User talk:Ched/Archive 12

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

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)

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)

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)

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)


 * Thanks again for the calming influence my friend. Glad you were there when I needed it. ;) — Ched :  ?  02:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia construction
Hi Ched. Could you move the Virginia B. Greer article to my userspace please? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * hmm ... it's a redirect. You want a redirect restored to your userspace?  Not that I mind, I just don't understand. — Ched :  ?  02:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Janet Allison
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Janet Allison. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm ... Not sure I remember ever being involved in this article - but I'll take a look. Nothing of mine at Revision history of Articles for deletion/Janet Allison that I can see.  Can't find an edit of mine at Special:Undelete for Janet Allison as far as having edited the article either.  Could you link me to my involvement in this please Power corrupts, because I can't find what I said or did in connection to the article. — Ched :  ?  16:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The move is on...
Hi Ched. I hope everything is going well for you. There are a couple of articles I want to write, and I see that previous versions were deleted. I'm sure it wasn't much, but I would like to see what was there in the past. Could you move Avantha Group and Trevor Corson to my userspace? Or at least let me know what they look like? Thank you sir. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to take a look, and I'll get back to you within the next couple hours. — Ched : ?  23:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Ched : ?  13:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank very much. I hope I'll see you at the gigantic Doughnut Days event. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up
The project now has a more defined idea of what we plan to do. Basically, we're calling for individual proposals on how to improve Wikipedia. Please help by posting your new ideas! – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC) (Cross-posting)
 * I have some stuff in my sandbox, and I'll get back to that project sometime this evening. — Ched : ?  23:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back ched
sorry did not say it before but it is best late then ever, hope you had a good vacation from wiki, good have you back ched:)-- Pedro J. the rookie 22:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Pedro, good to see ya! Sorry I haven't taken a look at that list yet, but my time and edits here have been spotty due to a busy "real life" lately.  I'll try to take a look here in the next day or two.  and yea, the vacation was good. ;) — Ched :  ?  22:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Feats of urinary strength AfD
Hey Ched, Bongo removed your comment on the closed AfD (because it was closed), but the discussion hadn't run it's full course ( per this not over the top at all thread at AN ), so it got reverted to before the closure, which was prior to your comment. I have taken the liberty of re-adding your comment [Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Administrative_abuse_by_Angr_in_deletion_review in this edit], you may want to check it over to make sure I am not misrepresenting you. Cheers. --kelapstick (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I truly appreciate the irony in that discussion, It makes for great entertainment. I think the comment is fine where it is, its relation to the thread and all, I just wanted to make sure it didn't get forgotten.  Cheers.  kelapstick (talk) 05:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ping
As requested, pinging you regarding your edits at Template:Policy (my view of the matter is expressed at that talk page).--Kotniski (talk) 10:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the note. I've skimmed through the posts, and will follow up on it this evening (10 or so hours).  Cheers — Ched :  ?  16:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Newt concerns
Hi Ched, longtime no speak. I was troubled to see at RFA that you had concerns about WP:NEWT. I think its got to a stage where we can draw some useful lessons and make some meaningful reccomendations, and I'd be keen to have your input both in terms of what we can learn from it and any safeguards that you feel the project lacks.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi WSC, great to see you. Yea, ummm, I saw the project back when it started - and I just didn't think it was a good idea.  It's not even that I have any interest in wp:sock; to be blunt, I think there's way too much attention paid to WP:SPI as it is.  Yet given the huge amounts of drama and problems that arise out of sock issues, I just thought it was not something I wanted to get involved in.  It just seems too much "in-your-face" kind of "ha-ha we tricked you", we can break the rules if we send a note to the arbs.  And actually, even just sending in an email to arbcom can get lost in the process - so the whole idea of a sekrit account just to prove what we already know - (New users get bitten far too often), just didn't seem like a great way to go here.  I have a ton of respect for you and many of the other editors who are involved, but when see I things like "I kept the quality of both articles low" ... it really makes me wonder what the point is.  I wish you the best with the project and all, but I just can't throw my weight behind something that baits folks in ways that would not even be acceptable in a court of law.  Again, I've never kept my views of our sock policy a big secret (link), but NEWT just seems to beg for drama for little result.  Just IMHO, and I didn't oppose the editor, but it did keep me from supporting. — Ched :  ?  18:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Kleina
Hi Ched. WHen you get a chance, would you mind moving this to my userspace so I can work on it? How do I get an article on another Wikipedia brought here? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone else recreated, so I think it's all set. What is the process for getting articles from other language Wikis brought here? Do you know? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad you got it sorted out. As far as other languages, I'm sorry, I can't help.  I had some Spanish in high-school, but I'd be useless in any help even in that.  Maybe ask at Translation or Wikipedia talk:Transwiki log. — Ched :  ?  17:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Great success!
Heyya Ched, just wanted to drop you a line to say thanks so much for the fantastic nomination. It was really nicely put and according to the rationales definitely influenced the !voters. Thanks for taking note of me those months ago and keeping up that interest. I figure as long as I don't block myself within the first 24 hours I'll spare you any embarrassment! ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 03:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, if you block yourself, you don't anger anyone. ;) – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Ongoing Regarding DC Meetup #9
You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future.

There is a planning discussion taking place here for DC Meetup #9. If you don't wish to receive this message again, please let me know. --NBahn (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Copy edit
do you now who can copyedit well, an d dome another favor tell me how to improve this artical like on the other one.-- Pedro J. the rookie 19:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey there Pedro, I'll take a look the first chance I get. How did that FLC go for you? — Ched :  ?  20:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Its still on the reviewer which is the las t one is moveing and can't finish it, but its going well, how are your plans going finaly got back to editing.:)-- Pedro J. the rookie 02:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * UPDATE:It passed thanks alot ched:), Wiki Holodays-- Pedro J. the rookie 13:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ched this mite be a dumb questioin but how do you archive your talk (mine is right now....138,692 bytes and growing, its biugger than the simpsons) itr would help alot, Cheers-- Pedro J. the rookie 19:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!


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 Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy Holidays Ched. I hope all is well with you. Enjoy yourself. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you both very much - and a Happy Thanksgiving to all from me as well.
 * On a side note, I hope to get back to a much more consistent editing pattern here by early December. Cheers and best to all — Ched :  ?  17:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Happy Thanksgiving from me as well, Ched. Hope you had lots of food today...my turn will come Saturday! — Huntster (t @ c) 02:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy thanls giving ched again sorry to say it late but hope you had a great time pal.-- Pedro J. the rookie 02:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiVoices Arbcom interviews
I noticed a comment of yours in my watchlist ... Just a holiday drive-by note to say I found the interviews very "good" things to hear in such contexts ... But sorry there were so few (and therefore perhaps an unfair advantage, but such is the way of the world). Enough yapping ... Happy holidays to you ... with a special pat for Stick. (And, yes, that's a cool barnstar.) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, the more we communicate with each other, the better we'll be as a collective group. Text as it is lacks various voice inflections and such, so I appreciate the opportunity to "hear" a person state his thoughts.  I thank you for the chance to hear a few folks discuss their views.  All my best, Ched — Ched :  ?  03:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)