User talk:Ched/Archive 21


 * January 2012 talk page archives

By the by
Thanks for commenting on my evidence/analysis. On a related issue, your contribution to this affair surely deserves commendation, particularly in the way you promptly drew attention to the potential furore, and have acted consistently as a critical friend to MF. To me, that's a model for how we should all interact with other editors. Geometry guy 02:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * wow .. to be honest, I don't know what to say. That you would take notice of my meager efforts here leaves me feeling wordless.  I know that you are one of the "big guns" here, and I am truly flattered.  Thank you so much for your kind words GG. — Ched :  ?  02:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I just came here to say exactly the same thing, which I did with a twee bit of wikilove below. It's very hard to wade through a sewer and not come out smelling of crap, but you've managed.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 11:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The qualities of an editor are defined by the quality of their edits: you've made some very good edits here, and I am pleased to see that I am far from being the only editor who has noticed. Geometry guy 23:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * thank you GG. I figure I still have tons to learn, and a long way to go - but I'll keep plugging away at it. :) — Ched :  ?  23:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Strong support, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, -Buster Seven   Talk  15:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * thank you so much folks .. I honestly don't know what to say. There are just so many great folks here ... I feel honored just to be a part of such a great group of folks. — Ched :  ?  20:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support even though I don't know what's going on. I do know that you are a civil person :) — Huntster (t @ c) 22:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * lol .. thanks Huntster. Not really sure how I got into that huge discussion myself.  I really need to be hanging out with you at articles more I think. :) — Ched :  ?  23:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong support and OOH RAH, Yea team! VERY well deserved! Pumpkin Sky   talk  23:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * lol .. thanks PS. :) — Ched : ?  23:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

PA
(As in "NPA".) Isn't this a bit of an overreaction? First, you refer to WP:NPA, but that's mostly about attacking one's addressee. Secondly, the writer doesn't refer to the politician as an asshole, a wife-beater, a cheat, a scumbag, a crook, a phoney, or a moron; or in the pay of Israel, "Islamofascists", or the tobacco business; or a puppet controlled by Bilderberg, the "Illuminati", Cheney, extraterrestrial reptiles, etc -- he merely calls him "abhorrent". True, this hardly indicates the dispassionate stance needed for encyclopedic writing, but it also hardly strikes me as a personal attack. (It also may be useful as an indicator that this editor isn't or can't be dispassionate.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I realize that the subject matter is quite polarizing, and that many folks have strong views on Santorum; but that does not give us leave to refer to others as "abhorrent". I could have and should have also linked to WP:BLP as well, and if you will note: I did not go and chastise the editor.  I simply removed the offending remark.  If you feel it is acceptable to refer to others as "abhorrent", then I'm not really sure what more I can say here.  If you wish to revert me and restore the original "abhorrent Mr Santorum" than I will certainly not try to remove the comment again.  I saw what I thought was an offensive personal attack on another living person, so I removed it.  I don't have any desire to fight, edit-war, or create any major drama about it though.  Feel free to revert at will - and thank you for notifying me of your objection to my actions.  cheers and best, — Ched :  ?  13:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, the number of people who abhor Santorum should be beside the point; people should have no more or less right to call him abhorrent than to call Romney or Obama abhorrent. (My guess, though, is it that isn't beside the point: consider how little worry there seems to be about what's on, say, Talk:Robert Mugabe.) What does it mean to say that somebody is abhorrent? Something like "I abhor him and a lot of other people do too". If that's on the right track (and it's only my first approximation), then it doesn't seem an attack to me; rather, it's a statement of and about strong dislike. -- Hoary (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think for me the distinction lies in the specific way the word is used. If one says "Mr. Santorum's politics, (or statement) is abhorrent" then the adjective clarifies an intangible (his politics or his statement)  If one says that they "abhor [any person]", then they state their own personal (and subjective) feelings toward a subject.  But when a person uses the sentence structure: BLP doesn't cover this, since there is no false information about the abhorrent Mr Santorum. - then clearly (in my mind) the word "abhorrent" becomes a direct and deliberate attempt using the adjective to suggest that the person is inherently "abhorrent"  ie: loathsome - odious - detestable - abominable - loathful.  If that is not a personal attack on someone - then I'm sorry, I don't know what is.  Regardless of any political inclinations here, can you honestly draw no distinction between these things?  I may abhor Obama's political agenda.  I may abhor the impact he's had on the US.  But I can NOT say he is an abhorrent person on Wikipedia.  BLP, NPA, and CIV simply forbid that kind of thing.


 * Ya know - there's a case going on now up at arbcom regarding language and civility. And for the most part we frown on people who do call others (to use some of your own words) "asshole, a wife-beater, a cheat, a scumbag, a crook, a phoney, or a moron..." (toss in a few of the more base and crass ones there and we could really have a blast here).  But if it's going to come down to a ruling at Arbcom that we can not call people things like "c*nt, ass, c*cks*cker, etc.", but that it is perfectly fine to degrade and insult others so long as we use nice pretty words like "abhorrent, loathsome, odious, or detestable" then you set the entire site up for a class-warfare schism that many will not want any part of.  (myself included).


 * I will be glad to take a look at the Mugabe stuff tonight. — Ched : ?  14:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, we do indeed frown on people who call others assholes, wife-beaters, etc -- and rightly so (with the minor exception, I suppose, of those people who have been convicted of beating their wives or who have confessed to having beaten them, etc etc). To say that somebody is "abhorrent" is, I'd say, very different -- and as a description of undesirability it's tolerable (though not to be encouraged) when that person not only is a public figure but is also openly participating in what is very much a popularity contest. If somebody were to refer to you as "abhorrent" on a talk page, I'd probably leave it but have word with him [yes, probably male] either there or on his talk page. If on the other hand he referred to you as an "asshole", I'd "redact" it and give him an earful; a repeat would earn him a block. &para; Well, perhaps you and I disagree on what is and isn't degrading. -- Hoary (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what civility blocks are all about? BLocking someone because there's disagreement about what is what? Pumpkin Sky  talk  02:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No it isn't what they are all about. -- Hoary (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure it is. Go look at the Malleus arbcase. Pumpkin Sky   talk  03:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This? Yes, I looked at it. I released my cursor here and there within it, and read the surroundings. They looked interesting and intelligent, not least among them the comments by our genial host [thank you!] Ched. I also very much like the idea of "Malleus incivility birthday bingo"; time willing, I'll try it out. But read all of that stuff? Sorry, no. "This user is not an arb and does not wish to be one." I'll wait to read the results. Unless perhaps I'm canvassed asked to read some particular part within it. -- Hoary (talk) 09:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I will be away tomorrow ... but I will reply when I get back. — Ched : ?  05:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Only if you're in the mood to do so. No offense taken -- and certainly no gloating ("Wee-hee, I got the last word!") -- if you don't. There's so much else to be done. In the meantime, let me (again) reassure you that I do not intend to encourage the use of "abhorrent" or similar. -- Hoary (talk) 09:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Learning
You mentioned "learning" in the edit summary for the above. I would like to expand my vocabulary and asked for a few words in their context, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you!--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Malleus Incivility Birthday Bingo: (May 9)

 * I Win!!! RfC on PBS link ... naaa .. that won't work - there were more supports for Malleus than any other section.
 * A Chinese whore from Mars .. naaa .. he was talking about himself.
 * River Don Navigation ... naaa .. that was getting an article up to GA status.
 * Richard Basset (royal justice) ... nope again - another "improve the article to GA" thing.
 * Phoronid ... drat .. another GA
 * Golondrina point awww come on now - how many Ga articles can one person do in one day?
 * talking to an admin about his RfA .. oh wait .. it's a compliment.
 * hmmmm .. well considering he was one of 63 opposes - might have to call this a wash.
 * I Win a BN discussion. hmmmm .. wait a second - let me think about this one a bit..... (meh - he disagreed with ME[1] - so I win!)

So - on this day in history, Malleus voiced the most supported view at a RfC, complimented one admin., opposed an RfA, pointed out an inconsistency at WP:BN, and took 4 articles to GA. Quite some days work I'd say. — Ched : ?  17:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * [1] I supported the SoV RfA.

For the record
Dan Savage is an internationally syndicated columnist whose work has appeared in dozens of markets for over twenty years. He has had five books published by major publishers; one of those books served as the basis for an award-winning musical. He launched the It Gets Better Project, which drew the personal participation of the President of the United States (among many, many others). He may not be 'Walter Cronkite, Edward R. Murrow, or Rupert Murdoch', but he's never claimed to be (and really, categorizing Murdoch with Murrow and Cronkite? Murdoch is not a journalist. Murdoch employs journalists). That doesn't make him less of a significant or influential figure; he's well past '15 minutes'.

I would also point out that Mr Savage's distasteful neologism says nothing whatsoever about homosexuality. DS (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely correct, and I apologize. I have re factored my statement. — Ched :  ?  23:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"It is better...
...to be silent and be thought a fool, than to open thy mouth and dispel all doubt"

is a lovely phrase, isn't it? It is used a lot where my family is from, quite often in a self-deprecating manner (and sounds great in dialect!) Nice to see it find use onwiki! Geometry guy 18:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

By the by
When I called Santorum "abhorrent" I was just parroting Baseball Bugs' comment above me. Perhaps I should have used quotes. Speciate (talk) 05:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem — Ched : ?  06:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative
Hi Ched Davis,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The  Helpful  Bot  16:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back
Welcome back folks ... — Ched : ?  05:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)



On putches and putchery
I can email you the gory details if you really want to know, but be aware that if you try to clean up a dungheap with a mop, the net result is just that you split it into two smaller dungheaps, and the person who does the sweeping has a high likelihood of ending up covered in dung. 173.164.243.154 (talk) 02:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know anymore. I just want to try to help.  But I'm only one person, and not very far up on the totem poll at that.  Sure, I'd like to know more, but I don't want to compromise anyone either.  I don't want to take sides, other than what makes a better encyclopedia.  Maybe I should jump in and do my best.  Maybe I should just go back to NPP copy-edits, stubs and starts.  I know if I've got Sandy that upset with me that I did something very wrong - and I'm sorry about that.  I want to be a better writer, but I may have blown any chance of her helping me.  I know Malleus and Tony1 have always been very helpful, but I often feel as though I'm bothering them and taking them away from more important work sometimes.  I'd be more than happy to read anything you care to send, but I may just be keeping my mouth shut for a bit.  I tried to think outside the box, come up with something original that adults could relate to, and it still didn't help.  I read the links.  I tried to understand the people.  I even clicked links within links; and yet I'm oblivious to some "behind the scenes" stuff that I couldn't possibly know about - for that I jumped into the lion's den.  Oh well - I did what I thought was best at the time.  Feel free send me anything, and I'll read it. — Ched :  ?  02:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your diplomatic efforts may not be appreciated by everyone but you do true-hearted work to bring equity to an unbalanced system. Sometimes it is necessary to yield to the awareness that your efforts may be misunderstood. But misunderstanding is a common feature in this faceless world of WP. All we have is our words and the fact that your words of concilliation were rejected doesn't reflect on you as much as it does on others. I will often revisit what you said as a benchmark for future peace. Thank you for sharing them. Buster Seven   Talk  07:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Another survivor of the disruption, ready to learn also: Where would I find them? What is Putchery? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Gerda - hang on, I'll stop over :)
 * Thank you, come again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Buster - thank you so much for the kind words Buster, although I'm not always sure they are deserved. I do my best, try to learn, try to do better, and try to approach each day with a positive attitude.  I greatly admire you civility work, and look to it as a guide as well.  Just sometimes wish I could be more like Huntster, and learn when to just kick back and stick quietly to the work at hand. :) — Ched :  ?  14:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But sometimes sticking to it IS the work at hand, remembering the sonata which deserves a better name than Moonlight in the 21th century, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. :-) — Ched : ?  15:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thread opened for My Strat
go for it. — Ched : ?  17:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ched I do not believe you are clueless at all. I have observed your clue on several occasions. I generally regard you with esteem and prefer to maintain that perspective. I sense that I have agitated you in some manner, a thing I did not intend, (exclude the comment on Balloonman's talk page which was framed to both agitate and reflect aggravation) and I feel the agitation has unfavorably colored your assumptions about me. If any of that can be cleared or minimized by discussion, that would be a good thing in my opinion. You are otherwise free to lambaste me in any manner necessary to make your points of contention clear, and I, being not a kid, will not attempt to censure your candor. Sincerely - My76Strat (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Very well then .. good start. OK, now I'm trying to get things done here at home, so perhaps this won't be quite as "real time" as we'd like; but I'll do my best.  There are also a few tangents here that I'd be more than happy to share, but I'll not hold things up at the moment with those; such as: There is a background between Malleus and I which colors my thoughts and views (more than happy to explain later if asked).  I'm obviously having a hard time with AGF right now; and this is why.  You originally posted on the workshop page suggesting FoF, Principles, and some sanctions that I found quite puzzling (as did others, and I'm sure you noticed.)  I still can't wrap my head around the whole COI concept in that case, but - moving on.  Your postings basically set you on a side which found fault with Malleus.  Shortly after that you went to his talk page and asked him about reviewing an article you were working on - and yet provided no link or hint as to what article that was.  If I AGF, perhaps you're trying to bridge a gap in views, but I wonder if you fail to understand the stress he's under throughout this.  You didn't offer an apology - simply put: You condemn the man, and then ask him to help you.  Please explain that.  I looked at your contribs to see which article you might be talking about - and I see that most of your recent posts are to either the AC civility case .. OR .. the AC Betacommand case.  I wonder how you are even involved in these things. (yes, I know anyone is free to contribute).  I was the original author of the WP:FIXNF, and I still didn't stick my nose in the Betacommand case. ... regardless - My participation in the Civility case was due to the fact that I was the first to approach Malleus over the language. (the diff is in my evidence).  Can I ask why you have so much interest in this case?  Do you have a past history with Malleus? .... OK .. now I do have a "Part 2" that I want to address as well - the direct posts today that brought us to this discussion - but I think I'll let you respond to one first .. then I'll continue. — Ched :  ?  18:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that clarification. It helps that I better understand your position. To address first, why I am a participant in the two cases you mentioned. First I had just returned from an approximate 2 month respite related to an illness and recovery, You can review my contributions preceding my entrance in these cases and perhaps glean the marked change in my editing during this period. In particular when I cleared my user page to the minimal content it now includes, I found myself much more satisfied in the background. I also cleared my watchlist and felt content editing as a gnome. I had returned to where I began by editing music related articles while updating my own music files in concert. Exactly what compelled me to review the drama boards, is not clear to me. What did strike me as immediately significant was seeing the open case against Delta, and the requested case against MF. Regarding Delta, my interactions with him directly preceded the antecedent to the case and quite likely contributed in part to certain things which were presented out of context. You may notice that my last edits before the respite were surrounding edits we partially shared, and that I commented at his talk page and ANI hoping to reduce the surmounting tension. A fuller summary is published here. I do resent the implications that I was motivated simply for the love of drama or wanting to "stick my nose" in the business of others. Regarding MF we have disagreed in the past. And I have observed disagreements which I chose not to enter. But I did form an opinion that some of the conduct had a negative effect, and would better serve Wikipedia and MF if better ways could be found, if even by sanction. And the larger implications being that civility appears widely disregarded further compounded by the apparent relation to a users experience and intellect. I did and do feel this is a worthy issue and set my posture as a participant. To achieve the things I endeavored to see required that some fault be found in MF's conduct. The principles and findings posted by me were efforts to establish validity to my claims in evidence and desired outcome. Regarding the post to MF's talk page. You say I never apologized but I tried to offer that in closing the original post, up front. And by the time I would otherwise have commented, MF had forcefully appended to the effect "he did not care what article I was referring to, his answer was the same." You are correct that I failed to consider the stress MF was under at the time nor did I properly weigh the potential adverse effect that to some would have seemed intuitive. To be honest, the more I read about incivility, the more I realized I was wrong on a few points, especially that I hadn't considered my own conduct as it relates to the problem overall. And some of what you describe as hard to reconcile with AGF is directly relevant to confusion which is the only thing I've gained from this "experience". And I do mean the experience to be understood as the tandem effect of both cases in simultaneous proximity. I was rather naive, regarding Wikipedia, coming in and I'm certain to leave with the attribute in place. But I will be considerably less so for the experience. Sincerely - My76Strat (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry - we (CERT) got called out due to weather and road conditions. I just skimmed; but quickly: I didn't mean to imply you were involved because you liked "drama", and I wasn't even asking why you were involved with the Betacommand case.  I was simply painting a picture of why I have the conceptions I have.  Now - you say you were involved with Malleus in the past; can you give me a little more there.  A time frame, page, .. some idea HOW you were involved?  Take your time, I am not sure when I'll be back - my real life can be a real pain at times. (it's not required of course, I'm just curious)  I'll get to my second part as soon as I can - but would rather get through one part before moving on to the second. (and to give you something think about, it REALLY looked like that last post you made to his page was an attempt to taunt, hound, or goad Malleus into something - hence my anger.  I'll be back as soon as I can — Ched :  ?  23:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that, and I do understand you. I did not mean to imply I was involved regarding MF. I have a perspective is all. My participation is to the larger regards for the community wide ramifications. I have said as much within the case pages. Regarding my posts to MF's talk page, I did agree that I would unquestionably respect his desire if he dispatched me away from his page. I also expressed if he withheld such an urging, I would consider it an available means of communication. So when I saw his post, signing off, I wanted to gesture a wish of fairness. And I did. All that is left after is to qualify, clarify, apologize or retract, and I would acquiesce my position rather than offend. Soon I suspect, I'll finally learn to withhold all forms of my opinion. I wise wikipedian once told me if I only commented on things that I knew, I would undoubtedly have nothing to say. In the spirit of a great Metallica song; "Sad but True" - My76Strat (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK My Strat, I'm pretty beat here right now, but I will read everything again tomorrow in depth, and try to help where I can. I may wake up in a couple hours and do some mindless article editing - but it's not that I'm being dismissive, just that I need a bit of a break.  I am juggling multiple things both here on WP and in real life, but I will AGF and assume you mean well.  I would however suggest that perhaps it would be better if you avoided Malleus' talk page for the time being.  I say this because after posting something like this which you did, (and which he saw, and you'll note my response a few hours later) I think many people could view your efforts as very "anti-Malleus".  In which case, going to his page and posting "best of luck" messages can be viewed by many as a sign of taunting and poking.  To be quite frank, my immediate thought was that you were trying to provoke an explosive response from him that would result in him losing his temper, responding with enough anger to be a "final straw" that gave his opponents the ammunition to get him blocked or banned.  I'm not "ordering" that you avoid him, just strongly suggesting.  OK .. feel free to leave any thoughts here at any time, and I will try to get back to you some time tomorrow. — Ched :  ?  01:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is fine. I acknowledge the advice you've given and agree to not post to his talk page again. In any regard, thanks for all you have done. My76Strat (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Placeholder
cause I'm really thinking about going out with a bang. — Ched : ?  06:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Dr. Hunster. paging Dr. Hunster. Pych Ward....STAT!!!! ```Buster Seven   Talk  06:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)