Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:39, 1 June 2009

• Please leave your flattering comments and appreciation for my good work at the bottom of the page.
• To discuss issues on this page, please refer to the associated talk page.
• Read about the Kelapstick Bacon Challenge 2009 or get an early start on the 2010 Bacon Challenge coming up in December, 2009 as a giant Christmas present to all of Misplaced Pages to be unwrapped March 1, 2010 for National Pig Day!

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18

This page has archives. Sections older than 8 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Wiel Arets

Wiel Arets (Heerlen, 14 mei 1955) is a Dutch architect. He graduated from the TU Eindhoven in 1983. In the following year he started his own firm, Wiel Arets architect & associates, in Heerlen. He prefers simple and abstract compositions. His palet is very sparse and he prefers black and white (including for his own clothes; he usually dresses in black).

His main claim to fame is his design for the Academie voor Beeldende Kunsten in Maastricht; his design for the Universiteitsbibliotheek in Utrecht is also praised. With Jo Coenen he collaborated in the restauration of the glaspaleis in his birthplace Heerlen, and designed a number of pharmacies (?) in the south of the Netherlands. In Hapert he designed a complete Medisch Centrum (Oude Provinciale weg 81/Lindenstraat Hapert). The form language of neo-modernisme is combined with an abstract, placid aesthetic. His favorite building material is the glass brick.

Awards

In 2005, Wiel Arets received the BNA-Kubus, the oldest award for architecture in the Netherlands. The jury appreciated the remarkable quality of his work and praises his extraordinary contribution to architecture. The Kubus is awarded annually since 1965; previous winners include Herman Hertzberger, Wim Quist, Jo Coenen, Jo van den Broek, Benthem Crouwel and Hubert-Jan Henket, and Wessel de Jonge.

Also in 2005 Arets received the Rietveldprijs for his design for the Universiteitsbibliotheek on De Uithof in Utrecht, which came with a check for 7500 euro. The Stichting Rietveldprijs awards the prize every other year to an architect who builds a remarkable building in Utrecht. Past winners include Koen van Velsen, Mart van Schijndel, and Rem Koolhaas.

References

This apparently has something to do with a thread on this page...

Signing so this will be archived. Gracias Drmies for translation. Although the pharmacies issue makes me wonder whether you are really Dutch? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It was about time you had one of these

		The Surreal Barnstar
		For special merits in Dragon breeding.

Irony

Steely

Goldie!

Hi

:)

talkback

Horror film genre-specifc reliable sources

If you have time, I'd appreciate your looking in at Horror film genre-specifc reliable sources and either comment, advise, or contribute. I think something like this should have been done a while ago so as to help stop the bickering at AfDs. I might set it as an essay. What thinkest thou?

Re: Thanks

talkback

Clifton's Cafeteria

I wish to have you take one last look through the article, as I feel it is decent enough to go live today. I apreciate the inspiration, encouragement, and the terrific assist. I also think it fair to submit several DYKs for this one article:

1. Did you know that Clifton's Cafeteria is the oldest cafeteria in Los Angeles, California?
2. Did you know that Clifton's Cafeteria is the largest public cafeteria in the world?
3. Did you know that Clifford Clinton, founder of Clifton's Cafeteria created the name by combining the first half of "Clifford" and the last half of "Clinton" to produce the name "Clifton's"?
4. Did you know that the existing Clifton's Cafeteria, was once known as Clifton's Golden Rule because patrons were obliged to pay only what they felt was fair?
5. Did you know that Clifton's Cafeteria in Los Angeles, California, known originally as Clifton's Golden Rule, changed its name in 1939 to Clifton's Brookdale after a redecoration inspired by the Brookdale Lodge?
6. Did you know that Clifford Clinton founder of Clifton's Cafeteria, fed over 10,000 people for free during a 90-day period during the Great Depression?
7. Did you know that Clifton's Cafeteria, still advertsises and honors their 79-year-old motto "Dine Free Unless Delighted"?
8. Did you kbow that Clifton's Cafeteria founder Clifford Clinton made a point to never turn anyone away, even if they had no money, seeking to average only a half-cent profit per customer?
9. Did you know the original Clifton's Cafeteria location of Clifton's Pacific Seas was visited by Jack Kerouac and written of in his book On The Road?

There are many more DYKs available for this article. Additional suggestions are most welcome. I do not know how many submissions are acceptable at one time for one article, but they'd all have to be submitted with the next few days. Schmidt, 22:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Its gone live!... as you can tell by all those redlinbks having turned blue. :) Thank you very much for the inspiration for this article... you can now take it off your "to do list". I acknowledged you as the inspiration in the DYK submission. Schmidt, 04:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This just got sent to me and Bongomatic:

On May 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Clifton's Cafeteria, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

It would never have hapened if it were not for your inspiration. Schmidt, 19:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Our Lady of Darkness‎

Setting yourself up as the creator of an article about a novel that you admit you haven't even read is perhaps not the best way to establish your chops as a useful contributor to Misplaced Pages. Deor (talk) 05:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The joys of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit! I'm counting on you to verify and clean up the article contents as needed. As I moved it, it's not quite true that I set myself up as the article creator. Have a great weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

CoM doesn't need to "establish" his chops as a useful contributor—he's done that several thousands of edits ago. Bongomatic 06:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Bongo fails to notice that most of those "edits" a.k.a. "tweaks", were fixes of my own misspellings. So if you divide by 7 you'll get a truer figure for my contributions. And then when you look at the subject matter I've been working on, well... let's just say there's a lot of room for improvement. But if Bongo is willing to mentor me, I'm willing to continue frustrating him by refusing to properly use the cite template. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware that we were only permitted to write about subjects we knew about, kind of defeats the whole learning aspect.--kelapstick (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I consider myself to be all knowing. So I haven't come across any limitations on what I can edit. You should see the work I've done on physics and math topics! When in doubt, make it up as you go along and hope for the best. See new math and global climate change. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Article suggestion

CoM, I know you like quirky article topics...well, here´s something I just came across that might be article-worthy if you can find enough coverage. There´s a new website called pope2you.net, which apparently is like facebook but for the Pope...I can´t read much spanish, but this article might have some information (it´s how I heard about this). --rʨanaɢ /_contribs 19:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems like it would be good to mention the Pope's arrival on the interweb in his article and perhaps the more generalized pope article. Thanks for thinking of me! Gracias. I had had had had had had had had been waiting for the outcome of other important discussions!!! :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The Full Armor of God Broadcast

Can you please help me understand what would make the sources more reliable? Nobody seems to be able to tell me, other than that it needs to be listed on Factiva, but I don't see that as a requirement in the policy. Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 02:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

YES, but many are audio files. There have been some written interviews, but ussually on University blogs and such that are no longer on file. I can look into finding them. But there are interviews with WLRY's Mornign show, Pass the Salt w/ Coach Dave Daubenmire, Anvil & the Hammer Radio, Weathered Steel (WITR), The Cross Stream Radio, WTGO, WJCU and Malone University. I do not think that they are archived on those perticular sites anymore, but there are copies of them that can be linked. I will get right on that! Will that help?? Am I right, according to WP:RS "However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third-party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet." this should apply correct?? Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

WLRY, Pass the Salt (WLRY) and WJCU refernces added How does this look? Better?? http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Ivanhoe610fa/sandbox/The_Full_Armor_of_God#Show_content Please keep in mind that refernces to radio station program schedules confimr they air the show, not just that it exisits. Secondly that radio stations rarely ever archive syndicated programs. Thus archived episodes are stored on the show's own site, but as per WP:S "Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet." I assert therefore that the audio sourses listed on this article display notability in that they confirm that notable guest have been on the show, even though they are hosted by the program's own server, the fact that WP:RS Clearly states "It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet." make that kind of a mute arguement. What say ye?? Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 04:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon posting here despite repeated requests to avoid my talk page

If this editor whose improper actions and POV pushing are well documented at the Obama arbitration continues to post here despite REPEATED requests to stop, please note that he has a history of harassing me and posting false accusations as well as making numerous frivolous ANI reports against me. I've asked him repeatedly to discuss article content on article talk pages rather than troll here, but he's continued to go looking for trouble. Misplaced Pages's guidelines are clear and this kind of abuse should not be tolerated. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Look, if you're going to make personal attacks about me on your talk page, where you are being warned against edit warring, then don't delete the responses. You're disrupting the good faith attempts to deal with your edits. Wikidemon (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This is Wikidemon's fifth post here today. Four of them were made after I pointed out to him that his diffs were to two different and unrelated bits of content and asked him to stop posting here . My post is in his talk page history since he immediately deleted it calling it nonsense.

He's made numerous other posts in the last couple hours trying to canvass various admins to take action against me, despite my pointing out to him that the diffs he posted are to two totally unrelated bits of content. Knowingly continuing to make false accusations and personal attacks is a violation of policy. The diffs are clear, one is regarding a budget issue and the other enhanced interogation techniques.

And so it goes. Some day a fair minded Admin might actually make him cease the abuse. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

He's now up to 12 or so posts. It's frustrating to deal with this type of abuse. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Just ignore the provocation and calm down

You're as much clumsy at defending yourself as me. Why don't bother answering to Wikidemon, or defend yourself at this time? Just add diffs to show the alleged harassment, personal attacks, and POV pushing to the ArbCom case.--Caspian blue 23:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Calm is my middle name.

I don't have time to keep track of all the abuse. Nor is he the only one. If I kept track of all the diffs where these jokers distort Misplaced Pages's policies or violate their spirit I wouldn't have any time to edit articles. Dealing with vandalism already takes up too much of my time.

I saw that big root again and I tried to remember what the sign said it is, but I forgot. At least I think it was the same root. It wasn't quite as big. They sell very different sized taro roots at different stores too, which is interesting to me. I guess it depends on the supplier or whatever. But I'm going to work on finding out what that root is next time I go to the store. My fridge is full now, and I still have dried squid to finish, so it may be a while. I'll try to get some photos too... ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought "of" was your middle name. At first hearing, "ChildofMidnight" has a more sonorous ring, but I'll try to get used to thinking of you as "ChildCalmMidnight". Bongomatic 02:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

How do you know my name isn't ChildofMidnight C. Johnson? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

When the rules changed

Your history is wrong. The 'rules' were changed for all the 2008 presidential candidates in late 2007, before anyone knew who the nominees would be or who would win the election. See Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections/Archive1#Status of "controversies" pages for how the controversy/criticism articles and sections were merged out for 16 different candidates. And the one that provoked the most discussion and talk page battling was not for Obama, but Rudy Giuliani. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. The first paragraphs show that the criticism article for Obama had already been gotten rid of by that point and that the only discussion was whether the other political figures should have them. I'm not sure what you think this proves. Criticism articles were okay, except for Obama? And then once he was elected other existing articles of criticism were also gotten rid of for former presidents because the obvious double standard was too much to bear? Just look at when the G. W. Bush criticism article deleted (March if I recall). But the broader point is that we are expected to abide by the NPOV policy and to include notable controversies. I am open on how we do that. But if we fail to do so or censor content that a majority finds objectionable, then that is a real problem. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at Public image of Mitt Romney as opposed to Public image of Barack Obama. Quite a difference I would say. Laughable? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The Mitt Romney articles were badly skewed by anti-Mitt editors during the campaign. It was a fight just to get all the anti-Mormon junk out of his main article. I did do some work getting some of the skewing out of Governorship of Mitt Romney, but I ducked getting into the middle of the Mitt-Mormon edit wars. It's on my mental someday-to-do list to go over all the Mitt articles, especially if he runs in 2012. I did write the Ann Romney article, which I think is comprehensive and fair. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well take a look at the George W. Bush or John McCain coverage compared to that of Barack Obama. How do we get editors to abide by our NPOV policies so that notable criticisms and controversies are included for all political figures? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)It proves that the policy was not Obama-specific, and that the main editor in extending the policy to all the candidates was someone who wasn't working on the Obama article (me). Indeed, the discussion wasn't framed in terms of Obama at all (some of his controversies hadn't really hit the mainstream yet, such as Wright and Ayers; what focus there was, was on Rezko). The front-runners at the time were Hillary and Rudy, both of whom had very long controversies pages (if you dig through redirect histories you can probably still find them). I was the one who dismantled and disbursed both of them (with getting a consensus to do so most difficult in the Giuliani case, as WP is full of Rudy-haters), in addition to eliminating many of the others, as you can see from that link I gave you. But I was able to do it, and WP is much the better for it. Think of how real biographies of politicians look; do you ever see a separate chapter just called "Criticism" or "Controversies"? No, such material is integrated into the main narrative wherever it belongs. That way, you get the proper context for when things happened, who did what, why people were upset, and so forth. That's what we try to do here. Agreed that this policy was not pro-actively extended to all the other politician articles in WP; that was more than the election editors could take on, and my hope was that the trend would catch on by osmosis. I'm glad that the G. W. Bush criticism article is finally gone, although yes it took too long. But this is the best way to proceed. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I definitely appreciate your taking the time discuss the issues collegially with me. The level of incivility on the Obama article pages has been disgusting and so far Arbcom and Admins have refused to address it.

As far as: do you ever see a separate chapter just called "Criticism" or "Controversies"? YES!!! There are whole books of controversies and criticisms. So the question is how best to include them. You've suggested integrating them. That's a nice idea, but good luck trying to include them without even a section within our articles. And you get shooed from article to article and quoted various policies by wikilawyers misrepresenting policies (I would list them but I don't want to encourage this behavior). My favorite is using wp:Not News to object to issues reported in reliable news sources.

I'm not a political radical, but I think it's very important that a vareity of notable perspectives included and made accesible to our readers. That is not the case currently. So Misplaced Pages is being censored and those with differing views are harassed mercilessly. If you have suggestions for dealing with the situation I am open to them and I'm happy to provide specific examples or suggestions or ideas as I've done many times. But without a section or an article, all it takes is a few editors to stick together and they can crush any attempt to include or point to the content that is supposed to be included. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I've read a half-dozen mainstream biographies of Hillary, and they all proceed chronologically. When they get to her time in college, they discuss her party switch and the senior thesis. When they get to her time in Arkansas, they discuss cattle futures and the start of Whitewater. When they get to First Lady, they discuss co-presidents and the healthcare plan and travel office and FBI files and seances with Eleanor Roosevelt and everything else. They don't have one chapter near the end that coalesces all these items outside of their chronological and biographical context. That's what I'm talking about. Same with John McCain, the Timberg and Alexander biographies of him proceed the same way. Our Hillary and McCain articles are basically miniatured versions of those collected mainstream biographies. The "whole books of controversies and criticisms" you refer to are attack books, like Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House or The Real McCain: Why Conservatives Don't Trust Him and Why Independents Shouldn't. These books are generally written for propaganda purposes and should not serve as models for us to follow. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well following your example, a reader learns about the scandals and controversies and criticisms that Hillary has been involved with. How would this happen on Misplaced Pages when those issues aren't included in the Barack Obama article and no clear links are provided? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm no Obama article expert (I like to keep whatever sanity I have left here), but looking now, the main Obama article has a reference and link to Tony Rezko, which has much more on that affair, and a reference and link to the Jeremiah Wright controversy article, which has a long treatment of that. I think there should be a second reference to Wright in the campaign section, it's a major part of Obama's story how he handled that, the race speech, etc. There's no reference to Ayers, which I know has caused endless battles in the past, but which doesn't bother me much (I think the influence of Ayers on Obama is near zero, which is certainly not the case with Wright). The presidential section is on the skimpy side; writing history as it happens is hard. But basically, the Obama article is going to be a near-impossible environment to work in for the rest of his time in office, just as the GWB article was. That's why I've largely avoided both of them. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> Actually there is no clear link to the Jeremiah Wright controversy. The link is from something like "controversial comments". So there's no indication Obama was involved in a controversy at all. The entire issue is summarized by simply saying Obama resigned after Wright made controversial comments. And even this is a rather innacurate summary of the events, I would say. There was a standing by Rev. Wright and asserting he was like family inbetween after all. And mention of Wright was removed all together by our "editors" during election time. (I'm told I can't refer to anyone as a censor even when editors engage in censorship.) This lasted until an outside source wrote about how biased our coverage is and how editors trying to add material on controversies and criticisms on Obama are treated here.

The Rezko bit was also altered so as to minimize the connection and even now it gives no indication that there is more to the issue or controversy. It suggests Rezko's problems "had nothing to do with Obama". I don't care what side your on, that's a POV assertion that no one knows. We should be presenting the facts. Even now there's little indication that Rezko was fundraising over a long period of time and an important contributor throughout Obama's political career. They toured and bought their properties at the same time did they not? I mean that seems significant whether we think it's proper or improper. And I'm not saying these things make Obama a bad person/ president or not, but shouldn't readers be the ones to decide? Shouldn't we present the facts? Is it notable that Cheney and officials from the G Dub administration have criticized the current Guantanamo and torture/ enhanced interrogation policies? Where would a reader know to look for that? Where is it linked to from the Obama article? How about the criticisms from Paul Krugman? Is it worth noting that major policies are being enacted and that they are controversial? How would a reader learn about this? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Two different kinds of things here. Regarding Gitmo or interrogation policy or economic policy, of course people are criticizing Obama on these. By definition, every non-trivial stance on an issue a politician takes is opposed. Enumerating all such opposition will blow up the size of every article, to no useful end. Better that there be a link to the Gitmo article or to an article on stimulus spending or whatever, that can go further in depth about the issue. In other words, a BLP is not the place to present issue advocacy either for or against. What might be biographically significant for Obama is not Cheney's criticism on Gitmo (which is the standard argument from the other side for its existence and role), but that Obama has (temporarily, at least) lost the support of his own party on closing Gitmo. Now regarding scandals and ethical controversies and the like (Rezko and Wright), these do have to be included. The current Wright reference is "Obama resigned from Trinity during the Presidential campaign after controversial statements made by Rev. Jeremiah Wright became public." I think if someone wants to find out what it was that Wright said, it's pretty clear where to link. As for Rezko, I never really followed that whole thing so I can't say whether the Obama article's current treatment of it is appropriate or not. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The Gitmo and interrogation dispute is being removed from the Presidency article, not the biography. As far as Wright, there's no indication that Obama was involved in the controversy at all. That's misleading. Readers should be informed that there was an issue and they should be able to read about it (with a clear link). Unless a reader already knows about it, in which case they're not being informed much, they won't learn anything new from the Obama article and are left with the false impression that Wright said something controversial and Obama resigned. That's innacurate. So not only are we not including notable history, but we're rewriting it. And as far as the "there's not room" issue, why is there room for all the fluff? Every foreign leader whose hand Obama shook, every bill he was involved with that makes him look good (whether it ever passed or not) is included. It's a PR puff piece that we should be embarassed about and that we need to fix. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Friendly suggestion

I've noticed that you have chosen to make a number of controversial edits on Barack Obama-related articles today:

• Presidency of Barack Obama
• Barack Obama
• Public image of Barack Obama

I've further noticed that you have done so without first seeking to build a consensus for these changes. In fact, it appears that you eschewed any prior talk page discussion, choosing instead to use edit summaries and reversions to explain your actions. May I respectfully suggest that you would be wise to seek consensus before such edits, especially given the fact that there is a probation on all Obama-related articles, not to mention an ongoing ArbCom investigation into same. I hope you will accept this friendly suggestion in the good faith intended. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your friendly suggestion. As my edits have been non-controversial (grammar fixes, removing redundancies, improving wording) there shouldn't be a problem. If for some reason an editor reverts I am happy to discuss with them on the article discussion page why redundancies and grammar errors don't belong in articles. I'd also like to request that we continue to discuss this on the relevant talk pages. Thanks! ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Since this was a personal suggestion, it would be inappropriate for me to have posted it in an article talk page. Also, I am unclear as to what you mean by "non-controversial", since your edits included controversially adding comments by Dick Cheney and controversially removing substantial chunks of text. The fact that you chose to restore your edits after they were reverted, without talk page discussion, should have been a clear indicator of their controversial nature. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't add that content. Some other editor did. I saw that it was removed when I was going through my watchlist and I restored it. Obviously the dispute over interrogations and Guantanamo Bay is worth including in the encyclopedia. As I suggested, please discuss these issues on article talk pages rather than here. Thanks! ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Obviously it is worth mentioning, but obviously not where you were trying to put it. And regardless of who first added the information, you restored it despite an obvious consensus against it and no talk page discussion. You were responsible for the other controversial edits (not some other editor), and you didn't discuss them either. And like I said, it would be inappropriate for me to use an article talk page to give a personal message to another user. Messages like this are the primary purpose for user talk pages, obviously. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

See, we agree. It is obviously worth mentioning. So if it needed to be moved or clarified in some way, that should have been done instead of removing it wholesale. That's why I reverted. As this is a discussion of article content issues, and given your history of incivility and other inappropriate behavior, I would prefer they be discussed on article talk pages rather than here. If you want to bring my attention to an article issue you can notify me of the discussion with a link, but PLEASE try and refrain from unnecessary postings here. Thanks! ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If anything, you certainly are diligent

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For helping move the project forward with bold edits even in the face of opposition Jojhutton (talk) 05:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

I have responded to you here. —Preceding undated comment added 05:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC) by DKqwerty.

I have responded to you here. DKqwerty (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For the verbal encouragement... — BQZip01 —  16:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Why Dot Moore is relevant

Dot Moore is relevant to this issue because she happened to be Ms. Hope's main competition within the local media market. I decided to recommend it for deletion to see what would happen, and interestingly, one of the people who is debating the notability of the Connie Bea Hope article proceeded to remove the deletion notice while addressing my justification for recommending deletion. My contention is, if Moore deserves notation, so does hope. Also, I saw that you created the Payton article. It wouldn't hurt to mention that she was the aunt of Hank Aaron (as per the obituary, I think I had linked it as a source)

Other than that, hope you are having a wonderful day and I wish you well. For me, it's coming down to a sense of sort of "mid-sized city" pride you could say, because this would not be an issue if we were citing the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Los Angeles times or even the New Orleans Times-Picayune, that one being interesting because, as I had pointed out, Mobile's media market is almost the size of New Orleans (and pretty much is if you have a station that covers it and reaches Biloxi) Genovese12345 (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

hmmm

I'm surprised by this — Ched :  ?  19:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought it would be hard to surprise you at this point! :) We keep getting these arguments supporting candidates who don't want the tools, have never been involved in or dealt with disputes. So how do we know that understand what it's like to deal Wikilawyering or other types of abusive editors who obstruct? How do we know how they deal with disputes? Will they have empathy for editors who DO edit contentious articles and deal with disputes all the time? I don't think these are unreasonable questions. 50-2, it looks like the hope for the bests have a big advantage at this point anyway.

How have you been by the Chedmeister? When is your RfA nom? I have a lot of questions I want to ask... :) Have a good one. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

lol ... almost every single day I am surprised at WP. That's what keeps it so fun! re:disputes... I just never think of an admin. as being responsible for any particular area of WP .. be it dispute resolution, XfD, AIV, or whatever. I figure we all play to our strengths. Your question certainly has validity, and I vow to go back and read. I guess I was surprised to see you oppose someone given the invalid opposes in your own RfA. As far as Chedmeister's RfA ... really hasn't come up, other than in a passing comment. My personality likely won't be one that self-noms. I'm good .. had a nice trip from PA to AL in the US lately, very nice. Have made a few mistakes with BLP sorting and all .. but for the most part .. life is good. I hope it's good for you too. ;) — Ched :  ?  20:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If I didn't think my support might be toxic I would nom you, Bongo, Drmies, and K-Schtick. Where's S Marshall when I need him??? Speaking of which... I also need MQS and Ikip's help at AfD. How do I send up a bat signal? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I would be interested in seeing an RfA for a candidate that you nominated. It would make for an interesting read. I would expect that the people of Misplaced Pages are able to put aside their differences and !vote for a candidate based on their own merits, rather than hang the candidate based on guilt by association, however I would not be surprised if you came up in one or two of the questions. I can see it now:

"Would you have supported CoMs RfA?"

If you needed a co-nominator for Mies, Dr. Bongo, Ched or even MqS (provided they were willing), let me know. As for me, my opinion is if my RfA were to fail based solely on who nominated me rather than on my merits, I would not want to be an administrator, Cheers and happy Memorial Day. --kelapstick (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hahahaha that was my approach too. I got three supports. :) But if it had been left open long I'm sure I could have gotten well into the high single digits... I forgot to mention Werespielcheqers (sp?) too. I think he's a great editor who maintains and even keel.

I may seem like a glutton for pain and self-immolation, but I don't encourage these behaviors in others. If there was a way to improve important political articles while avoiding conflict and the drama and intrigue of being made a target by editors who refuse to abide by our policies, I would love to know what it is.

That being said, I think it's probably best (safest?) to follow the procedures and keep a low profile as much as is possible. If someone chooses to engage in difficulties and challenges that exist either before or after getting the bit, good on them, but trying to resolve conflicts and taking on thorny issues is a fast train to Oppose votes as many a candidate (Bwilkins comes to mind) can testify. Thus the Admins willing to take on challenges are few and far between, and instead we get stealth candidates and automoton like robots who have never been involved in a dispute.

I don't see how editors who haven't engaged in contentious issues are qualified or experienced enough to deal with some of the key Administrative rolls. But it's hard to find anyone who deals with contentious fare and can still pass RfA. Even Admins avoid dealing with problems (they might want to run for higher office some day). So I say good on Elonka and Durova for being willing to step up. Even where we disagree with them they deserve our highest respect and regard for being willing to try and resolve problems in a fair and reasonable way. But they have certainly taken heat for it and it's a problem because every grudge counts against you if you ever try to make something of youreslf, whether it be Admin, bureaucrat, high priest, and Jimboidal ambassador to one of the micronations. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I like your last edit summary. Bongomatic 02:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

←impressive ;) — Ched :  ?  21:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm eagerly awaiting your candidacy. Accept already. I have three pages of questions and a year's supply of Bacon and egg pies at the ready. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahh-Haa .. now you know how I felt, well, at least up until it got kinda yucky. Actually, I think Pedro is looking at the possibility, and he mentioned maybe sometime in June. I told him I'd be more than willing if he thought it could help the community, so it may come sooner than I thought. Actually, I didn't think anyone would take it seriously until I had about a year in, but the issue is on the table, so we'll see where it goes from here. I'll definitely be doing some serious study work! ;) — Ched :  ?  01:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Smallman12q (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Smallman12q (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you just enjoy the pain?

Good luck with Puebla F.C.. will try to engage anon on their talk page... I have one prediction what the outcome there will be... Asking for help at AN, as suggested was a little bit less than no help so can I pass the baton on to you?! How's things with Mr Obama? People still not interested in a balanced story? I heard he used to like toy cars, but I can't see that mentioned anywhere in the article. Oh, and I'm off to spy on your AfDs, see if I agree with you or not. And then I'll write about bacon ice cream... Bigger digger (talk) 22:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm becoming quite on expert on what passes for football in foreign lands. Just yesterday I was working on the chicken wing tackle.

I happened upon the responses to your request for assitance at AN. They didn't seem very encouraging, but then it is a holiday, at least where I am.

The Obama coverage is rocking on. The joys of collaborating with the many good faith editors who are eager to ensure that a variety of notable perspectives are included (per WP:NPOV) is truly heart warming. If something is added that they don't agree with they always try to fix it rather than just object and delete it wholesale. Participating in the collegial editing environment there is a fantastic experience that I recommend to everyone, especially friends and family.

As far as the odd tidbit, I'm all for including them. Not in the main article of course, but someone suggested height and weight and other details and I say go for it. It's at least as relevant as the 489th article on a Pokemon character. :) I'm surviving at AfD more or less. Canvassing, begging, pleading, whining, whinging, and bribery are working wonders. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the chicken wing. Useful on students, probably not so good on professional athletes... I took the liberty of expanding it a bit, is it going for a DYK? I was disappointed not to find a video or photo of it. What's youtube for it not for showing slo-mo replays of agonising pain on the sports field??

I've successfully stalked you at AfD, generally agree, but not on the one that's probably most important, sorry! And I think I'll steer clear of any controversial statements in Obama articles, but thanks for the advice... Bigger digger (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If someone was involved in a television cooking program on a local NYC station for decades and they had an obit in the NY Times would there be any question about their notability? And in my opinion this cooking show in Mobile, Alabama, when there were only two channels even in existence there, is more significant than half the big city garbage anyway. It's got race issues, television history, culinary happenings, and I want to watch it! Oh well. You Brits! Maybe if she had a show on chips, donner kebabs and bacon buttys you'd feel different... ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

And as far as controversial edits, who would have thought that a sentence noting Republican and Conservative opposition would be controversial? Do people really think those on the political right like Obama? Seriously? Or that all of a sudden opposition, criticisms and controversies aren't notable for this particular president as they have been for all the others? Seems wrong. I don't like censorship or ignorance, and I'm not going to have any part of encouraging it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Donor meat, chips and cheese (What?!! No article?!) is the way forward after a few drinks to really maximise calorie intake, but I don't know if I'd want to watch or listen to a program on it. I guess the NY-based broadcasters meet WP:GNG if not WP:BIO so wp treats them as more notable. That's maybe fair enough, more people hear/read/see them. At the end of the day, I'm having to go in search of sources for major African musicians who just don't get contemporary internet-searchable English-language coverage, so your Mobile problems are small fry! Bigger digger (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"Donor meat" doesn't sound good to me. Although my recent work on a miniature pig article (will be live soon) suggests there is life saving potential from porcine animal "donors"! (I've also seen it written that bacon is a hangover cure, so there are broad medical implications.) But I'm not sure what exactly "donor meat" involves, and it has a Soylent Green type of ring to it that's troubling me... ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Round Peak

Hi, in that area of the southern Appalachians a lot of states touch one another and are right near one another. Mount Airy, North Carolina is in northernmost North Carolina while nearby Galax, Virginia (where the style is very similar) is in southernmost Virginia. The "greater Round Peak" area probably includes both cities as well as the surrounding towns in both states, or at least that's my understanding of it. Badagnani (talk) 03:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Just got this from Flippen's Internet guru and MySpace page manager:

Badagnani (talk) 04:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Gentleman Jack

Let's keep at it and get a bourbon DYK here. Nice for Genovese also. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Jackpot

Bacon Vodka Law _{type! snype?} 06:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

it makes sense .. bacon does go well with potatoes! cheers, --guyzero | talk 08:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Please add to User:ChildofMidnight/Baconchallenge2009. The challenge should be going live in 7 hours... So there's plenty of time. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Understood...

ChildofMidnight, thanks for the note on my talk page. I've left you a reply there. Cheers. — CactusWriter | 08:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

T.Madhavan

Yes, I have to add a few more links. The link I had given in the talk page is to an article in Economic Times about gold price volatility study the professor had conducted. Paalappoo (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you pl check the links I have added? Paalappoo (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Prof.Madhavan is a professor of statistics, data analysis, forecasting etc. He is well known for his teaching style and knowledge. He has not taught in any institute other than IIM A. Let me try to get more sources. Paalappoo (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, his works have been published. I will try to get more info about those. He has co-authored a couple of books too. But I dont have any info about those too. :( Paalappoo (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"Production and Quantitative Methods area" is the name of the department the prof works in. In IIM A, usage of "area" is common in most department names. Forecasting, data analysis (using regression, correlation, moving average) etc are technically statistical methods. Those are found as chapters in statistics text books.

I am not able to locate any links to his other works or discussions about his works as I am thru a heavily firewalled network.

BTW, climatic variables are part of time series. Seasonal adjustment and trend estimation are the techniques used. I know a bit of statistics but nothing about climate. Paalappoo (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Social Security Index

The Social Security Index is a database of the SSA that catalogs the name of every person who has died who was ever on Social Security. It lists birth/death dates, where the benefits were last received, what the name of the person was, and their social security number. It was the only way to get the valid dates for Payton --Genovese12345 (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete

All content that I think is boring or that can be obtained from other sources. But keep both the articles that remain. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• O.k., drop those two articles, which have no reliable sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Climatic variables

I think they are discussed in weather forecasting and numerical weather prediction. Paalappoo (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Related topics, but I think climate variables and variability are something quite different. The statistical studies and methodologies involved are very interesting, particularly as the subject is involved in such major political topics. I think an encyclopedic article on the subject of the varaibles and variability that includes the scientific approaches involved would be very interesting. Global warming and climate change are buzz words that are polluted with partisanship and the fanatacism of ideologues (on both sides of the issue). I've added the topic to my to do list... But don't hold your breath. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I can add what I know. I have learnt the techniques as part of statistics, just the manipulation and analysis of data. The same techniques are used in index and volatility predicitons in finance. :) Paalappoo (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Snake 'n' Bacon

Okay, I've deleted the page for you. Spencer 01:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

And in other pork news . . .

Did you ever read this classic? Bongomatic 05:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently porketarians are plotting the overthrow of the middle-classes. Bigger digger (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Or this current item? Bongomatic 14:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Bacon mania

In checking something for an RfA, I noticed in the above page: At Bad Decisions bar in Fells Point people clamor for the "Bacon and Beer Happy Hours". The source states: "At Bad Decisions bar in Fells Point, people clamor for the Bacon and Beer Happy Hours". This sentence needs to be rewritten. I haven't checked the rest of the page, but since it was your work, could you go through an ensure that any sentences like this are paraphrased and do not contain phrases from the original articles? Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not a direct quote. So I think it would be wrong to put it in quotation marks? The comma in the original text is ommitted and I put Bacon and Beer Happy Hours in quotation marks, which means that it's not a direct quote and has in fact been rewritten. As it's cited I'm not sure there's an issue, but if there's a policy that says different I'm happy to make whatever changes are necessary. I see your point that it's very similar to the original, but it's not a quotation of the original, and it's cited. Perhaps someone with more expertise than I have will weigh in? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The phrases duplication beyond what can be said as reasonable, so the line has to be rewritten. As I tell people, the ballpark is unique phrase of three words or more in a row. The "people clamor for" tipped me off as unusual language for an encyclopedia, which is why I picked up on it. Please just go through and rewrite the line and any others you noticed, and I will AGF that there are no other similar problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. I understand your concern. The wording is close enough that it's certainly a grey area if not an outright no no.

I didn't want to put something that wasn't a direct quotation in quotes, and apart from the word clamor, in my opinion, there didn't seem to be a lot research that could reasonably be construed as being plagarized. There's a location, the word "people" and "for", and the name of the event (which I did put in quotes). I considered putting clamor in quotation marks, but I thought that would violate MOS. When I change the word "clamor", I'm paraphrasing, but I'm also using what to some extent amounts to original research. I've seen people argue endlessly about what a source actually "said" so I guess that's why I'm sometimes reluctant to do aggressive rewording.

I've replaced clamor with popular, which I think hews close enough to the original meaning, while still being a reword, and I also changed the sentence order a bit. My understanding, and I've just reviewed wp:plagarism, is that the key is the amount and extent of the content used and the level of attribution used to attribute and recognize its origin. I think 3 words is a very strict interpretation, especially if it applies to words that aren't distinctive or meaningful in any way.

I've actually been meaning to rewrite the "end of" section as quite a lot of it is taken from one source. I used quotations and mentioned the paper itself as well as using citations, but it still needs a trim and some consolidation. I think I was sucked in by the fun wording of the statements!

Please let me know if you have any other concerns. Cheers. Thanks for your civility in discussing the issues you've raised. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That's all your charm used up for the rest of the month... Bigger digger (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a lot of respect for Ottava. I've seen this editor take unpopular stands, raise some very good points in discussions, and I think they have a lot of integrity for doing so. I know from personal experience that it isn't always pleasant to be the nail that sticks up on Misplaced Pages.

I moved the article for you BD. I hope that's okay, you did give your permission, but I guess there was really no rush. You know what they say: exciting times call for excited actions. :) Won't be long now. Still time for one more bacon article? Hahhaha. I hope everyone involved had fun. It was nice that some people I hadn't worked with previously took part. :) The alliance that extends over the geographic and culinary pond between us and that bridges BLT (sandwich) and bacon butty, shouldn encourage us to work together and tackle common problems, like the need for more bacon article on Misplaced Pages.

Was it you who mentioned another "contest" of some sort for another area of articles? There was something mentioned on WT:DYK about it, but I can't remember what the topic area was. Has anything come of it? I think I need a couple weeks (or days anyway) break, and then I'm ready for the next "Big Thing". Someone suggested a "best article on Misplaced Pages" contest on Jimbo's page, which immediately elicited a lot of support and some dramatic opposition to the idea of something that might cause drama. I'm a big supporter of dramatically opposing any dramatic changes or new ideas that could provoke drama. :) Have you heard about the Elvis/ peanut butter and banana/ bacon/ sandwich controversy? I'm trying to stoke the flames, but not much doing so far... ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ottava is an impressively busy editor and great contributor, I've seen the Ottava name everywhere. Fine about moving the article, I did invite anyone to, although I enjoyed the fact you moved it to the full name first, before moving it again to Seduced by Bacon - anything to keep the edit count ticking over ;-)

The BLT is well established over here, so we're practically neighbours. I might actually do the bacon ice cream article tomorrow, but don't hold your breath. And yes, over on WT:DYK there's mention of an International ID4 Challenge. Something along the lines of flagging up other countries' Independence Days on July 4, but there was some debate and it's kinda fizzled. They need someone inspiring, dynamic, charismatic, dogmatic, phlegmatic and useful in a tight situation. How about you?Do you know anyone suitable?!

Thanks for the rewrite. As I said, the key is the unique part. If I were to say, "President of the United States Barack Obama says", then that would obviously not count. :) The "clamor" definitely seemed like artistic flair taken by a columnist (not by a reporter, but there are few true reporters so its hard to tell) to spice up their description. I looked at your rewrite and had a simple suggestion (there was a redundancy). Try: "At Bad Decisions, a bar in Fells Point, Baltimore, the popular "Bacon and Beer Happy Hours" employs a unique menu devoted to creative bacon dishes and offers large bowls filled with bacon on the bar for customers." How does that sound? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, this kind of hair splitting can be a problem when policies are overinterpreted and taken into effect too technically (beyond what they actually say). Your rewrite of the sentence suggests that the menu is unique and that the event is "popular", which is original research not actually stated in the article. The article says: The bacon scene simmers in Baltimore, too. At Bad Decisions bar in Fells Point, people clamor for the Bacon and Beer Happy Hours. The next one is set for April 14. Bar owner John Reusing infuses his whole menu with bacon - he's done bacon-wrapped plantains and cheesy bacon fries - and places big bowls of bacon on the bar. "At the last one, I went through 30 pounds of bacon in about two hours," he says."

I'm not sure which articles you work on, but on those I've worked on, people can be very technical about original research and about editors applying synthesizing what sources say. I think it's reasonable to infer that the event is popular. But even that can be disputed (just as you are disputing how many words it takes to amount to plagarism) and there's nothing in the source that says they serve a "unique" menu. I'm not trying to give you a hard time, and I'm very flexible on how the bit is worded, but you've rendered a strong oppose based on statements that are less closesly worded to their sources than this one, and as I think this discussion and editing process shows, judgement about appropriateness are subjective and some latitude needs to be granted. Anyone who objects to the way something is worded or attributed is welcome to modify it. It's clear that lifting a paragraph is plagarism. It's also clear that describing something in a way that isn't in the source can be problematic. This creates challenges and a need for balance. I would also like to point out that the bit we are discussing is much closer to the source than those you've identified as being problematic from another editor.

So my point to you is, when a source is cited, unless it is word for word preserved it shouldn't be quoted, and it shouldn't be altered meaningfully because that would be misattribution. Within these boundaries there is room for interpretation, but there is a popular saying that goes "Judge not lest ye be judged." ;) I agree with you that the original sentence I used was VERY close to the source I cited. I've tried to explain why that decision was made in this particular case. There's not that much content to work with, and simply changing order or using a synonym for a word does NOT actually eliminate plagarism. The citation attributes the statement and that's the source for it. I understand your understanding of how the policies apply is not identical to mine, but I hope you can recognize that we approach the issue with the same interest in quality sourcing and attribution. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Popular for people clamoring would not be OR per its definition - "a vehement expression of desire or dissatisfaction" with the context that it is favorable. Popular is a versatile word that can suggest a large crowd or a tiny crowd and still have popularity. Now, the "unique" part is the happy hour menu is unique to the rest of the menu, meaning, it is separate, which is suggested from the article (hence a "happy hour menu"). Obviously, the words can be switched out, and it is merely a suggestion to remove the redundancy. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

From a suggestion from Bongomatic...

The seed idea for this article was given me by Bongomatic three weeks ago. When I finally got to it earlier today, I was so caught up I had to keep chugging away ubtil I reached this point. Now I'm looking for input. User:MichaelQSchmidt/The Final Inch Any advice? Schmidt, 06:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I left you a couple notes in the text... What's on tap for this weekend? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Saw your notes. Sweet tweaks. The items you felt might be quotes are actually a condensation from several lengthy interviews of the diector. When she took 5 sentemces to say something, I took away the flowery language and hyperbole and made it as simple and factual as possible in one sentence. Since the iformation was her's, I had to attribute her as the source. Maybe I should add back all her verbiage and include it in quotes? Schmidt, 09:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll have another look. Maybe I can "tweak" in something about, The director said,". Not sure, they just seemed like opinions that needed clearer attribution. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Just fixed my typos above. Sheesh. I need a new keyboard. And hey... got confirmation for the T&E stuff in July. 7/24 Live show in San Diego. 7/25 AwesomeCon picnic. 7/26 Live show in Anaheim. :) Schmidt, 18:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Further expanded and sourced. Neutralized POV. Removed weasel. Made nicer. Check again, please. Am thinking of going live and am even now considering a couple nice DYKs. Schmidt, 20:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Have gone live and submitted a suitable DYK.Schmidt, 23:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

S Marshall for admin

Please see User_talk:S_Marshall#How_about_it.3F. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm always 3 or 4 steps ahead of you. And I've now scored in flag football on the beach two weeks in a row. See Shake 'N Bake for more information... Hey it's fun giving you a hard time about the article mix up. But I found the nom to be exceptionally well written otherwise. If K-Schtick can pass his RfA despite being associated with the monstrosities/ articles I've created, it is even more of a testament to what a great editor he is. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to do a formal co-nom? I think it would be a good idea if you are up for it. Hobit (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Be careful what you wish for. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Rare video footage of an early AfD review

A member of the Editorial Board explains his views to the audience

Note: this section has been completely rewritten since being listed by nom. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

S. Marshall

I intend to support this editor's candidacy should the nomination be accepted. I noticed this sentence in your recent co-nomination:

"I encourage everyone to support his candidacy for office at least once."

I know that you intend it to be in jest, but that sounds like another endorsement to employ socks and meats - something your own candidacy fell foul of as I recall. I recommend that you refactor that sentence so that this editor's RfA is not tainted. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concern and so I have modified my statement accordingly. See what you think. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The qualifier should be sufficient (it seems fine to me); however, if it was me I'd probably cut out the joke completely. Some people have had their sense of humor surgically removed and it is conceivable they could use your words against you in the future. It shouldn't do any harm to the RfA now though. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree a straight nom might be better. But I think it's a fair compromise. Those looking for ammunition to use against me will have no problem finding far stronger stuff than that bit, and I have to hope and trust that my bad jokes will not be held against the nominee. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That seems fine to me. Anyway, you could always cite this conversation if anyone gives you any crap about it. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What'cha think?

Decent enough rescue? Any suggestions? Schmidt, 03:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I know there's a plot summary, but would you mind telling me what the movie is about in the introduction and the article body? Is it a love story? Is it about Memphis? That would help me out a lot. I can't speak for what others care about. WTFK? :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Read This. And better, Memphis Flyer, which more specifically says "Team Picture focuses on a few days (or perhaps weeks) in the life of a young man named Dave (played by Audley under his given name), who is caught between his ostensibly normal work and family life and his more bohemian home life. At the outset, Dave shows up for work at a Germantown sporting goods store, looking uncomfortable in khaki pants and a tucked-in baby-blue polo shirt and exchanging awkward conversation with his boss, a jocky and jocular man (played by local sportscaster Greg Gaston) who also happens to be his mother's boyfriend. Audley cuts from this scene to a shot of Dave at home and at ease — wearing cutoff shorts, a straw hat, and sunglasses, strumming an acoustic guitar and filling up a kiddie pool in the overgrown front yard of the Midtown house he shares with roommate Eric." I always wonder just what to use and what not.. how much is too much and how much is not enough. Schmidt, 04:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Schmidty just tell me what the movie is about. Don't make me read stuff. :) Sorry. I'm a little sleepy. Do you want me to have a look? I think we can say:

• The movie is about the life of a young man whose interactions at an ordinary job and with his family are a stark contrast to his bohemian home life with friends. Fitting into the khaki pants and shirt tucked in demands of a job, is an adjustment for a character apt to strum an acoustic guitar in cutoff shorts while wearing a straw hat by the backyard kiddie pool.

Voila!ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Beat ya to it. :) Schmidt, 04:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

your sock, sir?

Eh...care to explain this? Drmies (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You know I don't use language that mild. Isn't this a school night? The late hour and your educational duties leads me to wonder... Please remember that rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

homegrown is alright with me

Haha, look at the image I added for Seed swap. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not looking. I'm too scared. I'm going to go put up the BC2009 hooks. After I'm done, would you have a look and do whatever clean up is required? Gracias! ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. Hey, I thought you'd appreciate that article, given your interest in communal things like potlachs. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I am a big fan of potlach, especially as it seems related to totem poles. I am also a fan of potlucks, a culinary event that cleary deserves its own monumental statuary. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Banh

Where are your photos and why did you get in trouble? Give me accent marks or I won't be able to make sense of what you're typing. Badagnani (talk) 05:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Message

Another one

It may be time to make the final push

I don't know how these situations work, so I don't know how to evaluate how this goes. I know that it was relisted for "consensus" and as it stands now it looks like a split vote. However, in terms of contigency, how does the appeals process work if the unthinkable happens? I have read notability. This clearly satisfies it. So, how do we make said argument, or at least, get an extension on this. --Genovese12345 (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Steamed clams

I've been tied up with other matters, but I finally got around to thinking clearly about the questions you posted on my talk page.

The distinction between "steamed" and "steamer" clams quickly becomes confusing... I agree with your idea that the content about steamer clams (as a type of clam) in the steamed clams article should be merged into Soft-shell clam, and the steamed clams article should be repurposed as an article about preparing and eating steamed clams (i.e., focusing on steaming as a method of preparing this and other types of clams). I see that some good improvements have been made along these lines.

I'm relieved to see that the reference to the NY Times article "HEPATITIS TRACED TO STEAMED CLAMS; Physicians Find Cooking Not Sufficient to Kill Virus-- Frying Is Called Safe" has been removed. Unless someone has read the whole article, it's not much of a basis for a statement in an encyclopedia article. My reading of the free snippet from that article is that people are as likely to get hepatitis from eating steamed clams as from eating clams raw on the half shell. That's shocking, if true. If there is additional information on the health and safety aspects of steaming clams, it would be good to add it to the article. --Orlady (talk) 21:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

And Now for Something Completely Different

We have some serious matters to discuss, the articles for Bacon Challenge 2009 not going up in the same update is both disappointing and anticlimactic. What is the incentive to actually participate if you are not going to have an entire bacon update. Nobody would notice that the challenge even occurred it just looks like a bunch of bacon articles got put up on DYK. Before the challenge started was there ever official opposition? I don't remember it. I guess silence doesn't mean acceptance. Hopefully we can get approval for national pig day next year or else I do not see the point in proceeding. But I suppose that the challenge was a success as we got 8+ articles about important subjects written and nominated, which was the goal. Also your dream about an article on turkey bacon is now realized. --kelapstick (talk) 05:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I proposed it and noted it on the DYK discussion page early on to try and get a feel for how it would be received. I was open about the challenge all along. There was no opposition expressed, but as you point out, silence does not equal consent. I'm sorry if I overpromised and underdelivered, but I did expect there to be some opposition, as there are always people resistant to innovations and the making of waves or actions that might make waves.

We do what we can. I think it was a very positive collaboration and I think it resulted in some outstanding and interesting articles. Many people have been made aware of the Challenge, and I think it sets a good example for similar initiatives. I know there are other competitions on Misplaced Pages regarding adding citations and such. Hopefully the challenge has a bright future, I don't see why it wouldn't.

I am not (yet) all powerful, but if I were I would certainly have complied with your expectations. I did group the hooks together on the DYK page where quite a few people saw them. I haven't been folowing the main page closely, but I hope a couple will make it on as photos and get some good attention. I tried to indicate that we would try to have them be together, but that there was no guarantee, but I don't really remember exactly what I said. Looking back I'm not even sure I mentioned the challenge on the Food and Drink talk page, did I?

Anyway, I was always waiting for someone to object or criticize. I think the response was really pretty positive all things considered, and even a Lady of Shallots was sucked in. It wasn't a mainspace project, so I think we have to take what we can get. Whether it will fly as an update on National Pig Day, I don't know. I expect there will be some objections to doing bacon articles on pig day for similar reasons to those for doing an all bacon update on any other day, as well as new objections. If you want to a have a pig project that might be different.

You got a lot of support K-stick! It's an interesting process. And you did quite a bit better than I did, despite my gentle nature and soft touch. So you must be doing something right. Check out the Shake 'n Bake Canadian ad. I added it to the article in your honor! ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow the machinations of DYK, but I did notice a posting at the Village Pump (policy?) about a discussion about themed DYKs in general. Apparently, there's some opposition to having any themes (such as for holidays or anything). It might be something you'd want to find and comment about if you feel strongly about having them. LadyofShalott 06:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point. And the consensus was pretty strong from the experts, so I think we should conclude that themed updates, with a few exceptions, are frowned upon. Makin' bacon will have to be reward enough in and of itself. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

RE:RFA

I don't really follow the RFA pages (I only pop in once in a while to double check content contribs), so I'm unsure what recent nom you may be referring to. In any case, one of the best ways to avoid copyright problems and the gnarly issue of "how much change is enough" when paraphrasing is just not to paraphrase altogether. That is, start the prose from scratch rather than using the source material's wording as a baseline and trying to reword things. It's a difficult thing to do, and takes practice and willpower to not take the lazier route. Internalize your source material, think about how you would construct the ideas/thoughts into prose, and go from there. It all comes down to practice, and in the end, after numerous iterations of this exercise, it helps writers find their own voice, too. WP:OR really shouldn't come into play as long as one understands the source material correctly. The ideas certainly originate from somewhere, but how these ideas are structured into prose should be a creative process. Original prose is different than original research.

Ideally, I'd love to see every admin candidate try his/her hand at writing an article (whether a brand new one or picking among the numerous ones that badly need a rewrite). The entire process, from research to the actual writing, gives candidates a comprehensive view of the encyclopedia-building process;after all, we're here to build first-rate content, and admins are here to facilitate this goal. BuddingJournalist 05:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. On the other hand, I know from personal experience that every word can be parsed if it isn't consistent with what the source says, so there is alse pressure to stay close to the sources and to avoid accusations of synth. But such is life, there's always a need for balance. I do think some latitude should be granted to cited material, as citations provide attribution and a clear indication of where something is from. Rewording and rewriting too much can also create problems of misattribution where content is NOT consistent with the source. But I agree that we must do our best to avoid plagarism. Thanks very much for sharing your insights. They are well considered. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I've encountered the problem of editors misrepresenting sources numerous times in my short career at Misplaced Pages. But in actuality, some of these cases arose when folks used the prose of the source material as a baseline and tried to futz around with various "synonyms" to accomplish a successful "paraphrase"; to me, it seemed like these editors didn't really understand the source material to begin with, which is the larger issue. Certainly, using original wording makes the challenge of matching the source material's ideas harder, but it is a skill necessary for any form of serious writing, and one vital to the building of an encyclopedia.

As an aside, on that RFA, I find it troubling that many editors seemed to brush off the other copyright concerns so readily. Copyright violations are a serious matter and are probably second only to BLP issues that can so thoroughly damage the reputation of Misplaced Pages. I'm glad Kelapstick recognized the seriousness of these concerns; I wish other editors would take a similar attitude. BuddingJournalist 05:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

If what's on that RfA's talk page are copyvios, and I see your point and agree they are somewhat borderline, I think many RfAs would fail under the same scrutiny. I have found that if I go looking for problems I often find them. We are all human. And if it isn't using too much from the source, it's something else. :) But I think your explanations and reasoning are sound. You would be a good candidate to clarify the policy. And I think no matter how it's written there will be a sizable grey area.ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Some of the examples are certainly borderline (which is one reason I advocate starting prose from scratch rather than trying to reword things to try to get it "paraphrased enough"). But taken holistically, and given the fact that they are from multiple articles, they are more troubling. Also, having just re-read the plagiarism guideline, I believe it's inadequate and confusing in it's current form. However, I'm not sure I have the time and energy to take on the Sisyphean task of substantially editing a guideline and gaining consensus. :) Maybe I'll just pen an essay instead... BuddingJournalist 06:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It's late in the evening here now. But I will say the process you describe of reading something, understanding it, and putting it into one's own words borders at least as much on issues of OR and synth, it seems to me, as taking content, attributing it with cites, and paraphrasing it or rephrasing approaches plagarism. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are certainly pitfalls to avoid with both. However, I wouldn't say the risk with the former is original research so much as misrepresentation of the sources. Then again, that issue still rears its head when one tries to paraphrase/change wording. BuddingJournalist 07:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

BC2009

I see that it's been over two weeks since anybody else has joined, but since I'm interested in participating (perhaps starting off with the Bacon maple doughnut article), I'd like to ask you this; can anybody, anybody at all, join? → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 13:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Miniature pig

On May 31, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Miniature pig, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Destill, my beating heart.

I bought some cheap vodka, but some great bacon and a granny smith apple. I was thinking about making apple-bacon vodka. Do you think that's too much? I wanted something for a bloody mary. Law _{type! snype?} 02:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)