User talk:Ched/Archive 25


 * May 2012 - July 2012 talk archives


 * Please note: I have moved my talk page to archives, and so the 4+ years of history prior to 2012 can be found there (link). If there's a past discussion you want to view, you can find it there. Thank you.

page no logner needs protection
Since the only editor that was edit warring and arguing with every single other person involved on the article and its talk page, is now blocked for a week, and has stated on his talk page he won't edit that article ever again, there is no reason to keep it under page protection. Please undo your page protection of Alicia Silverstone.  D r e a m Focus  07:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Happy editing. — Ched : ?  07:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I stated clearly that I will be editing the article again.
 * I believe the page protection was lifted prematurely, as the very first edit upon it being lifted was a continuation of previous edit-warring and was removal of well-sourced and well-discussed information. --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Really Ronz? .. After all that's been said and done you're gonna come here and piss with me? Tell ya what .. WP:RFPP.  k?  Got it?  To be perfectly blunt here - I don't give a good flying fart about Silverstone.  You have been given good advice time and again - and yet you continue to behave the way you do.   Fine - go edit the article, and when you end up blocked again .. just don't come crying to me.  Clue tip #101: Not everyone is WP:CIR for Wikipedia.  If ya can't collaborate with your fellow editors - then you're gonna be in for a long rough ride.  Do what ya want dude.. I really DGAF.  chow. — Ched :  ?  18:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "After all that's been said and done you're gonna come here and piss with me?" Sorry to have upset you so. I meant no disrespect. I only wanted to point out the misrepresentation and continued edit-warring. I'm happy to refactor what I've written. --Ronz (talk) 03:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Distorting things again already Ronz? You were blocked for a week and did agree to not edit that article again. As I said in the edit summary, you are the only one that wanted that in, everyone else saying otherwise.  D r e a m Focus  18:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * @Ronz. I'm not upset in the least.  I thought your declaration that "I stated clearly that I will be editing the article again." and "I believe the page protection was lifted prematurely" to be rather a poor choice as far as directions you want to go here.  I protected the article when there was edit-warring going on.  I removed the protection once there appeared to be no need for it.  I'm not here to tell you what to do, but I will say that if I had recently gotten blocked over editing a particular article - then I would steer clear of that area for a while.  I don't have the Silverstone article on my watchlist - in fact; I'm not even doing much editing with my admin. account.  I do recognize that per WP:ADMINACCT I'm expected to be responsible for any administrative actions I've taken though.  There are plenty of other administrators about who are more than happy to pounce on the extra tools, so I doubt my in-actions will be missed much.  You think I lifted the protection prematurely.  That's fine.  I disagree.  Not sure what more there is to say at this point.  I wish you and all the other editors at the Silverstone article the very best.  Cheers. — Ched :  ?  11:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks.
 * I'm most assuredly steering clear of the article.
 * I pointed out that the very first edit made after the protection was lifted was to continue the edit-warring. If the protection was to prevent edit-warring, then lifting it was indeed premature.
 * I find some of your other (18:38) comments very interesting, others extremely confusing. While I understand you may not want to elaborate on them further, I'd appreciate it if you would like to.
 * Thanks again. --Ronz (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ask away. I'll do the best I can to explain anything I can. — Ched :  ?  16:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. To start, I think you've got to the heart of the matter - collaboration is key. Would you agree? --Ronz (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep - that's the general idea. — Ched : ?  00:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! No offense, but how far off would I be to say you reacted above (18:34, 28 April 2012) as you did because you were surprised that I would bring up something that could upset both you and DreamFocus? --Ronz (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the key is listening to people who say you are violating WP:SYNTHESIS, and when every single other person who comments on a talk page is against what you are doing, you actually listen to them, and stop doing it.  D r e a m Focus  00:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

{{od} @Ronz. Well - you would be pretty far off. First: your relationship with DreamFocus is between you and him - and none of my concern. I have my own thoughts regarding DF (for the most part - pretty positive, supportive, and in many ways an admiration for the work he does in salvaging articles via. the ARS). Now - you state, or perhaps question my view that you (by self-admission above_"that I would bring up something that could upset both you and DreamFocus". Let me ask YOU something - why the hell would you do that?  For what reason would you want to "upset"  someone?  You come to my talk page after a block and state the following: You talk about accepting mentor type of feedback, and yet you seem to throw it in the face of people who try to help.  You ask for advice, and yet you appear to turn your back on it.  I stated clearly that I will be editing the article again. vs. I'm most assuredly steering clear of the article. - obviously a clear contradiction.  If you want help and want to be a part of this community - then you need to listen to the feedback you get.  If you're here to play some sort of game - I have no interest in feeding that.  Your call. — Ched :  ?  20:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I stated clearly that I will be editing the article again. ... I believe the page protection was lifted prematurely
 * "why the hell would you do that" I didn't want to upset anyone. Nor do I believe I have ever written or implied otherwise. I took a guess at why you replied as you did. Because you say, "any incivility directed toward any other editor will be met with harsh reaction," I was concerned that your reacted as you did because you saw some level of incivility in my comment.
 * "obviously a clear contradiction" Not at all. Perhaps, when I later wrote "I'm most assuredly..." I should have instead quoted my previous comments, and once again indicated that I do plan to edit the article again?. Either way, I hope it's clear now and in now way a contradiction. If I change my mind on something, I try to make it clear, often using strikeouts and explicitly state that I am changing my mind. Clear? --Ronz (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Ummm .. ok? Best of luck. — Ched :  ?  22:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to have upset you so, once again. I'm going to drop this for the time being, unless there's something here you want to continue discussing. I'll be following up with you on your comments here once I get a bit further along finding a mentor.
 * Thanks for your advice, time, and patience. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No problems Ronz. And I apologize if I was unnecessarily short with you.  Apparently I took your post to be confrontational and it wasn't intended that way.  We're all good.  Best of luck in all - and feel free to drop by any time if you have questions, or just want to drop a note. — Ched :  ?  17:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * LOL .. lawd knows I need one. Thank you Pesky. :) — Ched : ?  08:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

And the Checkered flag waves!

 * woo hoo .. there ya go ZApppa .. ain't the race fans the best? — Ched :  ?  04:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

On this day
Enjoy extended Easter, eggs and peace, with thanks for your precious patient work for a trail of construction, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Gerda. Cheers and best as always. — Ched : ?  19:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Good history ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 04:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Account activation codes have been emailed.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
 * The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.


 * Does it mean you had access to this complete article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Chess boxing ... ???
ummm .. words fail me. — Ched : ?  15:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I know right!? Mr Little Irish  (talk) © 15:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to invent a game that mixes chess boxing, extreme ironing and an eating contest. 28bytes (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * lmao ... OH my heavens ... I have just been way too sheltered for way too long. :) — Ched :  ?  16:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, yak racing. 28bytes (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Skijoring!  Montanabw (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Cheese rolling . 28bytes (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Kim
I was going to block that one, but you beat me... I agree with your actions fully, and think they may have chosen the name to look like KD-B's. The email has now been forwarded to the WMF by the recipient. Wonder if there are more? Peridon (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Peridon. I'm normally pretty slow on the block button simply because I take so much time to get background info and all; but when someone starts phishing for passwords - that tends to throw up some pretty big red flags for me.  I'm not sure about other accounts, to be honest, I've always been pretty bad at finding socks. (actually I don't really look too hard to be honest - I just tend to deal with things on a per/account basis).  Likely a good idea to look into this further though - I'm just not sure where to ask about it.  I did drop a note for KD-B on his talk too - just so he was aware.  I'm glad the email got forwarded though - hopefully they can head this off before it becomes (more of) a problem. Thanks for the note, it's appreciated.  Cheers and best. — Ched :  ?  16:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm slightly puzzled about the purpose of the phishing - if they hijack accounts, they'll get blocked if they vandalise or spam, and there's no financial advantage to obtain here. I'll think about it while I nip down to the office. Can checkuser be done on an account creation when there's no edits at all? Peridon (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but I did ask someone who would know. I'll let you know when I get a reply.  I'm not sure of the intent either - very strange; but I recall back in 2008 or 2009 when there was a rash of strange emails attempting something similar.  Back then I think it was a 4chan attempt to disrupt things - but my memory could be failing me on that one. — Ched :  ?  16:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes .. a CU can track the special:email function. (cc: your talk). — Ched :  ?  16:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also .. I posted here - I'm not sure it's the right place, but it may gather some feedback. — Ched : ?  17:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I recieved a response from WMF, and they agreed it was a hoax. (info (at) wikimedia (dot) org) --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 17:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Question
What would you say about 81.131.142.185? I can confirm that it is Bradkill2 on a dynamic IP. He told me he was going to vandalise my page (he said at school) and did so, resulting in a 31h block. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 17:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well - I can semi-protect your talk and user pages if you'd like. (an IP wouldn't be able to edit the pages then).  You may want to mention it to User:HJ Mitchell as he was the blocking admin. as well.  Happy to protect if you'd like. — Ched :  ?  17:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You have, thanks for helping! --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 17:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

An Anne Frank quote for you!

 * Oh my heavens .. ya done gone made me get all misty here. ... TY Diannaa ... appreciated more than you could know. :-) — Ched : ?  15:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I will put her on my "role models" board (at the top of my user talk page). Characteristic: Bravery. Now I'm the one feeling weepy -- Dianna (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just a dingus dweeb with a tin-foil hat. OK .. I have the whole outfit ... lol. — Ched :  ?  21:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Tinfoil helmets have some significant studies out there.  Montanabw (talk) 04:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Awesome thread. Pumpkin Sky   talk  09:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I haz the bestest friends. :) — Ched : ?  11:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Tin foil hats! They're not just for aliens any more :) -- Dianna (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Please contact the Arbitration Committee
Please read the e-mail I sent you a moment ago, and direct your response to the mailing list as soon as possible. Thank you, AGK  [•] 13:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I replied to your email and did a cc: to the list .. the list addy bounced .. pls. fwd. — Ched : ?  14:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ched had only the best of intentions and sternly told OR not to comment on editors or he'd remove his talk page access himself. Just how much harm can one person do only on a talk page anyway? There's no reason to make a mountain out of a mole hill over this. Nor is there a reason here to lose a fine admin. Think about this, Arbcom. And on top of all that, Ched and I need to turn John Heaphy Fellowes into a GA. Pumpkin Sky  talk  21:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's all good buddy. There's a lot more in life for me than just a website.  I responded as requested, so ... idk.  Pick your battles in life .. this shouldn't be one of them.  I admit I'm a bit confused about such uproar regarding allowing a person talk page access - but ... I'm told he's allowed to email AC.  I'll do more research on Fellowes .. and can email anything if need be.  Good article .. glad you turned me on to that one.  — Ched :  ?  21:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIVHNylH1Mk
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gp5JCrSXkJY
 * it's all connected. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent, Br'er, EXCELLENT! Pumpkin Sky  talk  22:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ottava_Rima
 * ;) Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey arbs: if you are inclined to make something of this, kindly do so in public.  Give a respected (and quite reasonable) admin who even reaches out to opponents a public case.  What sort of comment are you going to get from the community?  You know they will mock you for going after Ched, when he acted with the best of intentions and backtracked when you objected.  I suggest you let the whole thing quietly drop.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Chedzilla say much thanks to little users. Take User:Ched Davis and stuff in little box.  No need adminy crap.  No hide; but Chedzilla very very tired of sneaky hide stuff.  No like.  Chedzilla look for articles to fix - but always have eye open to silly "Me haz power bullstuff too."  Chedzilla not speak gooder .. but not so stupid as people think. Chedzilla (talk) 01:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

wtf are they doing now? [Pesky not sure wassa goin on, but scowls and growls on principle at the very thought of anyone going after Ched ...] ... someone been eating the funny shrooms again, or something? Pesky (talk ) 08:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * All is good Pesky. I just have decided that I don't want to be a part of the admin. "group" right now.  On the other hand - I don't want to hide either.  Nobody is "going after me" .. I accepted my "smackdown" - and everyone is content to let sleeping dogs lay.  Apparently there are just some things I need to understand.  Just gonna work on improving how I cite stuff for now - and stick to articles.  No "watchlist" (except this page because I need to be accountable to the community for my admin. bit.)    Chedzilla (talk) 12:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Wiknic 2012
Message delivered by  Guerillero  &#124;  My Talk  at 22:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * TY .. I'll think about it. — Ched : ?  22:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Following up on your comments
I don't think our previous discussions have gone well and I'd hoped to have a mentor by now. I'm going to continue, and see how it goes.

User_talk:Ronz:

"1. ...I understand that you are passionate about the topic" - No, I'm not, and I feel such assumptions are detrimental to resolving such disputes.

"but other people will take good care of it." - What appears to have happened instead is that no one wants to touch the article. Certainly no one has followed up on the numerous policy problems identified on the talk page. I do intend to return to working on the article, taking all the problems to the appropriate noticeboards given the lack of progress on the talk page. Any thoughts on how long to wait?

"2." Yes, no one wants to face the bullying problems. I'll keep my eyes open for efforts to address the problems.

"4. ...I would read the essay WP:IDHT" First, there is no such essay that I'm aware of. The link goes to a very short section of WP:DE. Am I missing some other essay that you were referring to? --Ronz (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Ronz, welcome back.
 * "I don't think our previous discussions have gone well..." - I'm sorry to hear that. Hopefully we can do better in the future.
 * "No, I'm not..." - OK .. I'll take your word for that.
 * "Any thoughts on how long to wait?" Not really.  I don't know of any mandate which specifies a specific "time".  If you're taking into account previous problems though, and moving forward in a positive, productive, and collaborative fashion - then you should be fine.
 * re: the IDHT .. you are 100% correct sir - it is a behavioral guideline rather than an essay. I was wrong, and mis-spoke.  I have seen other essay's on the topic - but I'd have to do some digging to find them again.  As long as you're aware of the concept, you can avoid making the mistakes though.
 * Best of luck on your efforts. Other than having a good chuckle over some of the "Twitterish" articles (along with a few *facepalms* and *headdesk* moments), I don't really follow much of the current "pop-culture"  - so you may not see me around the Silverstone article.  I have a much smaller watchlist these days. Cheers. Chedzilla (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up.
 * I don't believe I've violated IDHT. I sometimes don't agree with others, and expect that disputes will be resolved by following the relevant policies and guidelines. When editors want to find other ways to address disputes, I stick to following the policies/guidelines as best as I can. Local consensus doesn't change community consensus
 * This isn't to say I'm not going to change my behavior. I am changing it, have been, and will continue to. What I'm looking for is specifics to concentrate on. Pointing to IDHT is simply not specific enough for me to check against what I am changing.
 * What I'm hoping from you is that you could be more specific or otherwise elaborate. There are quite a few essays and related guidelines. I'd guess that you were thinking of one of more of them... --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ronz - I'm not really sure what you're looking for from me here. I'd make a really bad mentor to be honest.  I don't even follow MY OWN edits enough to even consider following someone else.  I have no doubt that you have the best of intentions; and I wish you the very best of luck both on and off wiki.  My "IDHT" comment was simply that my perception of the Silverstone issue contained several editors feeling X should be in the lead, while you appeared to feel that Y should be in the lead.  Even if you were right (which you may well have been), the idea that there were "multiple" editors with a specific preference vs. your "individual" preference left me feeling that you would be fighting an uphill battle.  And even if you are right - to go back and try to "re"-fight the same battle would be an error in judgment.  Just IMHO.  Now - I will say this.  What a person (Silverstone) is "known for" can be a very VERY subjective concept.  What YOU know her for may be very different from what OTHER people know her for.  It's not always about being "right" on wikipedia - it's about working with others to make the best quality articles we can without disruption.  If you feel strongly about something - then politely and kindly open a RFC, as it's beyond the WP:3O stage by now, and see how things shake out.  Just remember you'll need to accept the consensus from that without argument.  Yes - you're correct in saying local consensus doesn't overrule community consensus.  (well - at least that's the way it's supposed to work), but if you're talking about what's this individual person is notable for - well .. that's going to have to be a "local" consideration.  It's not something like "last name first, first name last" or some naming convention that's under consideration.  I hope that help; at least in clarifying my own point of view. Best of luck Chedzilla (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, post on a noticeboard or an RFC would have been a better choice on my part. That's what I'll do. Thanks for your time and help. --Ronz (talk) 03:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * huh? .. Me?... I didn't do anything. Chedzilla (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You were there, that was very important. Pumpkin Sky  talk  17:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, you were there, whenever I needed. Hope you enjoyed a good day with a good story! (hidden message: "open mind") - Returning from gorgeous fireworks, Rheingau Musik Festival 25 years, a fitting conclusion, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I shared images and gave green light to our friend, missing in the team --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That is such a sweet gesture Gerda - you truly are a "precious" gem of a person. Not all that long ago I passed along well wishes through a mutual friend to him.  I haven't heard back from him directly, but I agree it would be great to see him return. — Ched :  ?  14:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

A Big Hug for you!
Just because ... ;P Pesky  (talk ) 04:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Awww .. I'm gonna get all misty here - Huggles right back my dear sweet woman. :-) Chedzilla (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hugs all around! No, it's too hot. Beers all around! Drmies (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OHHHH Hell yea .. I haven't seen less than 85 for more than 2 weeks .. geesh. — Ched : ?  00:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, you must be the one
That handmade barnstar beats the pants off anything I can come up with that is for sure. Anyhow, you must be the one that Pesky referred to, so I'd like to ask for advice with this mountain. If you have, say, a spare year to read any of it. Penyulap  ☏  23:32, 6 Jul 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey Penny - how goes it? Sure, I'll have a look the first chance I get - hopefully later tonight. — Ched :  ?  00:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and there is no rush of any kind, I move very slowly on it so as not to upset WD. Penyulap  ☏  01:40, 7 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
v/r - TP 02:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

My Block
Just to note: Since my "laxity" is being questioned - I feel I should respond (with caveats). Since my "Ched Davis" account does hold the mop - I do consider it my duty to the community be accountable. The basics are this: It was not a single diff that prompted my actions - but the collective group of edits that spanned confrontation after confrontation with no less than 3 editors. (Mal, Bugs, and Tarc are the three I'm counting, although there were a few others that followed). So - in short supply I'll offer this: My conclusion was that there was an escalation of battlefield disruption in progress, and I tried to stop that. I also noted to passing admins (in my block notice, and subsequent replies), that I had NO problem with another admin, or consensus via some discussion, reviewing, tweaking, lifting, or changing in any way my block. In fact I was actually quite glad to have a couple other admins. review, and in further discussion, actually work towards an unblock request. Thanks to both TParis and 28bytes for their efforts in that regard. I'll also note that I did not respond in any way to the derogatory comments left on their talk page. I fully understand that those types of things come with the territory. If there's anything else, feel free to ask.
 * Since the editor in question has now been blocked again, and I'm obviously (and understandably) a persona non grata, then going there directly to respond would likely inflame things rather than calm them: I'll post here.
 * Any editor at all is free to inquire here as to my reason for the original block.
 * 1) The comment(s) at the Arb request page.  (so obviously some 50 or 60 edits in to the account - they weren't exactly being low-profile)
 * 2) The ANI discussion where there were numerous aggressive (albeit defensive at points) posts which culminated in him/her calling an established editor (or editors) "troll".  (I believe Bugs was the recipient of at least one of those comments)
 * 3) The comment on their own talk page about making "Rabbit stew"
 * 4) The approach they took by going to Tarc's talk page.  (If they weren't outright breaches of NPA - they were very close)
 * 5) The subsequent (and determined bad faith) MfD of Tarc's edit notice.

I'll also note that since the Arbitration Committee has now become involved, I consider my own involvement here to be concluded, but again - I answer anything I can. — Ched : ?  15:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap & the ISS
Just to let you know, Penyulap has been forum shopping and admin shopping on the ISS "dispute" for some time now. He's started three or four discussions in the last year, none of which got the desired result for him, so he's just trying to start it up again. He basically refuses, to the point of disruptive editing, to acknowledge that he is the only editor campaigning to change the dialect, as far as everyone else involved is concerned, the issue is settled. -- W.  D.   Graham  20:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ahhh .. an WP:ENGVAR thing then? I'm guessing there was a RfC somewhere along the line(?).   I'm an American myself, but don't really favor one version (of English) over any others.  At least not that I'm aware of.  — Ched :  ?  21:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, the article was started in British, but was slowly migrating towards American. During its FAC the dialect was standardised, putting it back into British as that was the first dialect, however this upset a few editors so an RFC was held to determine whether it should remain in British English, or be changed to American. No consensus was achieved, so the article remained in British English. Penyulap came along over two years later, and started completely rewriting the article (bearing in mind it was an FA at this point). He has in the last thirteen months started at least seven discussions on at least four different pages. This was the first discussion (the issue was touched on in two previous sections he started which reside in the same archive, and he had previously been trying to change the dialect through edit warring). That discussion closed after he accepted a topic ban to avoid further sanctions in relation to a related issue. Once that expired, he came back in September and started this monster which dragged on for five months as he refused to drop it. When that finally died, he waited two days from it being archived and started another one. Since then he has tried to restart the discussion on my talk page, during a discussion of his conduct on the WikiProject talk page; there are multiple discussions open on his own talk page. -- W.  D.   Graham  08:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey W.D. It turns out I'm not going to be much help with this, at least not at the moment.  I do wish you all the best of luck with it though. Chedzilla (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar of good cheer

 * TY sir. Greatly appreciated. Chedzilla (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good cheer happening ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OMG! ROLF! LMFAO! That is SOOOO appropriate for Ched. And yes, Gerda, I added an English translation to the Commons pic! Pumpkin Sky  talk  20:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Reminds me of wikipedia in general: Everything accomplished on a high level, with much sound and fury, and it takes two years to get any results!  :-D   Montanabw (talk) 05:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Puppies need friends
WOOF WOOF  — Puppy of Dog The Teddy Bear • WOOF • 01:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

To a friend
Ched, I dedicated articles to missing friends, now the opposite: one year after you brightened my dark days I dedicate to you the baby of collaboration, the shelter Laufen Hut, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ps: you were also the one to teach me the abbreviations above, thank you ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)