User talk:Ched/Archive 30


 * previous version before archive

Template talk:Non-free review
An RfC about the use of the fairusereview tag on mainspace pages is in progress here. From 2005 until recently, this template was added to file pages when the non-free status of the file was being discussed. In May this year it was edited so that it could be added to articles. The RfC question is: "Should the template be reverted to the pre-May 2013 version, and retained only for use on file pages?"

Since you are a registered member of the Fair Use WikiProject, you might have an interest in this discussion.Tom Reedy (talk) 04:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the notice, but I really don't have time to research this right now. —  Ched ZILLA  13:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Season
'tis the season'' Louisa Venable Kyle wrote a children's book on The Witch of Pungo ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know -- Missing Wikipedians
You have been mentioned at Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I still read and fix something as an IP if I see it. Just not interested in the politics right now.  Life is short - and I don't care to waste it arguing with people.  Very nice to be remembered though - thank you. —   Ched ZILLA  08:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks - but I'm just gonna stick to articles. When Risker and Huntster take the time to offer me kind words of advice - I know I should listen. I'm not active enough to weigh in on this topic, but I do appreciate the value. —   Ched ZILLA  08:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
I just wanted to wish all you folks a wonderful holiday season. Regardless of faith, I hope you all have a wonderful life. Hugs to the ladies, and high-fives to the guys. Have a great one. —  Ched ZILLA  11:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Merry Christmas to you too, Ched. From your post on Bish's talk, I can see that you're feeling kind of bah humbuggy about Wikipedia now. Sorry to see it, and want to give you my best wishes and say there are those like me on Wikipedia who value you and hope we'll keep seeing you around! Merry Christmas! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The Seasons Felicitations
The only thing I have missed as regards Wikipedia are some of the people. You are one of them. Have a delicious 2014. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Away
Just saw a couple notes to reply to - and I will when I get home in a week or so. Thanks all. User:Ched (away from home) 99.108.47.90 (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * How was Florence? You globetrotters, I resent your liberties. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

And another editor bites the dust
I'm so sorry to hear that you felt inclined to leave Wikipedia. It's been over 6 months since you left (despite doing some occasional editing) and it is really sad to lose you as an editor and administrator. There are times when editors should be held responsible for their actions (I'm not referring to you personally, but you have done pretty good work as an administrator). If you do come back, I whole-heartedly welcome you, but if not, I don't blame you. I wish you all the best in your future endeavors. Vaya con Dios! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey

 * See that dude on the left, the little one? He's waving at you. Take it easy, he seems to be saying. He probably hopes you're doing well. Don't let the dinosaurs eat you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mieszilla (talk • contribs) 02:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Another Zilla ... cool ... will get to know ya soon. 72.77.73.22 (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

JSTOR Survey (and an update)
Hi! Just a quick update that while JSTOR and The Wikipedia Library discuss expanding the partnership, they've gone ahead and extended the pilot access again, until May 31st. Thanks, JSTOR!

It would be really helpful for growing the program if you would fill out this short survey about your usage and experience with JSTOR:

SURVEY

Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

be back soon
just been real busy in real life .. hope all are well. 72.77.73.22 (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Credo
Hello! You have received preliminary approval for access to Credo. Please fill out this short form so that your access can be processed. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * See below - feel free to give to another user. — Ched : ?  14:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Please fill out your JSTOR email
As one of the original 100 JSTOR account recipients, please fill out the very short email form you received just recently in order to renew your access. Even though you signed up before with WMF, we need you to sign up again with The Wikipedia Library for privacy reasons and because your prior access expired on July 15th. We do not have your email addresses now; we just used the Special:EmailUser feature, so if you didn't receive an email just contact me directly at jorlowitz@undefinedgmail.com. Thanks, and we're working as quickly as possible to get you your new access! Jake (Ocaasi) 19:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Since I don't edit enough to be worthy - feel free to give it to someone else; but thank you just the same. — Ched : ?  14:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You're not missing much worthwhile here these days, anyhow, Ched. Intothatdarkness 14:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * blue hope pictured, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Long overdue
Howdy Ched. Just wanna thank ya for your May 2013 comments at WP:Arbitration Committee, concerning the then barring of my talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Ummmm ... OK I guess. May 2013 was long long ago (and in a galaxy far away) to me; but if something I said left someone with a "thank ya" in their heart - then I'm glad I said whatever it is I said.  Best always, — Ched :  ?  15:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Happy to see you back, even if only for a fleeting moment. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Always good to see you around as well Ed ... hope you are doing well. — Ched : ?  03:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * First semester of grad school is in the books. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Glad to hear that Ed, ... keep up the good work. :-) — Ched : ?  11:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC - 14 months later than intended
Interested users are invited to comment at Administrators/RfC for an Admin Review Board. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Very glad to see this. I will have a look some time over the next few days.  Thank you Kudpung.  Hope you and yours are doing well, all my best .. — Ched :  ?  03:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Ched!
Saw you on NYB's page. Hope all's well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm still hangin in there .. everyday above ground and all that :). Hey Floq; how you doin?  Always good to see a sane voice about.  Best to you and yours always my friend. — Ched :  ?  19:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So you didn't quite reach wiki escape velocity after all ;) NE Ent 03:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Guilty as charged. I was happily fixing a typo here and there as an IP, but logged in to see what was up with the arbcom elections in early November.  (found my scrambled password on a thumbdrive).  Hope to not draw much attention, as I don't plan to get involved in much - but ... meh ... a "your vs. you're" here, a "to vs. too" there ... perhaps I can fix a bit now and again without too much fuss.  I always did read the articles for research, and it's hard to walk away from fixing obvious stuff - probably shouldn't have drawn attention with a couple outside the article posts ... but we'll see.  How you doin Ent?  Very glad to see you still about, I see you chose to avoid the admin. stuff - can't say I blame you.  Hope all is well with you and yours buddy. — Ched :  ?  03:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz&diff=prev&oldid=637990098] -- yea, that's the ticket. Go where you wanna go... Yea, I'm doing what I do around here. NE Ent 04:17, 14 December 2014 (UT


 * there are so many good souls here, and I smile in seeing the folks like you Ent (you are such damn good people). It hurts so much when I see the anger and hate that fills so much of wiki - but it is part of life.  Sorry to go so philosophical, but cherish every moment, every second of life .... ya only get one shot at this.  Make sure ya do it right. — Ched :  ?  04:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

My Wish For All of You Good People
A very Merry Christmas and/or Happy Holidays to all and your families. From — Ched : ?  16:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom Dream Team
As 2014 comes to a close, we bid adieu to some very fine arbs. I have at times been very critical of the collective group, but never of the individuals. I'm thinking an "All-Star, Dream Team" might be fun to consider. More to follow. — Ched : ?  13:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose MastCell. (Also of course re-draft Floquenbeam and don't let Newyorkbrad out of there.) Bishonen &#124; talk 13:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC).
 * and 3 times 28bytes, please, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You should rethink User:Newyorkbrad. Even if he agrees, he's a slacker, and likely to quit after only 7 years. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Ummm ... ok, well that was said. :). Personally yes, NYB, Floq, and 28 would be there.  I would also cast votes for Flonight, WTT, Carcharoth, Risker, Roger Davies, John Vandenberg, Cas Liber, Deskana, Krill Lokshin and Rlevse.  Not that I've agreed with any one of them on all things, but I thought they handled the job well.  It's also noted that this isn't a condemnation of any current or past individual Arb - It's just that I always felt that once I talked to these people, I knew where they stood on any individual issue. — Ched :  ?  14:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And of course, we would need the supreme court justice: The most honorable Bishzilla — Ched : ?  14:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a first
Over the years I've heard AN/I called a lot of things, but I think this is the first time I ever heard it called a "safe haven". I guess times really have changed. (and that would be a good change IMO) — Ched : ?  14:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Ummmm ... IJS
Douchebag is fully protected on Wikipedia. Well that certainly does explain a lot, at least to me. IJS. — Ched : ?  10:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , ->
 * Hey Ched! Hadn't noticed you were around again. Happy new year, grandpa, and thank you for your service. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well crapola .. sorry I missed you the other day, judging from the timestamp - I don't think it was by much. ALWAYS so go to see you about my friend.  Yea, I am trying to sneak in an edit here and there (typo stuff mostly at this point, along with a few IMO posts), and re-learning muh wiki skills.  I'm not always up for getting online, but when I am I'm trying to do a little here and there.  Is your talk page still the cool place to hang-out?  Guess I should go check-in on some folks and see who's still here.  I know Hunster, Floq, the Bish family, Ed, Kudpung and a few others are still about cause I logged in back in Nov for elections (sigh).  — Ched :  ?  01:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are we talking about ijs, anyway? (It's Dutch for "ice cream".) I don't know about "cool" place. Folks come by and ask questions and I try to oblige. Hafspajen comes by with pictures, Xanthowhatever makes pretty good jokes. Sometimes people yell at me. What else is new? Eric Corbett got yelled at by Jimmy Wales on JW's talk page, after someone brought Eric into some dumb thread for no good reason at all. It's like herpes--occasional flare-ups. There's been an ArbCom case or two, with very few hardcore dictates coming out of them, though someone got blocked for a long time or banned, I forgot which. A-holes have been bothering poor old Sitush IRL. Randykitty made admin--don't know how he pulled the wool over everyone's eyes, but he did. Oh, Harry Mitchell lost his temper, I think--quite uncharacteristic. What else... same old, same old. Later! Drmies (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit count
Be wary of judging an editor by edit count. For example this edit is worth a lot more than his edit. I'm about quality rather than quantity. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In no way was I attempting to evaluate the quality of any user's edit. Wikipedia is an extremely diverse culture, and there are many editors who do some very fine work; and yet, they struggle when it comes to interactions with people who may view things differently than them.  There are a large number of users who are difficult to deal with for one reason or another.  I've been around myself since nupedia, have had an account since 08(?), and yet have only maybe 20k edits.  (I read much more than I write).  Perhaps related: there is a stigma to the term "narcissist" which became a real hot-button word some years ago.  I won't go into details here; suffice to say that one of, if not the best, editor on wiki used it in a general sense was blocked.  It was not even directed at an individual ..... sigh.  OK - anyway, I meant no offense by mentioning the number of edits. — Ched :  ?  03:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I probably shouldn't have said it, but I meant it. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You have absolutely no need to apologize for speaking your mind to me sir. I greatly appreciate honesty, and in fact, I agree with what you've said. — Ched :  ?  03:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless you shouldn't always say what you think, even if you think it's true. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Truer words would be difficult to find. — Ched : ?  04:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Ched, speaking one's mind is encouraged, I know, but it has its limits. I'm getting kind of tired of MaxBrowne and their narcissism commentary, and I think I'm at the point where I think it's blockable. Wikipedia isn't really a free-speech zone and I can't help but think that Max is doing this, continuing to do this, to get a rise out of IHTS. Now, MaxBrowne, it is time to stop. Yes, typically admin pages (certainly mine) are sort of outside normal boundaries, and I typically let editors with iBans discuss matters related to those iBans--but that doesn't mean they are free-speech zones where old gripes can be rehashed ad nauseam. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "...I can't help but think that Max is doing this, continuing to do this, to get a rise out of...". This is incorrect. I just want to be able to edit in peace. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have a bit of running to do today, and honestly I hadn't followed all this beyond the one ANI thread. I had hoped with a bit of encouragement that everyone would go their separate ways and be productive.  If there are continuing issues then I fully trust your judgement  and of course won't interfere.  Best of luck to all. — Ched :  ?  17:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Mustangs
I very much appreciate your assistance and support. But I have been worn down for almost two weeks on these dramas and have no more fight left at the moment. If you think a few more people will want to support my position, I can withdraw my requests for closure, but I don't think the drama will ever end on the disambiguation page until it is moved, as this was the third time it has come up in a year, and there were previous dramas that I can't be bothered to locate now. The capitalization issue is different,but I fear equally no-win given the weight of people coming in, none of whom have ever actually edited the article, but they are free with their uninformed opinions. The bullies won this round, I fear. Montanabw (talk) 06:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Montanabw, I can easily accept what will come from the capitalization issues for many reasons. Personally my education comes from a now archaic educational system where we were taught that lowercase was for general descriptions: cat, dog, horse.  But that caps should be used when referring to a specific breed or species.  Still, that is "American" English, and much has changed over the years, and I can easily accept that.  However, in my mind. as an encyclopedic project, I think the pure concepts should be adhered to.  The etiology clearly states that the word is first, foremost, and only about the horse.  Originally I felt that "M/mustang" should be a dab because my first thought was of the American car.  After research, and after putting on my "this is an encyclopedia" hat (tinfoil as it may be), I came to strongly feel that Mustang should indeed point to the horse article.  However, I am not a member of the WikiProject Equine, and I also very strongly believe that "projects" should be given certain leeway in relative articles.  I strongly resent the "I didn't get my way, I'll try again" attitude of bringing this move situation up every few months.  That is clearly disruptive editing.  Although I've only looked briefly at two pages regarding Mustangs, it seems that the area you're working in is extremely toxic.  I could go on for quite some time, but suffice to say - if you and members of WP:EQUINE wish concede and submit to the ill-informed, then I will not be a roadblock.  I stand by my comment of "I very strongly oppose these moves."; however for reasons I won't get into publicly, there are times I can't be on wiki to rebut every Tom, Dick, and Harry crawling out of mommy and daddy's basement.  It's up to you.  If you fold, then I do too.  If you wish to oppose these moves, then I will do my best to support you because I believe ... I KNOW, in my heart that from an encyclopedic standpoint that you are right.  Your call. — Ched :  ?  06:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I reversed my "giving up" and now there's yet another fight over whether to just call the whole thing off. It's a total ClusterF--- .  I hear you about toxic.  I guess if you want to go over there and comment that everyone needs to take a chill pill - and perhaps indeed the the issue just needs to be closed as "inconclusive" for awhile, let the discussion be archived, and let it be looked at again in  a year or so, I'd be good with that. I DO oppose the move, but I am exhausted, and there were too few people willing to deal with the bullies and trolls.  That damn notificaiton bot seems to draw nothing but ignorant drama queens to these RM discussions.    Montanabw (talk)  06:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I did see that, and while I agree - I won't try to force any more toxic drama on you either. And while my time on wiki is often very spotty, I will put both Mustang pages on my watchlist and do what I can to keep things tolerable.  I was too involved this time around to take any administrative actions, but there are other venues to explore in the future too.  Get some rest, recharge, and go back to enjoying all things "horse" Montanabw.  Best always. — Ched :  ?  12:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. You may enjoy Mike Cline's new article Bleu Horses.   Montanabw (talk)  00:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey - amazing coincidence. I recently had a look at that article; I think it was our TFA or something.  Some of those pictures he took were amazing.  I didn't have time to read the whole thing at the time, but I did bookmark it.  Thank you for the reminder - I will get back to it. — Ched :  ?  00:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Q
I greatly appreciate honesty, and in fact, I agree with what you've said. — Ched : ? 03:33, 25 Ched, could you please clarify (to me) what it is you "agree with"? Thanks. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The comment "Be wary of judging an editor by edit count." — Ched : ?  14:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Remember this?: "I stand by my thoughts". Well, it is just fine if you continue to hate my guts Ched, I don't particularly like or respect you either. But you should know, as admin, you aren't neutral toward me, and as such, you shouldn't be closing ANI threads concerning me. (Or doesn't that serve your sensibility somehow?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Four things IHTS
 * 1. I don't hate your guts.
 * 2. I'm not interested in rehashing an email conversation from a year and a half ago.
 * 3. If you're looking for an argument, I'm sorry, but again, I'm just not interested.
 * 4. You asked me to clarify something I said. I tried to do just that; and I don't know how to make it any clearer than I did.
 * — Ched : ?  08:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Just because you list things, doesn't mean it is being logical or responsive. Like I said, your answer didn't make a whole lot of sense. It still doesn't. (Clearly, I think you have intentionally missed points, been disingenuous & worse. But not surprised about that. Continuing to discuss anything with you is just as distaseful as is for you, I suppose. So we agree to not speak further to one another; good, you give me a headache.) p.s. Your recent edits re me is why I came here. Maybe you should turn off the crap!? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * huh? I'm really not sure where all of this is coming from IHTS.  I don't know what response it is you're looking for.  I've tried to answer your questions.  I'm sorry my memory isn't better, the best I can recall is that we disagreed about something back in 2013.  I'm sorry you weren't able to comprehend my response, but I don't know how else to say what I said.  You say you think I'm intentionally missing some "points",  uhhhh ... no, not really. You're free to elaborate if you wish. You seem to be implying I'm deceitful and that I lie. You say discussing things with me is distasteful, but I don't recall posting on your talk page in the last couple years.  WHAT edits "re you"?  I hope your headache stops?  I wish you well?  IDK. — Ched :  ?  01:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you already know I cannot answer your Q because of IBAN restriction. Also, it is too bad WP does not have a mediation venue whereby you, me, and neutral moderator on a non-public discussion page can't get together to get to the bottom for you and resolve your confusion. Nothing much gets achieved otherwise, does it, except wasting time and upping the snark. In lieu of said non-existent venue, why don't you more carefully go thru your recent dialogues concerning me and the ANI you closed, and then either get back to me to repeat your "don't want to discuss any further", or come to better comprehension on your own!? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * So to recap: YOU violated an IBAN in a way that wasn't obvious to anyone who wasn't monitoring your "thank you" log; then YOU come here to bait and level accusations at me that amount to personal attacks. OK. But just so we're clear, you coming here does not make me "involved" where you are concerned, so iff I see this type of behavior continue elsewhere, then I will not hesitate to block you.  Given your history, it could be a rather lengthy one at that.  I'm surprised that you would bring this kind of scrutiny upon yourself; but you, and only you, are responsible for your actions.  I would strongly suggest that you consider doing article work for a while, but the choice is yours. — Ched :  ?  12:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it's very telling that it seems you can't deal straighforwardly or constructively with this issue opened up in this thread on your Talk, which is an objection to as admin how you've handled your recent conversations with others concerning me post ANI that you closed (for the record, I believe you're the offender here Ched, not me), but instead need to try and shut me up via intimidation via manufacturing transgressions and issuing threats. Good job, Ched. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to shut you up IHTS. If that were the case I would simply tell you to stay off my talk, and I am NOT doing that.  You are welcome to post here.  I try to answer your questions, but it seems that if you don't get the answers you like - you accuse me of not being straightforward or constructive.  I'm not issuing threats, I'm just telling you like it is.  To be honest?  I doubt it will be me that will block you next, but I won't be surprised if someone else does unless you change your approach.  I didn't close the thread on you, in fact, I didn't even comment on it.  I closed a sub-thread regarding another editor.  My intent was to put out the fire so to speak - yet you continue to fan the flames.  I'm not trying to intimidate you, I'm simply trying to offer you constructive advice as you go forward.  It's entirely up to you how you take it, and how you chose to proceed in the future.  I honestly do wish you the very best; I know you are capable of doing credible work.  Good luck in all your efforts. — Ched :  ?  15:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso, from the outside, it appears that your are only here to WP:BAIT Ched. So how about you stop? Montanabw (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sure such drive-by comment is gonna make me wanna stick around to edit! (BTW, "it appears" the Sun revolves around the Earth; "it appears" seawater might quench one's thirst.) Me thinks policy permits editors to question, and even criticize, an admin re their conduct. (And it's a little hard to edit articles when doing so, and when under attack, me thinks, if that is the co-requirement.) Just following policy?!: WP:BACKUPYOURWIKIFRIENDNOMATTERWHATTHEYDOTOOTHERS. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If you don't want to stick around, IHTS, no one here is making you stay. I "drive by" when I see people bullied, and at this point, you are being a bully.  I suggest you look at your own behavior and consider what your purpose is here other than to vent your spleen.  See also WP:DIVA, WP:KETTLE and WP:RANDY and their applicability to your situation.   Montanabw (talk)  09:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I made my purpose clear from the outset. I'm not the one here unable to "look at their behavior"--Ched is. I've stayed on point to confront this admin on his PA, that suits your definitions for "venting" and "bullying"?! (Great definitions!) If your wiki-friend is uncomfortable being confronted by my complaint, which it looks like he is since he attempts to escape it by any means whatsoever, perhaps he shouldn't have initiated what he did in the thread he archived and elsewhere. I had nothing to do with those initiations they were his choices. Apparently you like to mock or ridicule an editor in my position at the end of a repeated PA of this nature by admins: "But it seems like this time of year is more drama, more hurt fweewings, more "I'm going to go to ANI/RfC/ArbCom" or whatever. Montanabw(talk) 01:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)" That's fine for your own standards what you find acceptable, Montanabw, but me thinks you shouldn't go around pushing your own standard on others, nor in the way you're doing it. You say "Kettle" but I would never ever PA another editor the way Ched and other admins have participated. You say "Diva" but the fact is this kind of unchecked and out-of-line abusiveness makes me feel physically ill (and it's a little hard to have appetite for WP editing or research then). About "Randy" I have no idea what you're talking about. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * KNOCK IT OFF IHTS. I have not made any attacks on anyone.  I've answered any questions you've put to me.  The fact that you don't like them, or don't believe them, is not my problem.  I've tried to help you in every way I know how, but your continued disruptive behavior is not acceptable on wiki.  You've been given good advice by multiple editors; I suggest you start taking it.  Your attempts to play some sort of victim here do not impress me in the least.  If you're truly WP:HERE to be constructive, then go forth and edit articles.  You're about out of warnings. — Ched :  ?  12:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Ched, you allowed repetition of PA on your Talk that Drimes told you was blockable. (Go back and look. Your response to Drmies was as though you had no idea what he was talking about. And your followup posts have only that context. It would be better if you got some WP:CLUE of what you profess to be so puzzled re. Then this long thread with you would have totally been unnecessary. I've suggested mediation to clarify for you, but all I've gotten are various insults designed to drive me away, and threats. Why would you let this thread go on for so long without trying to really understand my complaint?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

IHTS. This thread is long because you are refusing to accept another person's position. You are extending this. You are reframing each point. You are trying to force an editor into admitting to actions you and only you are defining. What you are doing is bullying another editor who is kind enough to carry on a conversation. Understand this. Your questions were answered. As mature adults we understand that we cannot force others to do and say what we ask them to. We respect another's opinion and time. We try no not force ourselves and our opinions on other people but accept that we are all unique and have unique view points, you included. i assume you are mature and would not want to force this conversation especially on someone who is tired and may not be feeling well. Thanks for considering what I'm saying to you. (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC))

Sorry Ched I know you can deal with this yourself, and I hope this wasn't an intrusion, but I wondered if Ihts might consider another way of viewing his actions. Best wishes to you both.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC))


 * Like Littleolive oil said. IDHT, you can whine on your own talk page all you want, but here, yes, you are bullying a decent human being because he called you on your crap a very long time ago.  And you weren't the person I was thinking of when I snarked about "hurt widdow fweewings" at my talk (I was actually thinking of a half-dozen others), but now that you raise it, that really does fit you, so thank you for reminding me of that remark. Your behavior is that of a classic bully; you hound and harass other people but are outraged when someone snaps back at you.  Trust me, you would benefit from a good look in the mirror before you post here at Ched's page again.  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  21:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow
This is just...WOW.  Caden  cool  23:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I hadn't seen Drmies around and it was getting out of hand. Since I see he's on top of it, .... — Ched :  ?  00:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hard not to get sucked into the dysfunction vortex, isn't it? :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * AMEN buddy .. AMEN! — Ched : ?  00:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I logged on Tuesday, poked around, saw this stuff in full throttle, shook my head, and logged off. Logged on Wednesday, briefly considered full-protection of about a dozen user talk pages, thought better of it, and logged off. Pretty much did the same thing today, except saw your name pop up on my watchlist.

You have kids, Ched? (if too personal, ignore). Some of the "discussion" reminds me of a fight between mine. One option is to yell "I don't care who started it! If you don't stop it, you're all grounded". I've certainly done my share of that. It works, but you feel like you somehow failed afterwards. Another is to talk to each of them for an hour, try to figure out what started what, try to get both sides to see the other side's point of view, and finish up with a big hug. I've tried that, it sounds good in theory, and it's probably in all the parenting books, but it's almost always a complete waste of time. Another option is to ignore them, and when they try to enlist you, say "solve it yourselves". Eventually they get tired of arguing, and either walk away, or actually solve it themselves. This doesn't always work, but it sometimes does.

Really, these people aren't "disrupting" too many people except themselves; it's not like a bunch of innocents are getting yelled at, everyone is varying shades of guilty. If they want to be self-destructive, I don't know that we need to care. To those saying "where are all the admins?", the answer can sometimes be "solve it yourselves". People need to learn the art of ignoring people who upset you, or who called you a name. If we don't wade in, maybe someone will learn that skill today. I'm not really saying this is definitely the solution here, but it's the one I'm going with. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm going to think on this a bit. I'll reply further after some thought. (I learned long ago that your words merited consideration :)) — Ched :  ?  00:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I tweaked something, didn't really mean "ignore people you disagree with". Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK - I'm out for a while. I agree with a bunch of your points above, and will try to incorporate them in the future.  Thank you Floq, your words and time are always greatly appreciated.  ttyl. — Ched :  ?  01:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is precisely why shutting down WP:WQA was a mistake. Folks thought it "didn't work" but by letting a couple childish editors sling low level mud at each other for few days ... until they finally figured out no one was going to save them from themselves ... we kept that stuff off ANI, article and user talk, and all the other places it happens now. NE Ent 09:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well Ent, my guess is that as Floq says, it won't subside until a few folks are "grounded". But hey, I'm content to sit back and watch.  We shall see. — Ched :  ?  12:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Q.1
So you reply and say I'm welcome to express myself here, then immediately delete the thread, when it is very clear I wasn't satisfied at all with your responses, which were not only not straightforward nor constructive, but clearly aimed to avoid the one-and-only issue I've brought to your attention here - clearly a complaint in how you've conducted yourself in post ANI conversations regarding me. (First you claim you responded, then when I tell you it wasn't addressing the issue and why I can't say more due to IBAN, you fabricate transgressions and start threatening to intimidate.) I think you know what the problem is Ched. If you have cluefulness, you should be able to pick it up in Drmies's message to you, and in my initial query of you. I'm just not buying your response to that query, for reason already told you twice. I could already see by the previous post of yours containing threat & intimidation, there is no way forward with you on the issue you've created here by your elected conversations regarding me, and, like I said, I'm not buying your responses here, they are all over the map, and none of them have addressed the problem that you have created here. If you want to know more I'm all for some kind of mediation with you with a neutral party. But I doubt you'd offer to participate and prefer your current line of feigned attention, goodwill, making threats, then deleting threads. Just stay away from me, and watch your comments, they have been offensive and toxic. The last thing I wanted to do was open the thread you deleted. But IMO you started this with your incendiary conversations. Drmies even scolded you for allowing what you allowed. But you had gone even further than that. In my book that was extremely nasty. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * First, the only thing I deleted was a bot notification. Second, there's clearly a link to my archives at the top of my talk.  THIRD - The thread that we were having a discussion in is at the very top of this very page IHTS.  This drives at the very heart of the matter here.  You need to stop, look, listen, read, and think before you post.  Now while you regroup, I'm going to be doing a few other things; HOWEVER, I will be glad to come back and address any issues you may have a bit later today.  Feel free to refactor anything you've said above with  .  — Ched :  ?  18:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Um, I tried replying to you at section "Q"--the system told me it wasn't there (not found). I checked your Talk history and saw you archived it. Now you've restored it, but you haven't restored the related offending section where Drmies commented. That is the offending thread, plus your related posts elsewhere stemming from. What's needed here, due to your continuous dodging & weaving, is mediation with a neutral party to which you'd be subject. Other than that, you've exhausted my patience. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * IHTS, I think you have a lot to offer on this project. OK, now I'm guessing you were editing while I was.  When you click the edit link on a section, it says something like this:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ched&action=edit&section=3
 * Notice the "section=3" at the end. So I'm guessing you clicked edit and started typing.  Then I cut and pasted old threads to User talk:Ched/Archive 30, and then you clicked the "Save page" button.  When you first clicked "edit", then "Q" was section=13 (or something like that), when you clicked the "save", section=13 didn't exist, and "Q" was then section=1.  At no time did I delete the thread in which we were talking, so I never had to restore it.  So once again you've jumped to the wrong conclusions.  Yes, it would have been nice if it triggered the "edit conflict" thing - that might have saved some confusion on your part.
 * Now, for future reference: I'm guessing [|this] is the thread you want to discuss. It is a thread that you never posted in, and one that had gone a couple days without any posts; therefore I felt fine in archiving it.  Since you want to bring up  I think it's only fair to ping him.  At no point in time did I take any comment of his as "scolding" me.  Drmies is an editor and admin. that I have the utmost respect for, and if he said he's looking at something - then I trust him to look at all sides and offer a fair and equitable solution.  Quite frankly, I considered pointing out some timestamps and diffs to show that Max had moved on, but meh, like I said - I trust his judgement.
 * You've said that discussion with me is "distasteful", that it give you a "headache", but I haven't been to your page in ages. I'm simply responding to what your asking here.  I'm a bit confused as to why you continue if it's so bothersome to you, but I'm more than willing to discuss anything you want.  I do have a few other things to add, such as your choice of words like "disingenuous & worse", but I'll stop here to see what else is said. — Ched :  ?  20:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)