of things. If you don't have the timing right, and what not, somethings can get away from you. I think I have made some really valid points I would like you to review on the Obama talk page, and give me your input. I caught a catch 22 on there, but it seems that instead of wanting to address the inherent contradiction in logic, it may just get consensus voted on (which I may miss) and I don't want this to be totally lost as I think my logic is 100% solid. Anyway, no drama and I as soon as I remember and practice all of the tools I think things will be very good.

What i saw was that for Obama there was no mention of mixed race, or biracial (despite him being on a list of such people elsewhere on wiki apparently) and no link or anything. I saw the FAQ on said topic, and realized there was an inherent contradiction. First of all ,the African American wiki article states clearly that the term African American is not "mutually exclusive" and that you can be both it and biracial, and that Obama is "obviously biracial". However, some - ,mainly one of the editors/admin who spend there time there kept saying that the weight of sources list him as "african american" so that's what he should be called exclusively and there had been a consensus so no one could cite his mixed race, or provide links to it. However, I said this is using an inclusive term to be exclusive which is inherently not what the intent of the African American article stated, and that article was the one used to justify him being African American in the first place. I said A. there are many sources that detail his mixed race, but more importantly weight of sources is irrelevant since African American is not exclusive, but inclusive to people of mixed race as the definition clearly states, and that self identification is important, but cannot erase ethnic or genetic background. Also, I pointed out that to do so would be to deny a whole segment of the USA/world that has fought and achieved the ability to be recognized as mixed race, and to essentially say they don't even exist. However, my main argument is that Obama being african american is due to the inclusive nature of that designation and thus to use such inclusiveness to exclude is a perversion, and having said that, that the weight of sources therefor in no way undermines, nor refutes him also being of mixed race or biracial heritage. Given that African American is featured so prominently in the article it then would be illogical to say that the even more unusual (fewer numbers) designation of biracial or mixed race should not also be included.

What do you think? JohnHistory (talk) 02:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory


 * For instance, if being of mixed race means you can't be african american, then obama, by definition, can't be african american. If it is, as the wiki definition states, a mutually inclusive term then his mixed heritage cannot be excluded from the article.  Catch-22. JohnHistory (talk) 04:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory


 * Hmmm ... well John, to be honest, we're probably gonna be on opposite sides on this particular one. I just don't pay much attention to the "race" things unless it's a "NASCAR race" or the "human race".  I tend to evaluate things from the inside out rather than judging a book by its cover, so what Obama considers himself to be in relation to his heritage is ok by me.  From a BLP standpoint, I think it's fine if he self-identifies as "African-American" if he so chooses.  I'd imagine his article mentions both his mother and father - so all the encyclopedic info would be there in the article.  My personal thoughts one way or the other really wouldn't be relevant to the article from an encyclopedic standpoint anyway.


 * Sorry, I'm just not going to be much help on the political articles. Not that I DON'T follow those things, just that I don't edit the encyclopedia in those areas.  I'd suggest discussion on the article talk page would be the way to go, and just see what the consensus is in those regards.  For me, "color/race" (or gender, age, religion, or personal preferences etc.) just doesn't/don't matter.  Sorry that I can't be more help here, but it's just not my area of interest or expertise.  Best. — Ched : [[User_talk:Ched Davis| ?

]] 18:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not my area of interest either, it's just beyond reasonable that it would be denied. Obama has never done anything but embrace him being of mixed race (two books) and so I don't understand that argument.  Anyway, I have given up on Wikipedia.  From now on I will, as I leave to study in Europe, just explain why Wiki is total rubbish for anything political.  I mean, could you be more clear then to point out that despite Obama being listed under multiracial people you can't link that at the bottom of his page?  So, honestly, this whole thing is a joke for people who feel self important, but are in fact peons!  May God strike you down if I am lying!  Anyway, no more waste of precious time, we all know Wikipedia is a joke when it comes to anything about politics.  What these "cliques" of people on here (hour by hour) don't realize is that they have made Wiki into a whitehouse branch, and are thus defaming wikipedia day in and day out.  Fine!  Let them make this into a mockery, a joke.  All I wanted was an encyclopedia, but good riddance to bad rubbish as they used to say.  Soon the whole world will realize it.  There's a reason that not one of my professors (minus one who I talked down) would except Wikipedia as a source.  These fouls only make that the reality for the next 100 years, and these are liberal professors mind you. JohnHistory (talk) 11:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHIstory

RFA spam

 * &mdash;Kww(talk) 19:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Vacation
I hope you're enjoying your break. I'm holding down the fort as best I can while you're gone. Hopefully there will be something left when you return... ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

no there is nothing the fort is just been sold cause there is nothing to do.-- Pedro J. the rookie 23:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys! Good to be back home - but lots to catch up on.  Looks like you kept everything in good shape.  Hope to get back to some content here in the next day or two.  Cheers and best — Ched :  ?  12:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks can be deceiving. :) Don't open the closet or look under the rug... Reminds me of [ [Ferris Bueller's Day Off]] Risky Business. There is a small crack in the vase... ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

FLN
can you review the Featured list candidates/List of Family Guy cast members/archive1 and leave comments.-- Pedro J. the rookie 23:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Pedro, sure - I'd be happy to have a look. I'll try to do say in the next day or two. Hope you're well - — Ched :  ?  15:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

David Shankbone
Greetings. Was the removal of Shankbone's article's photo gallery appropriate? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Bugs .. how ya doin buddy? Nope, I didn't even know David had a BLP article.  I knew he was familiar with, and worked with quite a number of "famous" people normally associated with the "Hollywood" scene, but never really looked him up on WP.  I read his blog fairly often, and I've worked with him on several occasions - but I don't know much about him from a "Bio" standpoint.  Good guy I think, and I certainly appreciate is photographic work - but I see the BLP article is now gone.  I'm going to guess it was based mostly on the idea that "notability is not inherited"  - but I didn't have time to weigh in on the AfD - sorry I missed out on that.  Did he have a preference one way or the other on keeping or deleting the article?  Normally, I'd give a lot of weight to the individual's preference when I "!vote" on something like that.  Just my own view on it.  Hope you're well - talk to ya soon. ;) — Ched :  ?  16:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, as you can see by the red link, they deleted the article anyway, so it's almost a moot point. I think part of the problem was that whoever created the article was doing so in bad faith, i.e. whoever it was (I don't recall now) was intending to use it to kind of "coatrack", for the purpose of bashing the guy. So even though it was arguably notable, maybe it's better not to have it. But the policy about galleries in articles is still unclear to me. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably best to see why the article was deleted, as I thought the AFD was a borderline call. We don't need to create contentious articles like that. And it would be best also to get his opinion on it. I think he was asked and he kind of said, "Whatever", but I doubt he's actually neutral about the idea. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow ... I read through the AfD and now a DRV on it all last night. Probably best to just wait a bit, and see how the dust settles on it all rather than jump right into trying to recreate an article.  David doesn't seem to be strong-willed one way or the other on an article - so I'll see how it all shakes out in the end here.   Maybe down the road a few more nice write-ups on his work will surface, and we can build something a little better in the near future.  Looks like he's got a full plate right now in his real life, so I'll try to keep my eyes open on it all - let me know if I can do anything.  Cheers and best buddy. ;) — Ched :  ?  16:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Am I right that the article was begun by an antagonist? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ... but I don't know anything about him/her. Is that someone you're familiar with? — Ched :  ?  16:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Never heard of him until this Articles for deletion/David Shankbone turned up. He has kind of a peculiar editing history, apparently because he has a number of "alternate accounts". But it seems I was incorrect about the author of the article being an antagonist. Regardless, I think you're right that it's best to wait. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Salah Al Bandar
Salah Al Bandar is a "little" article with too many references. I started to whittle them down (the first 4) but stopped before I caused a commotion. I'm sure at least half are repetitions and most of the other half are just fluff. I'm reluctant to "attack" another editors work with the demolition needed. What do you think?--Buster7 (talk) 03:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to have a look at it this weekend Buster - hope you're well. — Ched : ?  15:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Remember me?
Hello, I used to be user VincentValentine29, before I usurped this user name. You may recall that we were both initially confused as to why I accidentally removed your warning to a vandal (turned out Huggle overpowered Twinkle). Anyway, I just randomly came across your successful RfA and wanted to say that I certainly would have voted yes for you had I known it was going on. In June I was dealing with grad school matters (my thesis, specifically) and even went on a vacation (first in several years) so I wasn't editing at the level I usually am. Anyway, I just wanted to say congrats and that adminship couldn't have gone to a more deserving person. Best, Cocytus   [»talk«]  04:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Cocytus - good to see you around again. Thanks for letting me know about your name change, and best of luck. — Ched :  ?  15:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Busy
Sorry folks ... been sooooo busy IRL. I'll try to get the above things looked at ASAP (next day or two). I miss the place, but I gots to get the work while it's available. Talk to ya all soon. — Ched : ?  16:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

List of Daytona 500 pole position winners update
I have done a fairly thorough review of the article and wrote some new content on the current system for the top 39 positions in the race. I just asked User:Sift&Winnow to proofread the article - he's one of the best that I know! After everyone is satisfied with the article, I think we should wait 2-3 weeks to let the dust settle, because good/featured articles need to be stable. Good call about taking the work now and letting the wiki alone for a while! There'll be plenty of time for it later.  Royal broil  02:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sift&Winnow brought up a good point - why is there so much content? Why isn't the methods used to determine the starting lineup either its own article or a section under the Daytona 500? Usually lists have a cursory amount of information to introduce the topic.  Royal broil  03:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I just did another "single" read-through on it as well. What caught my eye was a http wiki link that I didn't understand the purpose to/of/for: (link).  Anyway, yes, I agree, S&W is an excellent editor, and always good to have his eyes on a project.


 * re: content. I'm not sure what to say in response to that.  Kind of goes to the heart of my July post addressing the idea that the article was much more than just "a list", but I tend to go with the flow of things that don't pay my bills - ;).  Much of the content that I added was done so in response to questions and suggestions posted on the talk page by others reviewing the "list" for FLC.  If you think the information should be removed - it's not something I'm going to have a fit over, (although I will admit that there are times that I do become a bit disillusioned at any number of things here).  Like you, I'm here to try to improve, and build things - not to get involved in bickering about details.  Whatever you think is best, is fine by me.  I have pretty much done the best I could with the skills, materials, and resources available to me personally, and have mostly exhausted my where-with-all in regards to that article.  I'd be more than happy to do any of the following: 1.) Submit it to FLC 2.) Wait a couple weeks and do nothing 3.) Follow along with anyone else who submits it to FLC. 4.) Attempt to address or fix anything anyone has questions about. ... or 5.) Know that I did my best, and walk away from it.


 * If you want me to submit it ... let me know. If you submit it ... let me know, so I can follow along.  While I'm not sure that "stability" refers to the type of copy-editing and tweaking we've done in the past month, I am content to follow your lead here.  I'll be leaving the article alone - unless otherwise informed to do something specific.  Hope all is well on your end, and I hope you're getting your Internet connection issues resolved.  All my best my friend - talk to ya soon. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  15:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been slowly feeling more and more that there's way too much slightly off-topic content in this list, but I couldn't figure out how to deal with it. I do like the thought of splitting much of the content into a separate article on the qualifying procedure for the Daytona 500. I would expect this list to have minimal content, the list, then a math summary trends like the total poles section, etc. Would you be okay if I would bring up this topic at WikiProject NASCAR and WikiProject Motorsport to get consensus from a broader group? I think I know the answer to my question, but I know that you spend TONS of time on the article. I've taken the stability section to mean that some time should elapse to allow anyone to tweak wording or argue about contentious content. Everything is well on my end, I hope it is on your end too! On the rare occasion when my internet does actually work, I've been busy uploading the 100+ images that I took while traveling through dozens of communities on my LaCrosse trip. Last Sunday I shot the final 17 items that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. This was about my third photo shoot in the community - there's 33 on the list!  Royal broil  12:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey RB, of course it's ok to look to the "projects" to get some input on it all. We've already gotten a ton of feedback (which we've attempted to address) from others outside the race folks.  I've seen that it's often a double-edged sword when we ask for input on anything here (Wikipedia).  But; The more people involved, the more opinions we're going to see - and often someone will come up with a point that has been overlooked in the past.  I'll admit that I'd be rather disappointed to see information "deleted", but if it better serves the 'pedia to fork it off into a separate article, then that's what we should do I guess.  I don't know that a "Daytona 500" specific qualifying procedure is the best way to go right off the bat, but maybe a more general "NASCAR qualifying" article would be a viable article.  To be honest, I guess I've kind of gotten to a "whatever" frame of mind on it all.  I just noticed all the S&W posting, and was going to try to address all that stuff - but after thinking about it, I guess I'll wait to see what you come up with from the "projects".  Glad to see you getting so much joy and use out of the photography :-D ... Looks like you're doing some great work!  Cheers and best — Ched :  ?  16:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA
Well, you asked me, "would you be interested in taking on the added responsibility of admin?" - sorry I didn't accept back then, but I have now. Requests for adminship/Chzz Best,  Chzz  ►  07:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad to see you taking a shot at it Chzz - I've supported there. Best of luck, — Ched :  ?  15:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!


As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS October Newsletter
The October 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. The newsletter includes details on the current membership roll call to readd your name from the inactive list to the active list. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

RFA
User:Amorymeltzer has indicated to me that she (It's she, right?) would like to run for RFA, in which you indicated here that she is close. According to my response to my talk page here, she wouldn't be available until Sunday to start the RFA (which coincidentally also happened to me when Hersfold nominated me for adminship, as I also had to be out of town for several days). If you'd like to co-nominate her with me, that would be great. I already got something written up myself. Thanks, MuZemike 08:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Do not unblock
Do not unblock because you don't have a consensus to overturn the blocking administrator. Let the user post an unblock request if they wish. An administrator will handle it. The ANI thread was a bad idea; Ryan should be trouted, IMHO. Thank you for your patience. Jehochman Talk 03:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * replied on your talk page. — Ched : ?  03:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * When you post saying, you are going to act unilaterally to overturn another administrator, that's a red flag. Don't undo somebody else's administrative action without their permission or without a consensus.  In this case you have neither.  I'm saving you a lot of grief by warning you off.  I am sorry for being a little gruff.  Jehochman Talk 03:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Nobody should ever be trouted for seeking wider scrutiny on a block. That is exactly what the administrative policy says to do if you disagree with a block. Contentious issues need more discussion not less. As for your advice about not unblocking without consensus to do so I could not agree more. Both policy and the best interests of the project require it. I really do appreciate your restraint Ched, I know we disagree on this issue but not acting unilaterally is something I can admire.  Chillum   03:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * At all costs, avoid getting into "wheel wars". It undermines admins' credibility a great deal. It's always best to set a good example by asking, "Did I do right?" and letting others (admins and otherwise) weigh in. I've seen admins unilaterally overturn blocks and it causes no end of grief. P.S. I have no idea which block you're talking about, as I haven't been on here for an hour or so. But I just happened to see this discussion on your page. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And now that I see it's still about M.F., and that he apparently has decided not to file an unblock, if I were an admin I would leave it as-is, in part because it's only 24 hours. Anyone can find something else to do for 24 hours (as I did when I got blocked), and maybe the rest will do him good anyway. But I'm not an admin. :'( ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not unblock. It just means that the issue will fester until the next time Malleus says something over the line. You'll polarize the community, and it won't stop short of ArbCom. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey .. I'm doing my best here. I'm talking to GWH .. I'm doing the best that I can, I think the block should be lifted, and I'm trying to do it the best way that I can ... I'll get back to you all shortly. — Ched :  ?  04:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The argument that an editor should have to request unblock in order have a bad block reconsidered is nonsense. This is a proposition made by admins who are never at the receiving end of bad blocks and who lack empathy and understanding for how dysfunctional our system is. That being said you better watch your ass if you cross any of your fellow admins Ched. If you have skeletons in the closet or make a mistake down the road they will come for you.

Anyway, I respect you for sticking up for an editor who is blocked after making a pointy response to a pointy comment by an admin. The block itself is daft and doesn't accomplish anything except for adding a whole lot of disruption and animus all the way around. But once that kind of abuse is done it's difficult to undo. And it probably carries extra weight since it was carried out by a heavyweight. Anyway, don't get too caught up in it all. Shit happens. It's a nasty, ugly, abusive mess caused by unilateral bullying and a refusal to be responsive and collegial, but it is what it is. I feel bad about the whole thing, but the actions of those promoting a Wiki-police state are not doing anyone any good. Take care. Probably you'll disagree with me. :) So maybe that will make you see the other side better. No worries. Take care Ched. I respect your efforts and involvement. Many of us have deep respect for you and your committment to doing what's best for our editors and the encyclopedia. Don't take it all on yourself though. It will all be okay, or it won't. It's best to keep it all in perspective. There are actual people at the other end of these interwebs, but it isn't as if they'll starve to death if we don't get this right. So it's a balance. We can't fix everything all the time I'm afraid. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Actual people on the internet? I thought it was just a bunch of little digital guys with big hearts! Don't worry much Ched, I feel this is a minor thing. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahhh .. finally a voice of reason. Huntser ... lol ... I don't know what I would do without you.  As much as I'd like to pursue this ... it's better that I close the matter with my thoughts rather than any drama mongering actions.  I swear, sometime, if it were not for you - I'd just go ballistic and say what I think.  If you were a woman .. I think I'd be in love ..lol. ;) — Ched :  ?  06:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * See, I make everything better with a little bit of stupid humour. It helps break the cycle. Though, to be honest, if I were a woman, I'd be loving myself too much to let anyone else interfere! :D — Huntster (t @ c) 08:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)