User talk:Ched/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Request

{{helpme}} I'm looking for editors here on en.wp but who speak and edit on projects in the following languages:

1. French, (User:AlexandrDmitri or User:Maxim seem active)
2. Serbian (User:WhiteWriter
3. Chinese (User:OhanaUnited or User:Penwhale)

I'm asking this in regards to a name change on those projects so that I can unify my Commons login. Thank you — Ched :  ?  18:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Two suggestions for places to look:

• Wikipedia:Local Embassy
• The user language categories Category:User fr-N, Category:User sr-N, Category:User zh-N.

JohnCD (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I suggest asking a steward; they're helpful at sorting out cross-wiki problems. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Special:ListUsers/sysop works on every wiki, regardless of language, so you should be able to find one that speaks English by looking at their userpage. User:Bencmq should be good for Chinese. --Rschen7754 23:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

feedback request

Hi Ched, I was wondering if you could spare a few minutes to give me your take on User:WereSpielChequers/Going off the boil, cheers ϢereSpielChequers 08:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi WSC, great to see you. Actually, I did see and bookmark that page a while back, but failed to get back to you with any input. I had never heard the term "Going of the boil" before, but in reading through it - I'd have to admit that I can see some clear relevance to it. I'm not sure if you're interested in a critique of what is there, or my own personal views on the topic. I think it is very well written, so I'll likely only have comments on the later. I'm still rather spotty on my appearances on-wiki at the moment, but I will try to share my views next week at some point. Cheers and have a great weekend. — Ched :  ?  16:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ched, If "going off the boil" is one of those phrases that hasn't crossed the Atlantic I might try and think of a more global name. Critiques and personal views are both welcome, I'm hoping that I've got all the main theories in one place. Though the more I look at it the harder it is to weight the relative importance of different elements, especially as some will have already had full effect and others are still working their way through. No great hurry in giving your views, I was thinking of making it a signpost op ed but that has been delayed by Sue going, or otherwise I might file an RFC. Though I can see that getting complex, but I would literally like to make a "Request For Comments". ϢereSpielChequers 17:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Some variation of "losing steam" might be more accessible to those who don't often use British English or more archaic American constructions. Intothatdarkness 13:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

A shining smiling star

Hello Ched, AutomaticStrikeout has given you a shining smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shining Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 17:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Why thank you ASO - that's very kind of you. :) — Ched :  ?  16:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	You know only too well that you deserve it! Thank you for all the help and the insight into every single detail!! Please don't ever think of leaving!! You still gotta look after me! The Wikimon (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Wikimon, that's very kind. We do seem to get a bit over-run with foolishness on the project at times, but I'll do my best to keep an eye open and help where I can. — Ched :  ?  16:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

References needed

Help! I can't find good references for my article I'm creating. I'm creating an article about Jaap Edenhal in Amsterdam, Netherlands. It's part of Jaap Eden baan. It has hosted some of the biggest names in the music industry. Can you PLEASE find me a few good references? Evangp (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey Evan, I'm not real active at the moment, and I'm not real familiar with the topic, but I'll see what I can find over the next few days. Perhaps early next week I'll drop a note on your talk about what I can dig up. — Ched :  ?  16:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ched! I sincerely look forward to your next reply. Evangp (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Real quick on the way out .. apparently there's some Marley/Cruyff connection link, might be worth following up on. I don't speak Dutch, so I'll have to depend on google.translate for most things. I think there's going to be a WP:N here, it's just a matter of finding the WP:RS to support the article. I will try to find you some things by early next week though. Have a good weekend Evan. — Ched :  ?  20:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

You have a good weekend too! Evangp (talk) 06:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment on your Comment

Ched, you have nothing to apologize for. Having opinions is what makes us human, and you manage to express yours in constructive ways even if they don't toe the politically correct line that will accelerate this place's death spiral. The indifference of good men is the doom of this place, and your justified outrage at times indicates that you are not indifferent. Far better to defend the work of others than to hunker in the corner OWNing policy and refusing to admit or see that change is inevitable and that it only becomes harder and more painful the longer the OWNing continues. Staying true to yourself is difficult here, and from what I've seen you've managed to do just that. My hat's off to you. Intothatdarkness 14:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that Into - it is very much appreciated. Hopefully I can regain a certain objectivity and focus in the next week or two. Best to you and yours my friend. — Ched :  ?  22:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Your comment at the recent AN thread regards Niemti

• I don't want to make too much of this but just some food for though... You stated in that WP:AN regards Niemti a few days ago that Niemti was never given a second chance, baited and whatever else. That was completely spurious: outside of whatever's been going on with Sjones, plenty of editors - of whom I'm just one - made patient, good faith efforts to collaborate in his GA VG efforts (suggest checking my reviews from everything from UFO: Enemy Unknown, to Curse of Enchantia, and then to the reviews brought up in the RfC; or noting that, say, DaveFuchs, an editor of excellent standing who has largely remained above the subsequent fray, patiently and impartially reviewed his work). His present difficulties are entirely his own fault, and indeed it's mind-blowing to me that he's still editing, after being community-banned for years for the same stuff, being unilaterally unbanned without consensus, and then despite a clear majority supporting another banning at the last RfC, cannot be banned due to no consensus. You also brought up Niemti's supposedly prolific creation of quality content. The number of successful of GAs is a reflection of patchy reviewing standards at GAN, and Niemti's passive-aggressive filibustering of attempts to improve his awful content (as well as his taking credit for others' achievements on his user page: as was pointed out in the AN thread, your claim of a successful FAC nom was incorrect, and it was made by someone else). More telling is that so many of his GANs ran into the same negative feedback, exemplified by that Taki (Soulcalibur) review which was de-facto failed by 4 different editors before being formally so, such was the supposed impatience and intolerance exhibited towards him. This is what really gets me about the whole saga: it has been solely viewed as a civility vs. contributions issue (Malleus-syndrome), when in fact in content alone, Niemti is a terrible, net negative to the project. As has been demonstrated so many times before (and completely ignored by commentators on the various AN(I) threads), Niemti is an exceptionally bad video game writer, his contributions being full of biased, arbitrary collating of one-liners from his secondary sources, and purple prose-laden plot sections full of fictional detail.
• And a footnote to all that... much seems to have been made of the fact the RfC dragged on for months, supposedly a reflection of SJones and perhaps Sergecross's "hounding" of him. Neither of those two were involved in writing the original statement; it was I who wrote it, and the reason no closure was sought (aside from the fact it has remained relevant and found new signatories for months, due to Niemti's ongoing behaviour) is simply that I have largely not being editing for months. And on that note, you said that Niemti's troubles are relevant to the question of editor retention. Indeed it is. As was again pointed out by others in response to your AN comment, I am no longer contributing, in large part because of Niemti, and other incompetents who are given ridiculous leeway and second chances (see also Jagged_85). Perhaps, like Niemti, I should have screamed it in the various threads, but I have at least 20 successful GANs (in far longer time than Niemti, but without all the drama and multiple attempts), an FA, and as people have been kind enough to acknowledge (User:Bridies/Barnstars) managed to partially standardise and revamp the topic of video game genres a few years ago. No more of that for Wikipedia.
• Now having written all that, it reads like waaaayyy more a rant that I intended. But basically, your assertion that Niemti was never given a second chance is untrue and quite insulting, and if anything brings one to opine no wonder why people get disgusted with this project it is the continuing, baffling tolerance shown towards Niemti by the community (though not by those who actually have to collaborate with him). And so - spurred by the fact that, unless I'm much mistaken, it was you who unblocked Hanzo in the first place xD - I was irked enough to want to respond. Cheers, bridies (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC).

Thank you for your input, and I will take that into consideration in moving forward. — Ched :  ?  16:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

From what I've seen, there was enough bad conduct to go around for everyone. Intothatdarkness 17:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I'd fully agree to that. — Ched :  ?  17:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Theonesean has given you a Hershey Bar! Hershey bars promote WikiLove through chocolately goodness and hopefully this one has made your day better. Hershey bars are wonderfully delicious! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Hershey bar, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Hey, I just wanted to thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia! I just wanted to give a Hershey bar to my new favorite WikiYinzer!

Spread the goodness of Hershey bars by adding {{subst:Hershey Bar}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

How could I not love that? Made right here in our very own state too!! And I'll admit - my fondness for chocolate is rather well known too. Thanks TheOneSean .. good luck here, and welcome to the project. — Ched :  ?  00:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the note. I did consider WP:RFPP, but figured that a response there could take a while, so I just went for it myself. Thanks for offering to watch the page. Zagalejo^^^ 01:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem - just had a look at your RfA too .. Impressive! Sorry I missed supporting that. One minor thing ... "Go black and gold" ... LOL .. Steeler/Penguin fan in da house. — Ched :  ?  01:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep, you win!

Jack Sebastian has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Congrats on catching the obscure movie quote. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

LOL .. TY Jack. And in the interest of sharing .. to my (talk page stalker) I'll ask the same question: What movie is the following quote from: "You changed, man..."? Step right up - ring the bell - and get a free plate of cookies. (if you were born after 1984, you may not get this one) — Ched :  ?  18:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Is it School of Rock? If not I can't wait to find out the correct answer because all I can hear in my head is Bart saying it in "The Otto Show". Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 18:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm .. I do like Jack Black - and have even caught a few of the Simpson's shows .. but actually what Jack Sebastian and I are thinking of is a quote from a movie long before either one of those. Hint #2 "Look, man, I ain't fallin' for no banana in my tailpipe!" — Ched :  ?  18:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing that this might be the one. If so I wanna add that "Gosh time goes by too fast." It only feels like it was a few years ago that I was in a theater watching that and it is more like three decades. Thanks for the extra clue. MarnetteD | Talk 18:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

You got it. Cookies are on the way. :) — Ched :  ?  19:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for the cookies and yes dirt and I shared a crib at one point :-) With the way the technology is going - HDTV, and HD audio systems, Bluray etc - future generations may never step into a cinema. That will be kinda sad. For a wonderful site dedicated to the film palaces of the past you might like this [1] one. In particular I was very lucky to be in the audience at this theater [2] many times over the years. Thanks again and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 19:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

pong (I love internet table tennis)

ygm? you gibbering meathead? were you indeed intending to post on my talkpage? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

LOL. ygm= You've Got Mail, per {{ygm}}. It's basically asking you if you had time to have a gander at User:Ched/RfC - Infobox. Basically there's an infobox war brewing (again), and rather than have it spill out any more than it has on AN/I and multiple talk page, I was hoping to have some discussion where maybe everyone could get on the same page. I don't want to get into any instruction creep or anything - just a general consensus that everyone can either agree on, or at least "accept". Right now a lot of it has to do with the Classical Music composers group. But if it goes well, it could be a future link to other such "groups" or "Projects" that run into that crap. Anyway - the reason I pinged you is because I remember how much you helped with the WP:RIP stuff, and I thought maybe you would be willing to have a look and offer any advice you might have. I figured if you really weren't interested in editing, you might look and drop a line in email. Gibbering huh? Well ... Haarumph! — Ched :  ?  21:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I am really sorry, but I am in no frame of mind to get involved in something like this matter; when I briefly re-activated recently I found I hit a wall very quickly, and simply do not have the energy or enthusiasm to participate in a meaningful manner. Rather than start and then bail out, leaving other people to pick up or clean up whatever I leave, I think it best that I stay away. I hope you understand my viewpoint. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

No apology Mark. All that's important to me is that you keep being my friend. You're always there to talk to when I need a friend, THAT is what's important to me. More often than not I'm hanging by a thread myself here. You helped me keep my focus and find a way through some times that were rough for me. I may leave tomorrow myself. Suffice to say that I DO understand. — Ched :  ?  11:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

FWIW

Hi Ched, we've never really interacted but of course I see you around. I noticed your post on Iri's page and peeked at your contribs. Not sure how much my opinion counts and I haven't looked closely but I think this is a terrible idea. From where I sit it will only drive away productive editors. If that's the goal, and they're not considered "quality editors" then go for it, but truth be told, there are a very small handful (very small) of editors who are pushing this agenda. Most editors don't care, just want to get on with editing, but this, in my view, will cause much more drama than it's worth. You haven't asked for my opinion but thought I'd butt in. Anyway, good luck with whatever you do, but it's one RfC I'll be ignoring. And in ignoring it, most likely walking away from the all the pages I've recently edited to get a sense of what I need to work on - this after a winter of writer's block. Oh well, that's WP for you, half a step forward and two backward. Truthkeeper (talk) 04:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore - because I don't believe in back channeling - I'll lay it all out here. I've put up with this crap since November 2011 after a particularly unpleasant run-in w/ Br'er Rabbit (going under another name at the time), which then quickly morphed into another unpleasant encounter regarding ref templates, and finally infoboxes - all on articles on which I'd put in a lot of edits and effort. From there it pretty much spiraled out of control with people taking sides and trench warfare. I just want to write; I find it relaxing. A few minutes ago I thought maybe I could pull myself back in, but after seeing this and anticipating unnecessary drama am tempted to turn the semi-retired to a black retired tag. Let them have the templates if that's what they want. Let the people who come here to relax and indulge in writing as a hobby be pushed out. I don't really care. I'm sorry to soap-box like this, but in four months have lost 2 close family members, one less than 48 hours ago, and really really thought maybe I could spend some time doing what I really enjoy instead of the non-stop fighting I've seen for more than a year. Am I personalizing? Yep, I am, but from where I stand, I've been at the tip of this iceberg and have watched it play out in all its nastiness since the beginning. None of it has been necessary. Anyway, done now. Do what you want and what you think is best. Truthkeeper (talk) 04:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW, you're aware that Wikidata infoboxes will go live on Tuesday, right? --Rschen7754 04:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Nope, haven't been around. Truthkeeper (talk) 04:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Truthkeeper88, it's a pleasure to finally meet you because I've seen you around a lot too. Actually, my goal is to avoid losing our top quality editors like yourself with this. I can almost hear the frustration in the voices of some of the people on both sides of the issue, and I'm hoping to sit and talk and try to reach an understanding with everyone. I wanted to get away from that horrible AN/I type of discussion where people are asking for bans, and blocks and such I want to avoid the "oh user:xyz is an idiot", or "user:lmn never listens" things and just talk and listen to all sides. PLEASE feel free to jump in there at any time. I honestly was going to stop by your talk page and invite you personally once I rolled it out and posted it to a RfC page, not just because it was a chance to say hi, but also because I know it's a topic of great interest to you. For myself, and I suppose most folks don't care but, I'm not likely to edit much of the cultural style of articles like fine art, classical music, and thing like that. I tend to stick to sports, movies, military etc. But anyway - I do see people on both sides of this infobox thing that I KNOW are our "best editors (including you)" that don't agree on this. If you have some suggestions, ideas, thoughts, or even just want to blow off some steam - Please feel free to talk to me. Well hopefully people won't be "blowing off steam" at the RfC, but I hope you know what I mean. — Ched :  ?  04:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

No! I've talked until my face is blue and no one listens! I've gone from bringing seven articles a year through FAC to two - and after Rschen's bombshell will most likely give up. Seriously. Real life sucks (I can just hear MathewTownsend aka Matisse saying "why does she complain about how bad her life is?") but when people are dying in your life and all you want is to write but instead have to defend why the humanities can't be shoehorned into an infobox, that's just not fun. At all. Anyway, thanks for listening. I'm logging out. Was hoping to work on some articles tomorrow, but can see more strife ahead and I don't want it. Sorry, but that's the way it is with me. Truthkeeper (talk) 04:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Rschen, ironic you should mention that. I've been aware for a while that wikidata existed, and noticed earlier the delivery of the newsletter. So I finally went and took a look around to see what it was all about - I may even find a way to chip in over there with a few things once I get my bearings and understand how it works. Without a doubt it has been a thought in my mind over this whole infobox/metadata situation. TY for the heads up - great minds think alike? — Ched :  ?  05:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

@ Truthkeeper88 (is it ok if I just use TK?). I am so very sorry to hear about your losses. I'm getting older, and I've lost no less than 6 very close friends and family over the last year, so yes .. I do understand how you feel. Maybe the "Wikidata" think isn't what you think it is .. it's not going to make it harder for you to work on articles - honest. And if you ever need a shoulder to lean on, you can stop by anytime - or even drop me an email. Take care, and sleep tight. — Ched :  ?  05:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we should have more enwiki admins who take an interest in Wikidata - trying to bridge the gap was one of the reasons why I went for sysop there. Of course there's the other extreme of trying to push our views on other projects like some other badly behaved enwiki-ers who go to Commons/Meta, so there's a balance. Truthkeeper, I'm sorry to hear that - both about your losses, and that you've been unable to edit due to frustration. I've gotten back into the FAC scene over the last few months, and it's definitely taken some getting used to. --Rschen7754 05:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Ched et. al., please read this discussion re an infobox on Ezra Pound. It's more than a year old, the first such discussion I was involved with, and deteriorated quickly. The arguments I present there are arguments for that page only, but also have a look at how many edits I made to the page, the number of sources (a lot of reading!), and then read what Riggr writes about the pursuit of knowledge. Some biographies are difficult and Pound was, to say the least, a complicated personality, hence shoe-horning is hard. I like how google presents Pound, data somehow they found without WP's infobox, and with images we can't use (or at least the last time I looked). I'm not a die-hard "I hate infoboxes" editor. I think things through, analyze and then make a decision; I have infoboxes on some pages, not on others. We could probably have an infobox for Pound, and I'd certainly put a lot of weight on the opinion of the editor with the second highest number of edits who is in favor of one - but I do feel strongly that the "infobox" wars detract from the real work that needs to be done to create and write a comprehensive encyclopedic entry. For example, no one actually dug into Bach and edited or tidied the page there during that protracted conversation - yet wouldn't our time be better spent doing that? That's really my stance re infoboxes. Anyway, thanks for the kind words from you and Rschen too. It's a lovely day where I live, we might actually get spring one of these days, so I'm off for a while. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the links and input TK. It's a much bigger picture than I first imagined, so it's going to take me some time to wrap my head around the whole thing. I had hoped to be more timely, but I can see that I need to do a lot of reading before I can really understand the big picture. I also have a couple articles that I want to get back in NASCAR area, I'm trying to get up to speed on a couple other projects (Foundation, Meta, Wikidata, etc.), I have an essay I need to review, and as always - real life keeps me busy as well. A real pleasure getting to know you, and I will get back to you as soon as I can. As always, feel free to drop by with links, notes, thoughts or just to BS a bit. Best — Ched :  ?  21:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Help

• Is there a way to turn off the SUL thing for just commons? That is to say, until I get the name User:Ched registered there at commons, can I find a way to stay logged in at commons as User:Chedzilla, without having it log me out of my other wiki projects such as simple, here at en, foundation, etc.? The problem is that there are 3 foreign language wikis that have a "User:Ched", ones I'll never edit by the way, and commons won't let me use that name until I have usurped the accounts on those foreign language sites. Any help or advice is appreciated. Thanks. — Ched :  ?  21:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, there's not a way to turn off SUL on your end. You may wish to ping the people at WP:VPT and ask there, and the equivalents on the wikis in question if there's a server/admin/steward-side way to do it. This was a lame response because I don't know, but it was bothering someone that an *admin* was using a {{helpme}}... :) gwickwire^talk_editing 02:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and now MF-Warburg has told me to tell you: "Please ask on m:SRSUL" gwickwire^talk_editing 02:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Gwickwire. I've had the VPT thing in mind for a bit, but haven't posted there ... {yet). Why would it bother anyone that an admin would ask for help? Just cause I have a couple extra buttons doesn't mean I'm all-knowing, any smarter, or any better than any other editor here. There's a LOT of non-admins around that know bucket-loads more than I do. But now I'm curious - who was bugged by that? (I also thought of IRC too, but didn't want to get back into that again - hard enough staying away from FB). MF-Warburg? ... hmmm .. I've seen a "Warburg" around before, but I was thinking it was Jake or something like that ... meh .. anyway ... tell him I said Thank You very much. I did get a reply from someone on the Serbian thing .. and have posted to a couple others for the Chinese and French, but know it's the weekend too. And thank YOU too gwickwire - I very much appreciate you going to the trouble of following up on that for me. I'll be looking into that m:SRSUL link. — Ched :  ?  02:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hehe, Helpmebot in -en-helpers on IRC goes crazy and pings us when someone uses the helpme. It's just kinda weird seeing an admin use it, probably cause I don't usually help admins with stuff :) gwickwire^talk_editing 04:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

LOL .. well thank you. I do appreciate it. — Ched :  ?  04:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, MF-Warburg is me, I happen to be a steward and was on the help IRC channel (because gwickwire made me :O) when the bot reported your request. I wasn't exactly sure of how your problem could be solved a day ago, but I think I meanwhile remembered: That is to say, until I get the name User:Ched registered there at commons, can I find a way to stay logged in at commons as User:Chedzilla, without having it log me out of my other wiki projects such as simple, here at en, foundation, etc.? -> Yes, your Commons account can be "unmerged" from its SUL account Special:Centralauth/Chedzilla, much like the current user:Ched@commons is unattached from Special:Centralauth/Ched. That way, there would of course not be any automatic log in anymore to other wikis when you log in on Commons as Chedzilla. (The account can then later be renamed to Ched, once Commons allows it, etc.) If you would like the unmerge to be done, you can request it on m:SRSUL or here, since I'll be watching the page for a bit ;) --MF-W 14:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

He makes me sound so evil... But seriously, I don't mind replying (when it's something I know!) to {{helpme}} from anyone :) (there's always -en-help on IRC for a faster response). Have fun with your Bishzilla impostor :P gwickwire^talk_editing 14:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi MF, apologies for confusing you with another editor. I just got done requesting the French usurp this morning, The Serbian request hadn't been responded to when I last checked, and the Chinese request has a 7 day wait. So at this point, I'm content to wait until early next week to see where I stand, rather than confuse matters any more than they already are. I'm going to hold on to your post and will go that route if one of the requests fails, and I do thank you for the help. To clarify a bit, I do have a main account on commons, but it has my last name attached to it, and I've uploaded maybe a half dozen pics with that one. My rename on en.wp went smoothly, but some of the other language wikipedia.org sites already had a "User:Ched". Thank you very much for your help, and I'll follow up with you in a week or so. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  15:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

@Gwickwire. I do have to admit that the Chedzilla editing is much quieter - and I don't have to worry about any of the adminy stuff when I'm logged in with that one. (Chedzilla have great honor to be friends with Bishzilla .. rrawrrRR) :) — Ched :  ?  15:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the (edit conflict) :) Seriously though, Chedzilla need run adminship. We need more dinosaurs and other mythical/monstrous creatures in the admincabal. gwickwire^talk_editing 15:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm .. that is a thought. But, in the last year I have: Asked to have my last name removed, which required a usurp. Asked to have my admin. tools removed when someone in North Carolina tried to hack my email. Asked for my tools back about 3 months later. I'm thinking maybe I should leave the 'crats alone for a bit. :) — Ched :  ?  15:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Bah, what else will they spend their days doing? More usurps and sysop tool removal/regainings? :P gwickwire^talk_editing 20:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Chinese SUL

You can request it through this page. I think it has enough English for you to continue. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you .. I will do that. — Ched :  ?  03:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ched. For French SUL, go to this page. The instructions are mostly in English. The fr:User:Ched account last edited on January 14, 2013, so I'm not sure if they'll grant you the rename. You could just file the request now and see what happens, or I could try and figure out later what the chances of a rename would be. Maxim_(talk) 02:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks you Maxim ... I will follow up on that the first thing in the morning. — Ched :  ?  04:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done — Ched :  ?  15:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Username Ched on sr wiki is now free. We have only 2 semi-active bureaucrats, so it took longer than I thought. Best.--В и к и T 16:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

How 'ya doin'?

Very good indeed. EotW is getting great response, newbies are being welcomed daily, the BP article is being reconstucted, the presidents timelines have been troublefree for years, Will may return (I'm surprised at our difference in that regard)and WP life is good. As always, I'm concerned about your well-being. I dread the thought of the crap you have to deal with. Recapture Your Enthusiasm. Stay well, my friend. ```Buster Seven Talk 04:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Glad you are well, and that projects and pages are doing well. Trying to stay focused, on topic, and balanced here; so no complaints on my end. — Ched :  ?  13:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

\o/

[3]

Think I'm done here. 88.104.2.228 (talk) 06:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

See also [4]. 88.104.2.228 (talk) 08:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh good grief .. I thought BMK had more clue than that. sigh. — Ched :  ?  12:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Ched: Sorry, I don't understand your comment. A editor put a "help" request on my talk page (not theirs). I wasn't asking for help - I know what the policy means as well as anybody and didn't need an admin to explain it to me - so I removed it; if an editor wants help, they can use their own talk page to ask for it, and not usurp someone else's. How is what I did indicative of not having clue? For sure, I'm a sinner and I ain't no saint, no argument from me, but I truly don't know what you're referring to in this instance. (Not being rhetorical either, I'm really looking for an answer.) Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't offended, just confused. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

88.104... is rapidly digging himself to 6 feet under. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I've gotten some advice from another Wikipedian much wiser than I, and I've left a note here. If it is an editor in good standing, then there should be ways to resolve it. My understanding is that the 88.104.xxx.xxx range comes from an ISP that offers a very "dynamic" option. I've never been one to play the "catch my sock if you can" game, so I'm not exactly in familiar territory, but I'll do my best at finding some solution or notifying someone with better clue to this than I have. TY for the note Bugs. — Ched :  ?  14:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice how he's splitting town, or claims to be. Typical behavior of a block-evading sock. He can't go to ArbCom because then they'll know who he is and probably sanction him further, such as maybe a permanent ban. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It's moot, because I'm being hounded off any discussion I contribute to - see for example [5].

The misinterpretation of SOCK demonstrated in [6] means they consider any IP that dares join in any discussions to be 'avoiding scrutiny'.

It's impossible to challenge the anti-IP attitude because it is so pervasive amongst admins; any attempt at discussion quickly gets closed down. It's a horrible environment, and those bullies have got their way by driving me away.

Good luck, goodbye. 88.104.2.228 (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh don't be so ridiculously melodramatic. The only IPs that are affected by the proper application of the sockpuppetry policy are those who are obviously not newcomers, exhibiting their understanding of Wikipedia's ins and out, and who edit disruptively, as you have. The vast majority of IPs will never fall under suspicion. (And, actually, those editors with accounts who use IP editing as an unofficial but true clean start, who edit productively, without disruption, and outside the ares of their previous interest, will almost certainly get away with it. What gives up the socking IP, such as you, is their behavior, and their attitude.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Bugs .. you've got email. :) — Ched :  ?  20:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Note

I don't agree with your reasoning as I see several editors using warnings like this User_talk:IRWolfie-/Archive_5#The_TM_topic to try and have a chilling effect on discussion in this topic area. I think that's wrong. I didn't bring the issue to Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/John_Hagelin/1 because it's not a content issue, so I brought it to their talkpage and left them a note. I think I have been civil at all places. These are also the entirety of my edits to that editors talk page ever: [7][8][9][10]. I think saying that borders on harassment is unfair, but I will voluntarily stop posting to the editors page if you wish (except standard notifications I am required to leave). IRWolfie- (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

IRWolfie, it is very late for me here, so I will discuss this tomorrow if you wish. It is not up to me to say "don't post to User:xyz page", that is up to the individual user to request that. Personally I don't really care about the whole "TM" issues. I have my thoughts, and respect the thoughts of others. Your recent efforts are however not in line with the goals of this project. Wikipedia was built on the concept that anyone can edit. And any attempts to badger another editor into providing private information are totally unacceptable. Deal with the content, and do NOT try to manipulate other editors. If I haven't made myself clear here - feel free to ask. — Ched :  ?  04:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The request I made wasn't about private information; I wanted to them to stop mentioning sanctions where it wasn't appropriate. Can you at least clarify to olive that this wouldn't be a violation of discretionary sanctions: [11] as she appears to think here: [12]? Olive and Keithbob appear to be under the impression that bold edits violate discretionary sanctions. Do you agree that this warning is inappropriate? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I will make Olive aware of this conversation, but I'm not sure which "warning" you're asking for my views on. If you want to clarify that, then I will have a quick look. I personally don't normally edit in the TM areas, although I do, and have read some of the articles. I have not really followed any of the discord or cases in that area; although I am aware that they exist. — Ched :  ?  19:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ched . I have your user page watch listed since the comment you made on my talk page recently, so I saw this post. I'm not sure what Wolfie is really asking. He links to a discussion on a WP:GAR first, where an editor voices an opinion about the article. Fair enough, everyone is entitled to an opinion. That editor also suggested deleting 75% of an article under discretionary sanctions. Per the TM arbitration, peremptory deletion of RS content is seen as a violation. Opinions do not count as reason to delete content. I therefore left a note on the GAR page mentioning that the article in question fell under the umbrella of the TM sanction. I didn't address anyone; its just a reminder for all. What is worth remembering is that an arbitration places this kind of sanction to protect articles in part from single-viewpoint, single-editor edits and is, in effect, demanding collaboration from the parties in a disagreement situation. That's all I know. If IRWolfie has concerns about his own editing, I suggest he ask for input. And the safest way to proceed on an article under sanction is to invite discussion and get agreement for deletions. Thanks Ched for hosting this.(olive (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC))

@Ched, I think this interpretation is incorrect; I note that TM is just under standard discretionary sanctions, not any special other sanctions (see the case page). The diffs are the two I linked. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a look at the links (they appear to be a GA discussion and a user talk page). I'll respond once I've done some reading and had some dinner. — Ched :  ?  21:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Considering that was what my original message to Olive's page was about [13]. I had assumed you had read them since you gave me a warning about it ... IRWolfie- (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• After reading multiple threads I am even more concerned. I am not one to get involved with GA articles (which you link to), so I have no comment there. I am also familiar with the talk page you link to. In my view you have been following other editors around and stalking them. I understand that the term "stalk" is not politically correct, but the concept is not acceptable. I've read you post in regards to the TimidGuy situation, and I found a great deal of irony in that post. We should not be here to research our editors personal life. Asking a question a first time may be acceptable, but repeated badgering of "where do you work" is completely unacceptable. Quite frankly I think that your recent postings are blockable because of the "wp:out" policy. — Ched :  ?  05:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I only became aware of what I couldn't specifically ask with regards to COI when seeking the clarification; mainly because it is so strange I had never thought I was not allowed to ask people for clarifications themselves. I had thought that was reasonable. I don't think I repeatedly badgered anyone. I may have asked question I didn't know I couldn't ask (I thought it would be ok I wasn't using off-wiki information and thought that was what, COIN did for example). No other editor had made significant contributions to Hagelin in a month before I edited that article, and neither keithbob, olive or TimidGuy, who would I be following? I came to it from the wikiproject, due to real concerns about NPOV in that topic area (from the furor around BeBacks request, I started looking at the topic area since editors had said it had gotten more POV); I have highlighted the real tangible problems I found on that GA page.

If you look at my edit history, I was following [14]: see [15][16][17][18]. That's how I came to John Hagelin. Look at the GA version of that article, there are real issues. It's hard to see if I am being reasonable if you don't look at the GA review version [19] when I say there are significant issues with POV.

I'd also ask you to pick some TM wikiproject articles at random and see if one of TimidGuy, Keithbob or Olive haven't already edited the article. If I edit any article in that area someone can always pull a diff out showing one of the editors having edited it sometime in the past. I'd also like to add that I didn't suggest even doing the GAR, it was a regular at Wikipedia:FTN#John_Hagelin. If I don't interact with the K, T and O while fixing the NPOV problems, that's fine with me.

I think there are issues with POV editing by particular editors but I plan on going to AE (actually I don't plan on making a filing, but adding evidence [20]); as NW highlighted as the way to proceed. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You mention the talk page and the article itself, did you also look at the GAR I linked to? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the John_Hagelin article falls under the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions umbrella, but I'm going to move on from this topic. I don't usually get involved with GAR things, so I'm not inclined to post there. I also think that your edits concerning Olive are in poor taste (per WP:FOC), but since the subject is at an Arbcom related page, I will trust the Arbs to deal with it as they see fit. Thank you for your responses, and I hope I have answered any questions you had. — Ched :  ?  15:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

That;s ok, good luck, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

One item that may be worth mentioning here is this current arbitration view in regards to COI allegations. Just something to keep in mind in moving forward. And good luck to you as well. — Ched :  ?  00:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The evidence does exist on-wiki and was linked at the clarification page (not by me), but I don't want to labour the point as Arbcom has made their position clear; don't discuss non-paid COI ever. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Someone please email me a link, because any purported personal identification needs to be addressed immediately. Dreadstar ☥ 01:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

If there is any personal information about people they should contact oversight promptly, not a regular admin. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I have spoken to Olive privately (email) and have verified that she does NOT want ANY of her private information to exist on wiki. I am not aware of anywhere that this exists, but will WP:RevDel on site; and with her permission I am happy to forward the request to the Arbitration Committee upon request. I'd also clarify that it is improper to make unsubstantiated allegations when the material can not be verified. — Ched :  ?  01:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I want to highlight again that my comment which you warned me for had no connection to anything about COI, so I don't know why you are bringing this up, but since you have, I will address it. Asking someone not to bring up discretionary sanctions when it's not relevant is not outing and has no connection to it. I have never been privy to any information about Olive and a COI beyond what I now see on the clarification page. That's why I asked the original question on the editors talk page User_talk:Littleolive_oil#COI; because I didn't know the answer and I naively thought asking would be the simplest thing to do, but now I see you are even redacting parts of questions!

I hope you realise that your comment comes across as quite odd. You will rev delete any personal information that the editor may have, in full knowledge, published on wikipedia. You also don't want people to make unsubstantiated allegations. Since you are going to rev del any substantiated allegations what you are really saying is, don't say someone has a COI even if you have the evidence, yes? None of the material has been oversighted though, so it is accessible by admins. This includes the material which was deleted by Dreadstar from Olive's userpage, according to Fladrif (from the clarification page). I have not said what the material says; because I don't know.

See also the SPI mentioned at the clarification page, do you propose to revdel that? I had not seen any of this material myself, and I was not aware of it before my request since it was mostly before my time. I should say I'm not really that interested in pursuing this further though since it just involves accusations being thrown at me (it seems unsubstantiated allegations are fine if they are just against me). IRWolfie- (talk) 13:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

There's a link to something I said much more up-to-date than the 13th 01:53 UTC comment .. if I run across it I'll let you know - but thanks for checking back and offering your thoughts. — Ched :  ?  19:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Admin Nominators

Hello. You are invited to join WikiProject Admin Nominators, a project which aims to support editors interested in nominating at Requests for Adminship. We hope that you will join and help to shape the new project. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 21:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

As I noted at WT:RFA, I had noticed that page. I've added it to my watchlist. I don't actively go about searching for admin. candidates simply to add another admin. to the project, but have on occasion asked someone if it was something they would consider. Recently I had noticed both NE Ent, and Intothatdarkness (or maybe it's IntoTHEdarkness); and I suspect that both of them would make fine administrators. I'll think about this for a bit and perhaps I'll have further thoughts on the subject. TY for the note ASO. — Ched :  ?  21:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Nope...it's a 'that' as opposed to 'the.' Intothatdarkness 21:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

ROTF .. well, talk about "all seeing, all knowing". :)— Ched :  ?  23:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Naw...I'm actually quite aware of how little I really know. Intothatdarkness 13:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Socratic questioning? :) — Ched :  ?  15:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

To an extent, perhaps. Although now I'm running into some issues with an article that's been expanded by a student working on an assignment as part of that education program they talk about from time to time. I can see why it bothers people...the article wasn't especially accurate to start with (and I'd toyed with putting it up for deletion), and what's being added has some issues. Intothatdarkness 17:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Ahhh .. yes, I had seen several threads on the WMF recruiting students and various teachers using Wikipedia as a classroom tool. I personally have mixed feelings about the matter. I'm always happy to see new people wanting to join our project, but I wonder sometimes if maybe pushing people into this environment is not always a good choice. What article is it? — Ched :  ?  17:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Comanche Campaign...an article that was already based on a more or less worthless lineage term invented by the Army to award campaign streamers to units. Intothatdarkness 17:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

YGM

just in case. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Writ Keeper, I've responded there. Hopefully things will be worked out by the time I get back tomorrow. — Ched :  ?  03:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

No good deed goes unpunished, apparently. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yea, I wondered if that was gonna happen. Well maybe a year from now when the a bit older then that closing note will make a difference. I do think they had good intentions, and just got himself caught up in the whole thing. It's not easy to do something like that, so I'll give him credit there. A step in the right direction anyway. Thanks for the note WK. — Ched :  ?  19:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ched. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Apps#Discussion.
Message added XapApp · talk · contribs 13:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

groupthink

Saw your new box. I need one that says "This user is really good at recognizing when other people are engaging in groupthink, but isn't very good at convincing them to stop it, and also has a bad feeling that he probably does it too and just doesn't realize it." Except pithy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

hmmm .. I will think on it. — Ched :  ?  20:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

thinking: my user page page has no boxes, it's singing - I just changed the top ;)

ps: I like this one, especially "... to learn more about how quickly and easily you can help make Wikipedia better. As we say: Be bold!" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I used to enjoy doing "html" and webpage design - but it's been a long time since I worked on those things. I gave up my domain last fall, and was so sad to see how it was used by the new person. All the work I had put into SEO - gone. All everything .. gone. Sigh, such is life, no matter how much you build, it will all eventually decay into dust. But let me know if you want a hand with something Gerda ... If you want something like the Call of the Wild page .. I can help copy it over for you. — Ched :  ?  23:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I like my own wilderness, no copies, but thanks for the offer! - I offered it to The Wikimon, DYK? - A hand? Have a look at Holzhausenschlösschen, the article with an illustrious list of editors. Or the latest, Karlheinz Oswald, of today, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually I had seen the Holz... article after a discussion on Mally's page. Looks very nice. I'll look at the Oswald article in the near future. TY for the links. :) — Ched :  ?  00:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Some compliments. Ched, I get a kick out of your animation about drama boards; makes me laugh each time I look at it. Gerda, anyone who likes classical music and opera is presumptively a good person. I used to play harpsichord in another life.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey there Bbb. Yea - wiki can make one fill like "WTH"? sometimes. I think I first noticed that from a link that one of the Bish family had posted to. I love music .. but I couldn't carry a tune or play an instrument if my life depended on it. And yep .. I think Gerda is an absolutely WONDERFUL person, but I'm not really objective on that either :) — Ched :  ?  00:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

My mother was tone deaf. I have perfect pitch. Go figure. BTW, objectivity is vastly overrated (this from Mr. Rational).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

My first chorus class, the teacher (who won many awards actually) had us follow the scale as he played it on the piano. When it was my turn, he didn't even look up - but simply said "You get to report to study hall next week". Thus ended my singing career. Well .. that and once while out Christmas shopping and I was unconsciously singing along with the radio - my mom said "Where is that noise coming from". Fortunately I was gifted with great intelligence, insight, and charm. ... oh .. and humility. — Ched :  ?  00:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, Ched, you brighten my day (lol).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Mail

Sent. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Replied, and Thank you Dennis. — Ched :  ?  03:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Redaction

Hi Ched,

Just to clarify, you are aware that this is documented at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy_ban_appeal#TimidGuy:_disclosure_of_COI, right? As this person has voluntarily disclosed their COI on multiple occasions, it seems unreasonable to blank it in this context. If you know this and still want to redact it on the page, there are several other mentions remaining. Just a head's up to make sure you have all the facts, whatever you decide. It appears you are aware of this. I disagree with your reasoning, but if you really want to remove all mentions there are several more on the same page. Just a head's up, a13ean (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

As I became aware of massiveness of this problem, I stopped immediately and emailed the Arbitration Committee to inform them of what I had done, and to basically inform them that I had confirmation that an editor did not wish to have private information displayed on Wikipedia. At this point I consider any past irregularities to be in the hands of the Arbs, and will only deal with any current or future disclosure by redacting, RevDel, warnings, and blocks ... depending on the individual situation. I do thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'll do my best to no longer feed the Streisand effect. — Ched :  ?  05:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

This redaction is highly irregular, and you are basically vandalizing relevant discussions. Your presumption is utterly astonishing! Fladrif (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You do realize that both TimidGuy and Olive repeatedly, voluntarily, disclosed who their employer was and that their intention in joining Wikipedia was to edit articles relating directly to the interests of their employer and its affiliated organizaitions; that they were repeatedly found at COIN to have a conflict of interest and directed that they should not edit within the scope of that COI, but confine themselves to the talk pages; that they have defied that directive for years; that after Olive claimed that she was the subject of IRL harassment which she suspected was related to Wikipedia, Dreadstar blanked her userpage disclosures; that TimidGuy was specifically found by ArbCom to have voluntarily and repeatedly disclosed his COI. Dreadstar tried to rewrite COI policy to cover his blanking of Olive's information, but it doesn't because he lacks Oversight rights. And now, you are privately corresponding with them in an effort to scrub from Wikipedia any mention of that? And Dreadstar is trying to redefine COI policy once again to claim that any user deletion is out of bounds? You can't unring that bell. Fladrif (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware to the situation. Thank you for the specifics. — Ched :  ?  05:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

This ain't my first rodeo

Thank you for sharing your opinion. Fladrif (talk) 23:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. — Ched :  ?  04:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

PONY!

Pony!
Congratulations! For courage at the rodeo, Ched, you have received a pony! Ponies are cute, intelligent, cuddly, friendly (most of the time, though with notable exceptions), promote good will, encourage patience, and enjoy carrots. Treat your pony with respect and he will be your faithful friend! Montanabw^(talk) 16:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

To send a pony or a treat to other wonderful and responsible editors, click here.

Why thank you Montanabw .. I loves horsies. :) — Ched :  ?  19:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to calm down

I undid just 1 edit on Amitabh Bachchan and this User:Sitush directly gave me threat of blocking on my talkpage. He don't know my history. I temporarily lost cool and engaged in bit fight [here]. As I had promised you and other admins, I am not going to stretch it further. Otherwise, as my history tells, I am not afraid to sacrifice account. I am removing article Amitabh Bachchan and its talkpage from my watchlist.

A Promise Is A Promise. neo (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Neo. Thanks for the note. I'm a bit pressed for time right now, but will try to have a look at the article by mid-week. In general, I'd say that Sitush is a top quality editor with a lot of experience, perhaps if you approached them on their talk they would be willing to help you out ... be back in a bit. — Ched :  ?  00:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Ched. I've seen the back-and-forth at User talk:Neo. but am probably better off not saying more there. However, this explanation at Talk:Amitabh Bachchan is pertinent and if Neo. has unwatched the page then they may not have seen it. Basically, since around the start of the month, they had tried to add or replace self-uploaded portraits at Commons despite those changes being questioned on the article talk page and at User_talk:Neo.#Amitabh Bachchan images ... and not just by me. I'm afraid that they are missing the "discuss" bit of BRD. - Sitush (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I did see it was about pics, but really didn't look any more beyond that. I do appreciate the note, and I also appreciate that you didn't just drop it at AN/I. I'm not good at following folks around, but I'll help if I can if and when I see it. Thanks for not blowing your cool, I really appreciate that. — Ched :  ?  19:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your mind-blowing block rationale, I award you this Defender of the Wiki Barnstar. m.o.p 02:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks m.o.p. I remember back in 2008-09 when I used to do a lot of vandalism fighting with Twinkle, warning, AIV reports, etc., and I always wanted one of these. I guess it's just a matter of being in the right place at the right time. :-) — Ched :  ?  02:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hehe, me too. Luddite! Drmies (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Glad I could fulfil someone's dream! Also, just in case: you're looking for {{uw-ewblock}} or {{uw-3block}}. ;) Cheers, m.o.p 02:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

AE

Hi Ched. I wonder if you could help. You see, I believe that Russavia has a xase to answer at AE. I reverted TDA so that the case could be heard. You know that he then reverted a further four times (me thrice and the now-blocked proxy user once) Now, aside from pointing out that TDA would most certainly not have been unblocked had he reverted, say, you, instead of me, how do I now go about having the case heard? You see, despite Ed's claim that IPs are welcome, surely you can see that every singke action raken here, aside from your block of TDA, has diaenfranchised me. If the case is considered and rejected, I shall say no more about it, but you and I both know that Sandstein would block. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.119.18.100 (talk) 05:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I will take a look at this tomorrow afternoon and see if I can figure out what is what. Until I get back online, I'd suggest that you don't do any further reverting, and possibly post a question to one of the Arbs talk pages, or to one of the Arb board talk pages. Can an IP email? I'm thinking perhaps User:Arbitration Committee? Or perhaps copy the email address from one of the WP:AC pages. Either way - I'll check back with you tomorrow. — Ched :  ?  05:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Depending on my workload and the way international times mwet up, I may be busy until later in the week. And, of course my dynamic IP is likely to change, but I shall also endevour to reply. Have a good sleep, no rush. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.119.18.100 (talk) 05:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I only had time to do a very quick look, but here's what I've got.

1. You can find out about contacting the Arbitration Committee here.
2. It won't work to just copy the email address from that page (the arbcom-l one) paste it to your email for some reason, so you'll have to type it in.
3. I agree that there is a definite violation here, but I don't know enough about the case or the issues to block on site.
4. If you mail them, and don't hear back within 24 hours, then get back to me and I'll try to move it ahead.

hope that helps. — Ched :  ?  10:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Bullying#This reversion

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Bullying#This reversion. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

huh .. I didn't even know we had that template, or at least I didn't remember it. I just had a quick look, but don't really have time to "read" .. but will try to respond by tomorrow night. Not sure why you thought of me, but I am always concerned about these types of things and I thank you for pointing it out. TY Sjones23 — Ched :  ?  20:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

He likes us (same notice on my talk page). :-) When you figure it all out, Ched, let me know. I don't see why we should do double work.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Maybe Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia after all. :-) Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, I'm sorry to bother you but if you have time, can you take a look at this discussion on the Abuse talk page? I have asked some other administrators about this, but would like some third opinion on this to end the arguing between two users (I am uninvolved of course). Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting crunched big time in real life (woot woot I'm a great grand uncle again .. or something like that) .. anyway .. I'll take a look the first chance I get .. but I can't be very timely at the moment, perhaps Bbb could have a look? or another one of my TPS folks. — Ched :  ?  17:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've asked a couple of other users and some of your tps folks but some haven't responded yet. On an unrelated note, anyone who looks through my barnstars will see that I have been recognized for my extensive and valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Best wishes, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it the first chance I have. It may be a few days, but I will look. — Ched :  ?  00:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No hurry laddie. Take your time. Of course, there's always time to improve Wikipedia after all. On another irrelevant note, it was obviously shocking that one of our good administrators Dreadstar have left us due to him being driven off by issues with an abusive editor over at WT:BASC concerning the WBB appeal, but thankfully I was uninvolved in this matter. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Karlheinz Oswald

Oh come on! You are adding factually incorrect information to the article. In 1958, when Oswald was born, there was no country called "Germany" - it was called "West Germany" (hey look, it even has its own article!) and it existed from 1949 to 1990. Why is this so hard for you both to understand? GiantSnowman 13:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It has its article, where the term doesn't even appear in the infobox, - if we have to spread this, - reminds me of the Moonlight Sonata for Beethoven's Piano sonata No. 14, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you mean please? GiantSnowman 13:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I mean that West Germany is as good (or bad) a name for the country as Moonlight Sonata is for Beethoven's sonata, it may fit in some context but is no more than a common name. (We had a move debate that went for a week or so.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME applies to both, one would presume. But that's a moot point. GiantSnowman 13:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @GS, I have no intention of getting into a protracted disagreement here. I see you have one change, and two reverts in the last couple hours to an article of which the bulk of the content was created by other users. To me that is a signal of concern, so I read through the "Germany" article, and noticed that it said that during the 40s era in which the person was born, that the term "West Germany" was an "informal" name. I see absolutely no discussion on the article talk page. I made a judgement call in what I hoped would be some sort of compromise, and linked to my reasoning in my edit summary. Now if the thrust of your argument is going to be that "Germany" did not technically exist at that point in time, ... Well let's just say that I think you may be getting close to a couple policy items that we are all fully aware of. For my part I'm not going to get involved at this time in that article's building and development, but I will watchlist and look forward to seeing the improvements in the coming days. I wish you both the best of luck and hope you can find a peaceful collaboration and understanding in this issue. — Ched :  ?  13:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• TY both for using English BTW .. Google translate drives me nuts sometimes ... LOL. — Ched :  ?  13:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

(TPS) If you're going to be picky about someone born in the 40s, you could use either the Western Occupied Zone or (looking ahead to 1949) the Federal Republic of Germany (BRD or FRG if you use the English acronym). (addition) From looking at the linked article, I'd say Federal Republic of Germany would be the correct term from a historical and political science standpoint. Intothatdarkness 14:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Um, this person was born in 1958, not the 40s...no idea where you have got that from? GiantSnowman 14:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Ahhh .. my fault .. I said that somewhere. Not much younger than me then. I'll read through for more comprehension in the next day or two. — Ched :  ?  15:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Um...you'll also notice in my addition that I said for post-1949 the FRG/BRD construction would be appropriate if the intent is to reflect reality at the time he was born. Intothatdarkness 15:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

don't panic

Ched dropped his phone into a glass of iced tea and killed it. (crappy phone anyway). I'll be out for a bit and AFK - but will return ASAP. — Ched :  ?  11:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, what a waste of an iced tea :( — Huntster (t @ c) 11:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

LOL .. yep. But now I gotta learn a new one. And get this .. it's a freaking "smart" phone ... like I didn't have enough issues with my old "dumb" phone .. sigh. :/

And with spring weather, personal stuff and all ... I'm guessing I'm gonna be very spotty in getting to any wiki stuff. ... of course perhaps that's a good thing .. lol. — Ched :  ?  18:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You are a Golden Editor!

Good as gold!

In my scaled–back return to editing, my main focus will be the presentation of this new award and I am pleased to make you the second recipient of the Golden Editor Award. You are a relatively longtime contributor and have been a very respectable administrator. This award is being presented to you in recognition of your service and your efforts to promote peace in this community. Thank you, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 19:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is a userbox, in case you would like to display it. Once again, congratulations and thank you! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 19:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

This user is a recipient of the Golden Editor Award.

Admin nominators project

You requested on the talk page to be notified when we had our first candidate. BDD was the first candidate. Sorry, the notification is rather late. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 16:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

TY very much for letting me know. Not sure I'll have time to review this though. Hope they do well though. — Ched :  ?  20:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

	Love the shirt!
	Just got the shirt through the Merchandise Giveaway Programme. Thanks for your vote of confidence!  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

congrats, glad you got something. — Ched :  ?  20:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Renames

The good news: [21] if it goes through, would help you. The bad news: people on this site will not be happy... --Rschen7754 03:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up Rschen, I had a quick look, although I'm not sure yet how exactly it will affect me - but I'll read through it again. I know the French wiki has a "Ched" that's not me, so I can't unify my Commons login .. but I will try to follow up on this. Appreciate the note. — Ched :  ?  13:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

That Ched on frwiki will be forcibly renamed to Ched~frwiki I believe, so that should allow you to have everything united. --Rschen7754 05:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Mentioned your name

I have mentioned your name here. No specific action requested, just in case an enquiry follows. All the best. In ictu oculi (talk)

Thank you for the note In ictu. I've noticed that Little Ben has been quite the conversation piece - but haven't really followed the details. — Ched :  ?  13:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Your indef-block of Fladrif

Hi. It would greatly help some of the rest of us if you could please post more specific info (including relevant diffs) supporting your decision to block Fladrif on the grounds that he is "unable to work with others". Thanks. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I will be willing to provide specific diffs upon request if an arbitration situation comes of this. The attacks are many and directed toward multiple editors; and I'm willing to support that if need be. — Ched :  ?  06:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

With all possible respect, if you're going to take an action as drastic as an indefinite block against someone, I believe (per WP:ADMINACCT) that you really need to provide some reasonable justification right away. If you aren't prepared to do that now, you should lift the block and raise your concerns regarding the other editor at WP:ANI or another appropriate noticeboard. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I am prepared to justify my actions. — Ched :  ?  06:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Then please do so — now. I believe this issue needs more eyes on it ASAP. Will you bring it up now at WP:ANI, or shall I? Or do you believe there is some other, more appropriate venue? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The issue is already at ANI. Good block, Ched, Fladrif has been a constant source of personal attacks for years, and has been continuing that as of today. This latest spate of nasty comments, personal attacks and deletions is nothing short of harassment. Dreadstar ☥ 06:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad to see the matter is being discussed now — though I still say that an action like this calls for specifics and a clear justification for the severity of the action being taken. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll be adding my own specifics, doing that right now. Dreadstar ☥ 06:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) ::::::: Rich, I'm fine with any editor admin or not asking about my efforts. If you want to bring this up at ANI, that's fine with me. One question though .. did you see the attack on an arb? .. did you approve of that? I'll stand by my actions ... I don't know what to tell you beyond that. Just look at the history ... if after that you have a question ... fine. — Ched :  ?  06:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You might also notice pre-approval of a block on Fladrif by another admin. So, there's plenty of just cause. Dreadstar ☥ 07:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did see Fladrif's inflammatory comment from two weeks ago. And I also saw the "Attacks by Fladrif" discussion from April 14, and his comment from a few hours ago. No, I didn't (and don't) approve of any of this — he has a right to his opinion, but he should not be expressing it in this way. However, I still believe this level of severity of sanction should require more than a general "straw that broke the camel's back" explanation — and overworked as ArbCom may be, an effective banishment of an editor for a pattern of misconduct really needs to be put forth as a case. However, now that the indef-block issue has been raised at WP:ANI, I'm satisfied for the time being. Please be aware, btw, that I'm about to call it a night, so please don't read anything into my failure to respond promptly after this post. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Well past my bedtime too, no worries on failing to respond for my part.. :) I may be responding late tomorrow too.... although I must say that I think the community is fully able to ban an editor for a pattern of serious misconduct; such cases do not always require ArbCom. Dreadstar ☥ 08:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Rich, I thank you for talking to me. I also will be heading to bed here, so perhaps tomorrow will have a different discussion. — Ched :  ?  07:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment Have unblocked the user in question until 1) discussion has occurred 2) consensus for a indef block is developed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh reallY? After talking to the blocking admin? ... ok, I have nothing further to say at this point in time. — Ched :  ?  10:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Doc James, I don't recall interacting with you, but you damned well have a lot to answer for here. — Ched :  ?  10:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I have pieced together of all the past posts on Fladrif's talk page at User:Penbat/fladrif and it should make things clearer. Plenty of activity going on at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Fladrif_with_their_finger_on_the_trigger.--Penbat (talk) 11:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• thanks Penbat, I do appreciate your input. right now I'm not even sure what to say. I was not even given the common courtesy of a discussion. It's obvious that there's politics involved here, and obviously the normal rules and policies do not apply. I'm not sure what the back-door politics are since I don't play those games, but I can see that I'm not aware of those things. I guess I should have no further comment. — Ched :  ?  11:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• At Doc.... ya know, ... there wasn't even an unblock request here ... I'd really like to know what kind of games you guys are playing. This really stinks, and I'd like to know why. — Ched :  ?  11:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You indefinitely blocked a long time editor without providing any justification and before any discussion took place. May be try a RfCU. A few days or a week I could see but I see no justification for an indef block. Politics, probably. Not sure what they are though. More interested in editing content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Doc, that's no justification for you unblocking when you're involved. This has become a real mess. No telling where it'll end up.PumpkinSky talk 14:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes the future is hard to predict. Ched was involved as are you. And so is Dreadstar. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget yourself. I haven't had any interactions of note with Fladrif in years.PumpkinSky talk 14:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

And what does User:Jmh649 mean by "involved" ? Am I "involved" ? Involved with what ?--Penbat (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Personally I think he thoroughly deserves a permanent ban. He has had a few bans already. He has been making uncivil & personal attacks hundreds of times over 5 years and still doing it to this day. There are over a hundred examples readily available.--Penbat (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Jim (I'm sorry your behavior has given up any right to any titles) .. What in the HELL are you talking about as far as involved? Ya know what? ... Maybe it's best if the arbitration committee decide this, that was the only way it could be resolved with former administrator, former editor Will Beback - I guess that's the only course of action that gets anyone's attention. — Ched :  ?  16:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You may be right this'll need to go to arbcom but it's been my observation that sometimes dispute resolutions issues are like a good Ale or cup o' tea -- sometimes they just need time to brew. Weekends are usually slow around here. NE Ent 17:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'll be working on responding to all that is asked of me as quickly as possible. There appears to be a very long history here which will take me some time to read through and sort out specific links and diffs. Thank you all for your patience, I will proceed as quickly as I'm able. — Ched :  ?  17:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I should still prepare for an arbcom but the heat on fladrif is increasing at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Fladrif_with_their_finger_on_the_trigger. What is supposed to be the outcome to an ANI ? Are they just a talking shop or will at some point an admin step in and make a judgement ? After 36 hours of inactivity, ANIs just disappear into the archives.--Penbat (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for not being more timely on this, but I am attempting to sort through a vast amount of history in a larger picture than the one ANI thread you mention. I find myself inundated with communications regarding this situation and am attempting to respond as quickly as possible given my limited abilities. I don't know if the highly respected User:Drmies who opened the thread would be able to offer any further insight as to a desired outcome, but for myself? ... I honestly don't know at this point. I am doing my best to respond to any and all requests, but due to the volume of text, I may be missing some things. All I can say is that I will do my best to serve the community in what I consider to be the best ways possible. — Ched :  ?  18:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I am just thinking that it may be a good idea for you to write a truncated version of what you would have written for the arbcom at the ANI as the ANI is currently active.--Penbat (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Penbat, Ched's currently working on filing an arbcom case at User:Ched/Arb request. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Fladrif

I have restored a 72 hour block of user Fladrif now that you have provided evidence. Next time you block someone please provide evidence before you do so. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The evidence was obvious. The next time you blatantly go about protecting your friends, please provide some evidence of a justification for such actions. — Ched :  ?  19:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

This is what you wrote [22]. There was no evidence contained within it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and response. I will consider any and all information available to me. I have no further response at this time. — Ched :  ?  19:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Greetings Ched & Doc James. I'm not sure if you've been notified or not. but the essence of your discussion above has been filed at ANI. I hope everything resolves well for the both of you. Ched, you've done remarkably well to have endured sheer visceral for doing what you felt was right. You are not alone in thinking this either. My76Strat (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Ched, in spite of our disagreements and controversies that we have been involved, I also want to commend you for doing what you know was right as an administrator. I also want to apologize if I was ever uncivil in anyway or caused issues with other users in any way. I didn't mean for some things to happen. I hope everything is resolved. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey Ched it appears I was mistaken with respect to the definition of a "clear and obvious mistake" [23]. which I assumed included blocking someone while not providing evidence for the action in question. Consensus is now developing for an indefinite ban based on community consensus which in my opinion should occur before an indefinite block. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Er...why would you prefer an indefinite ban to an indefinite block? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I use the two interchangeably as they are in practice.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you to all for your comments and consideration. It is greatly appreciated. — Ched :  ?  14:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Apologies

Hey Ched my apologies for overturning your "indef block" of User:Fladrif. While we may disagree regarding the appropriate procedure for these sort of blocks it is clear I should have sought community consensus first. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Balls of Courage Award

		The Big Brass Balls Award
		Ched, for courage and integrity. That's all that needs said here.PumpkinSky talk 15:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Strong support ;) - You know that every editor is a human being! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Courage? Yes. Integrity? Yes. Prudence ... fail (have a

Plip!

). You gonna indef a long term (5 year, 3,000 mainspace) editor on a vague "unable to work with others" you just gotta know the questions are gonna come. Way less drama if you put together your justification in advance. NE Ent 19:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, if we're serving fish - plip back. :)

But thanks folks. I appreciate all the support I get here. Now where did I put that song? — Ched :  ?  19:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Silly Ched! Wasting a perfectly good occasion for using this superior fish-hitting template! darwinbish ^BITE ☠ 12:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC).

OH MY ... Little ankle biter, I am so sorry for not responding sooner. I miss so much these days. Thank you so very much for that wonderful link, and I will surely note the "stockfish" in the future. — Ched :  ?  20:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

@NEENT-this is solid evidence Ched's call was the right one, even if his wording wasn't what you'd like, so go fly a fish kite...PumpkinSky talk 19:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

What an excellent photograph of a monster fish kite. I must seek out this photographer and shake him by the hand Worm^TT(talk) 07:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Please explain your use of admin tools

Hello, I noticed that earlier today you used your WP:ADMIN tools to delete one of your own sub-pages, User:Ched/Arb request. Of course, non-administrators can no longer tell what the contents of that page were, but it was described as preliminary work on drafting an arbcom case relating to a dispute. Would you please clarify your reasoning as to why you felt it was proper for you to act in an administrative role in the matter of deleting one of your own user pages, particularly considering that you seem to have drafted it during the process of a dispute? --Noren (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Anyone can request to have subpages in their userspace deleted, and such requests are typically carried out without question. If Ched had asked me to do it, I would have, so I see no issue with him performing a purely administrative function himself. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

And I would have had no problem with that, as that process wouldn't have involved Ched using tools while WP:INVOLVED. More importantly, that would have been a course of action that a non-admin would have open to them, rather than a special tactic only available to an Administrator. --Noren (talk) 03:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As the situation appeared to be resolved, and I was the only person to have edited that particular page, I didn't feel there was a need to keep it. At the point I originally drafted the page, I expected that an arbitration request (WP:RFAR) would be likely. It wasn't so much an "administrative" action so much as just cleaning up some of my own user space. If you feel there is some need for that page, and would like me to restore it to your own user space, I have no objections. — Ched :  ?  02:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

and what Huntster said. :) — Ched :  ?  02:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no need for that page (though, as I can't read it, I suppose that there's no longer any way for me to tell...) The contents of that page were not the focus of my question, your use of admin tools was my concern. It appears that you are casually using your admin tools to do things that a 'regular' editor could not do, and I am rather disappointed that you don't seem to realize the problem with doing so even after I pointed it out. More specifically, it appears that you do not care that this was a blatant violation of WP:INVOLVED. Is it your position that it's okay to use admin tools while involved, so long as you judge that you could have asked another admin to do it and they would have done so? --Noren (talk) 03:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, admins delete their own subpages all the time. It's not a big deal. --Rschen7754 04:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the first sentence but not the second. You have not expressed any argument to support it. --Noren (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

... because virtually every admin does it? Also, please read: "In straightforward cases (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." --Rschen7754 05:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) .. per: WP:CSD#U1 if it's a policy link you're looking for. — Ched :  ?  04:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

As I said earlier to Huntster, had you followed that procedure and made a request to an uninvolved admin there would not have been an issue. You chose not to do so.--Noren (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing in that policy that says an admin must request speedy deletion of one of their own user subpages from an 'uninvolved' admin; it's ridiculous on the face of it due to the extra overhead involved. Admins, including myself, do it all the time; as you were already told. WP:INVOLVED does not prohibit admins from deleting their own user subpages. I must add this entire line of questioning is quickly taking on the appearance of harassment. Ched can delete any of his user subpages, the only page that should not be deleted is the user talk page. Per policy. Dreadstar ☥ 07:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The page contained mostly arbcom template boilerplate with a couple names filled in related to this now resolved ANI discussion: (link). Any editor can easily have stuff deleted from their space using CSD; I've used it a good number of times and never had it questioned. Having admin one CSD a page so that admin two can actually delete it would be pointless democracy. NE Ent 09:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Noren, drop the stick.PumpkinSky talk 09:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

+1. Ched is one of the least political admins I know. Looking for some sort of deep-seated conspiracy here is...well...just bloody stupid. Intothatdarkness 13:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

We can delete anything in our user space that we want, other than a very few limited exceptions, none of which were at issue here; it's userspace, for crying out loud. Those of us who aren't admins need help to delete a subpage, but everyone has this right. Nuff said. Montanabw^(talk) 18:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

For some perspective: Occasionally there is a discussion whether to allow arbitrary users to delete pages in their own space. The only reason this never happens is that it's very tricky business given that we don't want users to be able to move an article to their own space (currently possible, and should remain possible) and then delete it there. Hans Adler 06:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That's something that hadn't crossed my mind. Thank you Hans. — Ched :  ?  06:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Belated barnstar

		Civility Award
		For making tough choices, taking strong actions and defending civility as the foundation for the future success of this project.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Keithbob, very appreciated. (although I do often start looking over both shoulders when I see the word "Civility" on my talk page. :)) — Ched :  ?  19:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

ROTF - I love irony

For all the crying of "sock", "sock", "sock" ... now the second item here says "Create a second account". I'm sorry folks ... I'll be LOLing for a while now. (Just wait until I tell Chedzilla about this one - baahaahaa) And a note to any and all .. I had a hard enough time following things when I DID get that orange banner about having new talk page messages .. with that being gone .. I'm likely to miss even more. Oh well - I guess there's something to be said for "plausible deniability" ... (hmmm ... wonder if we have an article on that one?) ... Oh my is this going to be a fun few days. :/ — Ched :  ?  12:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that thing on Echo's page is really boneheaded. Sure, testing functionality in some way is fine, but telling people to create a throwaway account is probably not the best solution! (aka, why not leave a message as an IP?) — Huntster (t @ c) 12:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yea - this should be interesting no doubt. (and to answer myself - plausible deniability) — Ched :  ?  12:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Wait...we got notifications? And now we get a little blinkie doofus thingie at the top of the page with all the other doofus stuff? I might just think my user icon got hit with smallpox. Or maybe I'll like the doofus thingie so much I'll stick around forever. Is this part of that retention thing I keep hearing about? Intothatdarkness 21:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

See the uproar I started on Jimbo's talk page. PumpkinSky talk 21:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry it went that far south for everyone. — Ched :  ?  18:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

re:test

Yep, no orange banner, just a red notification. GiantSnowman 12:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

better than not having a hearing aid ... baaahaahhaaaa. :/ — Ched :  ?  12:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we should have a choice beween the tiny red notification and an orange banner. When I leave a warning on an editor's talk page, it'll be much easier for them to say they didn't see it with such a subtle notice. Also, there are so many more important things that I'd like to receive notifications of. One is when a particular user edits. Another is to be notified of a change to a section rather than a page, e.g., ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

WOOOOO HOOOOO <Ched does the happy dance> .... User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/orangeBar.js works!!!!! Somebody remind me to go thank that guy. But yes ... I agree Bbb. — Ched :  ?  19:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't get Begoon's to work. I'll try this one.PumpkinSky talk 21:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

so you're the one

Re [24]. As a beta tester for google's new initiative, I had noticed something while leaving it activated while logging on to Wikipedia. Didn't realize it was you. NE Ent 02:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

lol Like — Ched :  ?  18:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Autograph please!

Greetings, can I request your "autograph" here timestamp? Thanks! --Tito Dutta (contact) (about this message) 06:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

See there was this request for a "User:Swell" - but that user didn't exist ... so I ..... oh nevermind ... too subtle I guess. Feel free to add my name/sig. to it if you want. I won't be offended in the least - but it does take away a bit of the humor IMHO. — Ched :  ?  18:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

testing 123

Large reptile type pet speaks ... or rather roars. rrawrRR — ChedZILLA 20:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

pulled your name out of a hat

I just wanted an administrator who I don't think either party has been involved with. I didn't want an ANI as a first choice as I find they usually cause even more irreparable rifts. I have an editor who I feel is bordering or crossed into harassing/attacking me and all I want is for someone to tell him to "stop" so I can move on or we can compromise or whatever. But his continual lies and warnings on not only my talk page but also article talk pages is really getting to me. He keeps talking about an rfc for a personal essay that asks if diacritics can be banned. The result was no on that particular rfc but I sure haven't banned any diacritics in the interim. I may !vote differently than this editor but that's not against any rules i know of. I've asked him many times to please refrain from the attacks. A few conversations and Diffs of the problem are as follows...number 1, Number 2, number 3, number 4, number 5 (last line). The last one in the middle of a move discussion. Am I not allowed to think differently even if the move goes through. I realize he and I won't ever agree, but I always hope that some sort of compromise can be reached. But this is just for context not for settling our differences. I only want him to stop piling on the personal attacks on my talk page and in article talk pages and keep to the subject of moving pages or whatever the discussion is. I've had to deal with this in the past with administrator User:The Rambling Man but I hate to always go to the same administrators. I can supply you with diffs of our conversations if you'd like. Anyway, maybe you have a different point of view on the matter or feel that his posts are fair and square. Thank you. I'll watch this page for responses. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest. I will do a bit of research on this; possibly as early as tomorrow evening. (East Coast - USA). I don't believe I've ever interacted directly with TRM, but I must be honest in saying that the little I've seen of his work has always left me with a positive impression. (IMO). I will try to keep an open mind, but may after research decline to support your position. I will get back to you as soon as possible. — Ched :  ?  08:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Oops. An communication error on my part I'm sure. The problem is with editor In ictu oculi. The administrator TRM is simply one of a few who has helped me in the past in dealing with the guy. I simply added TRM in case you wanted diffs on his and my conversations such as his diff to another administrator about IIO. Sorry I wasn't clearer, it was late when I posted here. If you are looking into the "whole" situation, it has also been mediated by admin Joe Decker. He set up an RfC that had no consensus, and he set up a sort of truce on the situation; Asking me if I would not add particular sources and wording to new articles if IIO and others such as "HandsomeFella" would refrain from removing any already in place. This has held since last year. Why they are attempting to excise the material now I have no idea. All was calm. Moves I have no problem with even if I may !vote against them. Complete banning of overwhelming sourced material I do have a big problem with, as do some other editors, including Wolbo. I'm not asking you to get involved in the stuff behind the curtain... I know it's a lot. Just the personal attacks and lies that keep popping up on mine and other talk pages. If they say them often enough, people will just assume they are true. Anyway thanks for any time and effort in your researching. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

nope - I just skimmed the first post and didn't read for context. Let me get some laundry put away and I'll check the basics - if this is time sensitive, you may want to ask another admin. who's more active. I may ping TRM for the Reader's Digest version. Also I will mention - I don't really wade into any of the "political", "religious", "MOS", "national", "diacritic" and other contentious areas as far as content goes ... but if someone is "hounding", "attacking", etc. ... I'll have a look. — Ched :  ?  02:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

@Hi Ched. I don't follow Fyunck(click)'s edits blow by blow so I was a bit taken by surprise by this. In my book when saying anything about anyone behind their back there should be a notification, but be that as it may.

Anyway there is no urgency on this, this issue goes back to this addition to WP Tennis Article guidelines (19 February 2012) and has had a full scale RfC Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Tennis names with broad participation and a clear closing statement. After 16 months it is not unreasonable to ask Fyunck to respect the views of other editors in the following RMs:

• Talk:Frédéric Vitoux (tennis) (closed, but location of main post-close discussion)
• Talk:Stephane Grenier (still open)
• Talk:Frederic Fontang (just opened)

If there is any evidence of a "lie" that would be serious. But expressing the view that Fyunck's edits constitute warring the RfC and RM results is not a "lie," it is merely a view based on edits, e.g. including those since Talk:Frédéric Vitoux (tennis) closed.

@Hi Fyunck, can I ask please refrain from taking this to someone else "from the hat" in the next 24 hours at least. You selected Ched, now give Ched time, if he so wishes, to look at the RfC and RMs. Best wishes, nothing personal. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

OK - I'm really beat here, but I will try to get up to speed ASAP. Maybe we can setup some sort of sub-page and all talk things out. Remembering to keep focused on content, and not making things personal. I have tons of things to do tomorrow IRL in regards to my clients, family, etc., but I will try to sort through this. Perhaps Sunday while I'm watching the NASCAR race I can review a bit of it. I don't know much about "Tennis", although I did play many years ago when I was a bit younger. Let's not rush, and just have a calm chat. ttyl. best to all. — Ched :  ?  05:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, Monday would be best. Or just let the RMs play out and see if others comment. If all 3 RMs have the same result then this discussion we're having here is moot. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem letting Ched look into this with as much time as he needs. And it was never asked of Ched to delve into the content removal or disagreements. That was only for context, since disagreements happen at wikipedia all the time and I find that part of the territory. If pages get moved, they get moved. But this is more than page moves. Ched can ask me anything he wants if he needs any clarification on my stands or preferences. He can check every edit we both have made to see if either of us has a major agenda to remove all diacritics or remove all common names. He can check if either of us brings up the other's name in talk in any derogatory fashion. I don't feel I have anything to hide and it's why I went to someone random that I had never contacted before. It was just last night and I can't recall how I found his name amongst all the administrators. I just read over two of his cases and he seemed fair. That was good enough for me. Go ahead Ched and set up a subpage and lets talk away sometime next week. Later. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• All 3 RMs Talk:Frédéric Vitoux (tennis), Talk:Stéphane Grenier (tennis), Talk:Frédéric Fontang have now closed in agreement with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Tennis names closure. Something close to 40 or 50 separate editors have now either attempted to remove the recent "tennis names" additions across the 100 BLPs affected or commented against this in RfC, RM or similar incidents (another editor, now banned Zoë Baird (English Zoe Baird)), and while respecting Fyunck's personal belief that the Association of Tennis Professionals website lack of accents reflects a deliberate policy against accents on foreign tennis players' names, nevertheless this has been overwhelmingly rejected by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Tennis names and in the RfC and RMs other WP Tennis members are supporting WP:MOSBIO format. The time has come for Fyunck to accept the views of other tennis editors and take note of Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. He should also be asked to find and self-revert the 100 BLPs where he has added the duplicate names. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

So much for letting an administrator look at everything himself. And again that minor personal essay closed as "you can't ban diacritics" which I'm in agreement with... but it works both ways if the sources say so "You can't ban the English alphabet" either. Those moves have nothing to do with that rfc. Zip. I'm not sure where this comprehension is coming from but banning all English alphabetic spellings from every article on wikipedia will take an RfC of huge proportions. And that is not what this request was for at all. It was simply a request for you to stop attacking me at every opportunity, and telling continual lies on article talk pages. I never asked to settle whether we should ban the English alphabet as you would want. Let this admin talk to others and do his own thinking. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Fyunck,

I'm sorry but you cannot go around calling other editors "liars" without providing evidence. Please show a single diff where I have ever told a "lie", because I am not aware of ever having told a "lie" about any editor, including about yourself.

Likewise please show a diff where I have ever "attacked" you.

Best wishes. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Goodness.... is this query for real? I'll let admins Ched and The Rambling Man sort out the lies and behind the back posts and schemes by you over the last year. I let those posts go on for 8 months in hopes it would go away and told you of a lie just the other day. That's why I came here, because you won't stop. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Good morning both. My sincere apologies, but I must be on medical leave for a bit longer. If there's an still a problem, and at the moment it appears there still is, then when I return I'll do my best to sort through it. If you wish to seek resolution elsewhere while I'm away, I'll not be offended. Cheers and best to all. — Ched :  ?  10:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Okie dokie...Thanks for updating us and take care. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• OK - taking a bit of a break from real life for a second I'll give my initial thoughts on "a person's name". In general I don't use what they are known for if it's an uncommon name (Kyle Busch), but for a more common name see: Jimmy Johnson. I know the football coach, the Pittsburgh Penguin hockey player, and the NASCAR driver. (although I see the NASCAR driver uses a bit different spelling - so no "Jimmy Johnson (NASCAR driver)". Anyway - since I haven't had the time to really research this topic, and I'm not familiar with the "tennis project" - I'll ping User:Dennis Brown and User:Drmies to the thread if they are interested in offering a view. For someone outside the "American" line of thinking perhaps User:Bishonen could offer a thought if she was so inclined. I know all 3 are active on Wiki, and I consider them all to be pretty up to date on things and fair people all the way around. I'm not ducking out of this, but just not finding the time to be on Wiki as much as I'd like at the moment. — Ched :  ?  18:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • *<wince>* - I think I would rather have my teeth pulled out with a tractor than delve into a debate regarding diacritics. For starters, I'm clueless when it comes to the subject matter, as they didn't teach that course at the School of Hard Knocks, my alma mater. Drmies can probably help and Bish is more than smart enough. Or Kudpung could be consulted as he is pretty familiar with anything related to linguistics. I really would dive in and help, but I'm more afraid I might make the situation worse rather than better. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 18:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Two things... 1) this was brought up here not for a diacritics debate, it was only to have a certain user stop posting inaccuracies about me all over wikipedia, even when asked to stop. That's all I asked for. And 2) I have no problem with an article being moved by consensus to its foreign diacritic spelling. I may !vote against its move (which is certainly within policy), but if it moves, it moves. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Without a doubt if someone is talking about others in a bad way it should stop. Probably my favorite link on that topic is WP:FOC. I am sorry I haven't been more on wiki .. just real life stuff keeps interfering ..but I will look the first chance I get. Just everyone "agf" and all that. Be kind to each other, it's a wonderful project, and it's a wonderful thing to have the gift of life and all. cheers. — Ched :  ?  21:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

My post was for Dennis Brown in case he helped out. I am not opposed to any of those you mentioned as I don't think I've dealt with any of them in the past, nor do I see them as having posted in the no-consensus RfC. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I don't do a lot on the weekends, and certainly not complicated stuff with behaviors and attitudes and history. Drmies (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• Thanks for mentioning me Dennis, but as I just posted somewhere else, I don't have time to get involved in lengthy discussions at the moment. That said, I think my stance on the use of diacritics in page names should be well enough known by now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• I'm sorry .. I cant' do this anymore. Besst to all — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ched (talk • contribs) 23:24, 14 May 2013‎ (UTC)

Article request

Fladrif slapped a Prod on Management by fear while I was lying low because of his hounding. I would have most likely removed the prod as even tho its been uncited for ages i think its a notable subject - of course anybody can feel free to open an AFD on it but I think to kill it off with a Prod was probably unreasonable. "Concept/neologism attributed to Swedish comedy show" is an irrelevant triviality. Any chance of rescuing it ? --Penbat (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick look at the most recent version shows no references. You may want to check at WP:REFUND or I could probably email you a copy if you wanted to sandbox something. — Ched :  ?  19:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

If its not breaking any rules it would be handy if u could paste it into User:Penbat/management_by_fear thus giving me a chance to assess it properly to see if its worth a WP:REFUND.--Penbat (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

OK - let me see how the NASCAR race plays out, then I'll check it out a bit further. — Ched :  ?  20:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Crazy day in NASCAR - ok, let me restore all edits so proper attribution is there - then I'll move it to you sandbox. Since there's no references right now, you'll want to check wording and find sources and avoid copyvio issues. Give me a few minutes here. — Ched :  ?  00:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ched, no complaints from me, I don't think I would ever oppose to a PROD being challenged after deletion and being moved to a sandbox to be improved, seems like a constructive move! GiantSnowman 10:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

TY GS. — Ched :  ?  10:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Notifications box replacement prototypes released

Hey Ched; Kaldari has finished scripting a set of potential replacements available to test and give feedback on. Please go to this thread for more detail on how to enable them. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Okeyes. Hopefully I'll have some time this evening to look at that. — Ched :  ?  16:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: "will someone PLEASE put my [edit] link back where it belongs!!!!"

Gotcha covered. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

DUDE!!! ... you are WAY too cool!!! Thank you. I hereby declare as the leader of all things Wikipedia that you are now and forever more in charge of the UI. Thanks. (on the off chance that you're actually a female - "oops - sorry"). — Ched :  ?  22:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess....

it boils down to a thought ... link — Ched :  ?  04:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I know this is a late barnstar, but thanks for your efforts in resolving the issue with Fladrif. His comments towards me were condescending and abusive after all. In the end, it takes a community effort to put together a discussion about his actions as well. Again, thanks for your efforts and keep up the good work! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Strong late support for the barnstar, you were not afraid to do the right thing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you Sjones - that means a lot to me. To the folks up in that "out of a hat" thread - I really am sorry that I don't have time to deal with that. Just real life stuff and all. While I'm here .. I do want to find that "real life barnstar" for User:MastCell too ... you have no idea how much help you've been and how much I appreciate it. I promise I'll fill ya in on all the first chance I get.

And all ya'all .. be kind to each other. Life is a very precious gift - take that "AGF" thing to heart and love each other. — Ched :  ?  16:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ched

Hello, Ched. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

OK ... got that ... will follow up on it tomorrow. — Ched :  ?  02:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay User:Ihardlythinkso, but I did respond. — Ched :  ?  04:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I got your Email, but as explained in the Email reply I sent, didn't find it "responsive" to my Q. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

And ditto your followup Email. I've concluded attempting any honest discussion with you is a complete impossibility, that you are heavily invested in the normal political Admin Oh-I-gotta-keep-my-tools-and-backup-my-fellow-Admins-at-all-costs BS network that dominates the WP. So for me, you are a complete waste of my time and in addition nothing but an aggravation. So please stay off my User Talk in future, and don't send any messages directed to my attention if you possibly can help it. I've had enough of your shallowness (bogus overgeneralizations and deductions), attempts at trickery, mischaracterizations of message based on your own defensiveness over imagined attack, ad hominem crap, name-calling, manipulation (stuffing words in my mouth I never said the attacking me for them), and poltical BS. Much appreciated, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't give a shit about any "admin" crap. see below. — Ched :  ?  05:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Another infobox issue

Hi. While there is a planned RfC on the infobox issue, I don't really know if you are aware of this, but something's going on at the Richard Wagner article regarding another infobox issue there. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the note User:Sjones23, it is very appreciated. I think at this time it's best that I don't get involved because I really don't have the time to research the situation. I am obviously aware of the "infobox" problem, and indeed many of the links you provided enlightened me as to the scale of the disruption. Sadly, I suspect that only a WP:RFAR will ever resolve the situation, but unfortunately I suspect there would be a LOT of collateral damage on both sides when/if that happened. I've made my views clear on several occasions that I personally prefer an infobox when an article is substantial enough to support it. I've never been fully clear on why the Classical Music Composer's project has continued to fight this well established item other than the aesthetic "it's ugly" comments. I'm all in favor of any particular project establishing certain standards; so long as they don't violate "WP:OWN", but that does seem to happen all too often. I'm also very supportive in allowing the person or people who put the most work into a particular article the creative license to develop the story they want to tell. That some people, including an admin. or two, would stalk, harass, edit war, and even violate WP:3RR is appalling to me. I would imagine that as the Wikidata project matures it will drive infobox situation forward in positive ways, so hopefully there will be the realization that it's a battle that can't be fought. Regardless, I do appreciate you letting me know - thank you. — Ched :  ?  04:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I also apologized to User:Georgewilliamherbert about the recent situations I had here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

George is a good man. If you've got his approval on something, then you're doing something right. — Ched :  ?  04:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Neutral opinion

• Hi Ched, do you mind taking a look at this and give me your frank assessment? IMO, I've provided the most direct source rather than through another organisation's site, so why somebody would want to use something else is really beyond me. Well, I suppose that's how WP:Civil POV pushing is done these days on WP. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 07:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dave. To be honest I probably won't have time to look for a few days. — Ched :  ?  05:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Recall of my tools.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Ihardlythinkso has expressed dissatisfaction with my efforts on Wikipedia. We have had several email exchanges which I am willing to share with the community or the arbitration committee if it is agreeable with Ihardly. I have attempted and failed to reach an agreeable understanding, and I will therefore put myself before the community and the Arbitration Committee for review. At present I am very involved in real life situations, but do acknowledge my responsibilities to the community of Wikipedia. With apologies I will notify User:Dennis Brown, User:DanielTom, and User:Bwilkins once the proper venue has been established. — Ched :  ?  05:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Ched, I'm at a loss to understand why you feel the need to do anything with regard to the issues with Ihardlythinkso other than what you've already done. Just because an editor is unhappy with you doesn't mean you have to put yourself before the community and ArbCom for review. As admins, we'd spend our lives in review if that were so. Of course, I don't know anything about the e-mail between you and Ihardlythinkso, but god knows you aren't the only admin that Ihardlythinkso doesn't like. In any event, I would focus all of your energies on your personal life, which is always more important than Wikipedia, and not give another thought to this. Best.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Good advice. Just for the record, you're right, there are some Admins that I do not like, and some that I do like, and my not liking some is based on those Admins' actions or their statements, that I had objections with, and was unable to resolve after discussion, keeping open mind during said discussions, but nevertheless forming a judgement when it was time. Not everyone has to agree with everyone else, and not everyone has to have the same values either. (That is what is going on here. I accept it. Ched, for whatever reason, doesn't. I suspect the reason is his admitted "hurt feelings", and this is a way to strike back. Too bad for that. And isn't attempt to stir drama, and suggesting to waste time of Arbcom and other editors in editor review unnecessarily, rather a show of attention-getting, which is itself disruptive and unbecoming of an Admin!? If Ched wants to be ad hominem with me and dodge a good-faith question via Email, that is his choice. He should understand he might end up with a "hurt feeling" as a consequence, because I'm not about to reply "Oh thank you, can you give me another?") Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

"Has expressed dissatisfaction with my efforts on Wikipedia." Bullshit, Ched. (It's a false statement, and erroneous generalization, that is typical of you. I've also noticed you slip into "defensive mode" too easily, imagining other editors attacking you. For example of that, my first communication was when you went my user Talk, anticipating that my criticisms re use of WP:BOOMERANG were somehow meant for you, when they weren't.)

I asked you a simple question via Email, and, you dodged the question, and gave me a bunch of baloney that I didn't ask for. When I drew this to your attention, you started to attack me ad hominem, name-call, and other BS. My objections to you were limited to your response to my Email Q, which was a simple one about consistency. You dodged. (People can dodge, people can be political, they are every day. I never called for your resignation of Admin status. That is an absurd and attention-getting reaction on your part. The fact is that hypocisy and politically-minded Admins fill the Wiki, and, I am no reformer, and don't even try. But I will comment, and have, one-on-one, when I feel I have something concrete to say. And I'm through talking with you ... your BS thinking and responses I've received are enough already. I never called for your resignation of tools. I just want to be left alone by you because talking to you fairly about the issue I tried to, is fruitless. You completely mischaracterized my Email Q to you, in an insulting and careless or disingenuous hurtful way. I'm done talking to you because attempting to above-board is a waste of my time. Now your "feelings" are so hurt (I guess), that you need to make a big deal over it. (As retribution, Ched? What other reason, since I levied no comment regarding your Admin status. The fact there is a "network" of Admins who back each other up and decline to objectively find fault with one another, is no secret to anyone, and your Email responses have convinced me beyond shadow of a doubt you are in that "network" too. So enjoy your relationships with Admins like Bwilkins, and others that I have no respect for. That is your choice, not mine. We are just very different people, with very different standards. So play nice and drop it, you are obviously trying to stir up drama. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Ihardly's comment, The fact there is a "network" of Admins who back each other up and decline to objectively find fault with one another, is no secret to anyone, except that I prefer to call it "admin gang" rather than "network". Since my name was mentioned, I should just say that I have never had any negative interactions with Ched, and I take it that he was trying to stick up for his friend, which is a virtue in my book. The only problem is that Ched is an admin, and admins are supposed to be impartial. Yep, you guessed it: they aren't. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, Ched, I remember you now. It was you who closed the Kalki-unblocking discussion. I should have awarded you a barnstar for that. (I might do it in the future.) Cheers ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Wait until his talk is not as rich in "defender of the wiki" and other stars as right now, - but may be you will have to wait long ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per Bbb23. You can't please everyone. I've never seen any evidence that could call into question your dedication or competence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 10:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

And FYI, I never called into question Ched's dedication or competency. (Only his consistency. And then later after his ad hominem responses, his loyalties to regular editors or Admins friends. Those are different issues; please don't mix 'em.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Didn't mean to imply there. My point being that he is a dedicated and competent admin, thus shouldn't worry about questioning himself. Olive sums up my opinions on consistency below. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 16:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Ched is a competent admin. Simple. No editor on Wikipedia whom I've seen almost every day including arbitrators is completely consistent. Human beings have ups and downs, bad days, good days, days when RL is hard, days when its not. This affects what we see here day in and day out. I have no idea why another editor would call anyone inconsistent, what the circumstances are, and I don't want to know, nor am I saying Ched is inconsistent. Actually I find his behaviour to be as consistent as any other editor. I just don't think that in addition to what editors and admins are required to do here, that a generalized behaviour called consistency day in and day out is something we should expect. Just my opinion, and I know, I wasn't asked. :O)(olive (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC))
• @ IHTS. Fair enough. My understanding from your email was that you thought I should resign my tools. I fully admit that I can be defensive and sensitive. I'll try to work on that. My initiating this thread was my attempt to be accountable, as I've never felt a need to hold on to the tools with any "cold dead hands". (Charlton Heston quote). After considering your last couple emails I felt it best that I respond in a manner that could be recorded and judged by others. I figured my talk page was the least watched venue so it would also be the least prone to drama. As a member of the community you have the right to question me, and it appeared to me that my responses in email were not satisfactory to you. Yes I do try to remain "politically correct" even in off wiki email. If you are attempting to get to "know me" in a sense that I'll utter the "Oh fuck him/her, s/he's an asshole" type of thing - that will take time for me to open up to anyone to that extent. I have never met another wikipedian in real life, but I will also fully admit that I do feel a kinship to some folks here; including Dennis. I will go back and re-read your emails, and if you wish to continue a conversation off-line, I'm not opposed to that. I think that every person has value, even when we sometimes have difficulty in seeing it. As far as "consistency" goes, I will think on that for a bit, and try to voice my thoughts. (I have to admit that I think there is a lot of wisdom in what Olive has written above.)

@ the others in this thread. Thank you for your words of support, It is truly appreciated. Hopefully by early to mid June I can get back to spending more time with the community. There's actually a great deal of article work I'd like to get to with the NASCAR project and some of the past history of what I consider a wonderful sport. — Ched :  ?  17:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• I take it that any mention of right turns should automatically be reverted as vandalism in the articles you work on? ;-) Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 17:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• No, gotta get out of the pits. NE Ent 17:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Apologies, I just can't help myself. [25] Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 19:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Both of you are good eggs. Try to give it a rest for a few days and then resume email. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

"If you are attempting to get to 'know me' [...]." No Ched, that wasn't my intent or purpose when sending you Email. And there is a lot of unnecessary hand-wringing and emotion and off-the-rails over a very simple Email Q. You have to understand that "politically correct" sounds nice and all, however, it can be very offensive because political decisions and judgements often involve lack of objectivity and favoritism. (Example, would it be "politically correct" to say the Boston Bombers "could have acted better than they did"? That would be a true statement, but it is egregious, since that event wasn't a polite tea cerimony, they were teorrists intending to kill as many innocent people as they could. [However, I wouldn't be surprised at all to hear their mothers say "Yes, my son could have acted better than he did.", when that would be an example of extreme and twisted favoritism. Or try this one on for size: "They made a mistake. But everyone makes mistakes; no one is perfect. *You* aren't perfect, right? So forgive my boy for not being perfect, and let him get on with his life, okay??" Or this soft & fuzzy logic: "Do you like to be judged? I certainly don't, and I don't think you do either. So instead of 'judging' the Boston Bombers, we should try and understand them. Because understanding others leads to better human relations, than judging does, leading only to all sorts of negativity." Or even dumbed-down Wiki logic that seems to sound as if it makes sense because we've heard it so many times: "How long have we been hearing now, about those Boston Bombers? I can't even remember when it all started, it's been that long. I think we've covered it enough, folks, there's little good that will come from more of this. Need to drop the sticks and back away from that dead horse. Nothing to do here. Go edit some articles or something."] So when you say "yes I'm politically correct", Ched, it doesn't mean that your statements aren't also twisted and offensive out of favoritism. So you can't hide behind "Yeah, I guess I'm politically correct" without accepting that it is offensive to some while warming to those you show obvious favoritism.)

Your Email response was essentially zero difference from Dennis Brown's response to DanielTom's plea for fariness. Pure favoritism for your "friend", "good guy" Mr. Bwilkins. ("There is also clear evidence that some administrators focus on the perceived incivility of those they are hostile to while ignoring it in their friends and colleagues [...]. ---Malleus Fatuorum." What you guys miss is that by excusing him and being his apologists, you embolden him to do the same again, and meanwhile, he "spits" for free on both me, and DanielTom, with impunity. [Who do I blame for that when the community has been alerted and reached out to? I blame you guys, his enablers.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

@olive, read this thread to see what Admin User:Bwilins's remarks about User:DanielTom, then let me know if you see any PAs there, or not. (Neither Dennis Brown nor Ched wanna admit to PA behavior, when asked. Instead we're told to overlook and endure, because "Bwilkens is a 'good guy'", and [what is obvious] their "friend".) Now you have some particular facts of the real issue, rather than making comments in the dark, going on variously generated and irrelevant "side" issues. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I commented on Ched's ability to carry out an admin's duties. And having watched his work implied there is little difference between Ched's history and any other editor or admin in terms of consistency. Both those points were illuminated by my experience over time and were not in any way "in the dark".(olive (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC))

You're missing the point. The topic of the Ched's quality for adminship, and your comments to that, have no context or meaning outside of the original point that prompted or fathered that topic. And it was and is an irrelevant side issue. (Who opened up topic about Ched and his tools? Ched did. Out of a misunderstanding he says, but I rather suspect, out of need to gain attention and sympathy-support to "hurt feelings". Sorry but I was clear as rain in my Emails, no matter how he mischaracterizes what I said now. I take great pains to be clear, and I did with him, over and over and over again. In any event, things go off the rails, including irrlevant side-issues created, which obscure and obfuscate the original issue. I'm really sick of that kind of thing, on the Wiki. [Chaos and misunderstanding rule, and in an environment of chaos and misunderstanding, it is less obvious when abuses occur. So the abuses pour in. One should ask themselves if they contribute to clearing things up and speaking straight to point on the table, or whether they contribute obfuscation and murkiness over irrelevant side issues that cloud the point on the table.])

If Ched wants to open an RfC/U or editor review or take a case to Arbcom regarding the retention of his tools, that is his business. But keep my name out of it. (My name wasn't kept out of it. I was unfairly and inappropriately blamed, "Oh I thought you meant" crap.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I replied to the point of the original post and did not mention your name. My comments on consistency were general. I doubt its fair to label another editors comment as murky because they do not address the points you want to make. I won't argue this further. Thanks.(olive (talk) 00:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC))

The "original post" was a misnomer. So your comments were about a misnomer (not important, and not to the relevant point). Your view about "consistency in general" is off in outerspace somewhere (unsolicited, unhelpful, attaches to nothing but a misnomer thread). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

What I suggest is that you have more tolerance for those in a discussion who do not agree with your reasoning, and perhaps as you know one does not have to be solicited to make comments on talk pages. (olive (talk) 08:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC))

But one s/ have a purpose, and their contributions fit to the topic. (IMO yours weren't either, and I'm very sensitive that this little thread opened by Ched is in the form of a mini-ANI against me, where all the pile-oners compliment him with an indirect, implied "Shame on you Ihardlythinkso, don't you see how you're outnumbered in your opinion here, you seem to be the problem, not him, BOOMERANG BOOMERANG BOOMERANG on you!!" etc. etc. Your contribution then, from my perspective, is just more crap I had to go through, to stop that kind of abusive nonsense.) Maybe you should have a little understanding from *my* perspective, which is probably more real and palatable and provable, than yours. Sick of this, quite frankly! (Defending myself all the fucking time! As WP is an abusive and hostile place. Long before I ever signed up.) Hey did you read the Bwilkins thread and weigh in? No? Just came here on account of ... what? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how you expect support by going around asking opinions. You got my response, copied below, I also found something sickening. Please reply below, not on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I've actually found Ched to be one of the least "political" admins here, and far more willing to call fellow admins out than some others. Intothatdarkness 16:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok. But then I'm confused how/why he has an impossible time giving opinion when asked, whether the remarks against User:DanielTom in this thread are PAs, or not PAs. (What am I missing?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I could write an extensive wall of text about this, but that's not of any real value here. I don't pretend to know what Ched's opinion of that linked stuff is, but to me it's not PA. Snarky on both sides? Sure. COuld someone take it as PA? Again, sure. But to me that would be a stretch. I didn't chase down the entire history of that exchange and don't intend to, but clearly these two have a history. That always colors an exchange. I also don't want to know what their history is. But that's my opinion. Intothatdarkness 16:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

How is the comment "your recent ani proves your level of ethics. Good luck integrating with humanity someday" anything other than a personal attack? ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I view it as a heated exchange on someone's talk page between two people who clearly don't get along. And that's as far into it as I plan to get. Personal talk pages are different (as far as I'm concerned, at least) from the rest of this place. You can not agree with that assessment, and that's fine. But that's how I see it. Intothatdarkness 17:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

But I don't see anything in that thread from DanielTom, that is heated, or even "snarky". (His posts in that thread appear entirely straight-forward to me, all of them.) So when you say "snarky on both sides", it suggests a balance or equality, but as mentioned, I see none of that from DT there, nor anything "heated" from him. I see calm responses to the incivilities there from BW.) I thought CIV applied to anywhere on the Wiki, and that was policy. If there was no CIV enforcement on User Talks, and that was made known that anything goes, ... imagine what you'd find there (!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You asked me my opinion. I happen to consider wall of text responses and repeated editing of responses to be uncivil (which you don't do, but others do). I also don't expect anyone to care what I think, nor do I necessarily expect to sway anyone to agree with me. Perhaps I'm jaded. Intothatdarkness 18:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• No, you should not give up the tools. You are a wonderful admin. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  22:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Gerda's opinion

Copied from my talk, belongs in this context, I was asked:

"'Every editor is a human being'. Fladrif seemed not to respect that, what can we do?" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I've never corresponded w/ you before. But may I ask, in light and respect of your statement, which you used to justify opinion for INDEF block on that user, what do you think about User:Bwilkins's final remark about User:DanielTom, in this thread. (Thank u for your sincere opinion.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

My remark on Fladrif's talk was in response to his treatment of a friend of mine. It was deleted within minutes, as anything else on that page, - I didn't see them interact at all (but now I watched little). We lost User:Dreadstar because of them, - so it seemed when I posted. I kept my statement short, there was no need to repeat what others had said already. - The prompt deletion of talk messages reminded me of User:Townlake, unhappily so, as we lost User:PumpkinSky because of them, for a long time. - I will not get involved in the other case about which I know nothing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. When I asked your opinion above, I wasn't thinking it was asking you to "get involved". Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Define "involved", - I wasn't precise, I meant I have no time to even look (see below), and can't speak without looking. - Did you know that I didn't even have time so far to look at Fladrif's posts on the PumpkinSky RfA (link on my user)? I looked yesterday and found it sickening. To repeat the old "copyvio/plagiarism" label for the author of featured article Franz Kafka, - find a term for that yourself please, Did you know where the above mentioned quote comes from? The alleged identity of Rlevse and Barking Moon, it's linked in my edit notice. I miss BarkingMoon. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• No, you should not give up the tools. You do what is good for your friends only if, or rather because it is good for the project, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Is this really an efficient use of time? You need to set the bar for "recall discussions" higher than just one user, as that is really inefficient. II | (t - c) 15:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Very good point II, and one I'll take to heart. I'll be archiving my talk in the next day or so and hopefully real life will afford me the time to return to a more active role in the next week or so. Thank you for the very sage advice. — Ched :  ?  15:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• While I may disagree with you on certain issues would not call for the recall of your admin tools. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that is appreciated Doc. — Ched :  ?  15:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello Ched

I noticed you online and wanted to ask a favor. Please undelete my user page ensuring it is the version with my editing history. I'm not concerned about the two erroneous creations unless you want to histmerg them all. If possible please answer the request sooner rather than later; I am needing some of its history and other things are on hold until I get this done. Thank you for considering my request. My76Strat (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done — Ched :  ?  22:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ched! I've been watching "Recall of my tools", and I reflect in my thoughts "yes. I recall much about you, and your tools". Would anyone like to hear some of these recollections? In giving a hint, I'll say that I knew Ched would accomplish what I needed him to do correctly and in a timely manner. My appreciation is sincere. My76Strat (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Like AutomaticStrikeout  ?  23:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Light of day

After reading a lot of comments on Mastcell's talk page, I think that I have said and done things that have made him misunderstand me, and it's really my fault.....although I wish he had come to me directly with these concerns, my anger and frustration have been sorely misplaced... Your input is always welcome, so if anything I've said is wrong, please let me know and I'll fix it. Dreadstar ☥ 23:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

And sometimes, just between you and me, I'm an utter, fracking moron! Eek!! Dreadstar ☥ 23:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• NO Dreadstar, you're not a moron. You are passionate about the project, and you are protective of people when you sense that someone is facing a bully - I get that. I'm sure I have your email in my contact list, and I'll drop you some thoughts in the next day or two. One thing though - User:MastCell (yes I'm pinging him) Dude, you're barking up the wrong tree there. Now perhaps Mastcell and I differ on religion, spiritual issues .. whatever .. but I'll tell you what - regardless of his(?) particular point of view on any situation? .. He WILL be fair, honest, and completely compassionate to ALL. No, I don't know him well - but somewhere in his talk history you can find where I gave him a "real life" barnstar - remember when you got one of those? The man took a lot of time to help me find solid medical help in my own town .. without a second's thought to what my particular view was on any situation on wiki. I read a bit of what was on that/those discussions on his talk page .. and yes .. without a doubt what Mastcell said would hurt. But IMHO it wasn't meant as a personal attack on you as a person, but rather as a "this is how it looks to me" point of view. Now I don't know crap about "TM" things, I'm not even sure if it's a religious or a medical topic. All I know about it is what I read back when the Beatles did that stuff. My take on it all is that in some cultures TM is considered a "fringe" theory - where in other cultures it is a way of life. But I'm getting into something there that I really don't want to get involved with.

If you want to talk to Mastcell .. then do so. Drop him an email, I'm telling ya .. he will talk to you. Hell - I violate WP:NOTSOCIAL on a daily basis .. simply because I want .. no ... I HAVE to know the people I'm working with here. It's part of "collaboration". Dreadstar - you're a good person; kind, caring, compassionate and willing to go to the 9s for people. I admire that. Sometimes though you just need to take a step back an look at the big picture. Keep doing what you're doing - but try to look at things in all 360 degrees so you see ALL sides. ttyl buddy. — Ched :  ?  03:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)