Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ched (talk | contribs) at 10:51, 7 July 2011 (→Impersonator alert!: re to Dave). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Archive 1

Template:Archive box collapsible

ALL discussions can be found in the archives. If you wish to continue a previous conversation, please start a new section, and let me know which conversation it is. Thank you.

Award

	The Order of The King
	I hereby award you this award, for your consistently taking The High Road. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• WOW .. holy bazoinkers Batman. I don't know if I have EVER seen you give such a thing Bugs. Thank you ... I am totally at a loss for words here. — Ched :  ?  12:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Bad words

Hey Ched, hope you are doing well. I noticed your comments on the Lewinsky word AfD--where I am not commenting, just because--and felt like responding for some reason.

I definitely see your point, and think that it's quite valid to see it as odd or just plain wrong for someone to want to delete the Lewinsky article and keep the Santorum one. But I don't think that position, or its inverse, are inherently inconsistent or hypocritical. One could argue that only the Lewinsky article should be kept, because it seems to be the case that this word has actually entered the general parlance to some degree (or at least had at one time) whereas this is not really the case with the term Santorum--i.e. one is a linguistically notable neologism and one is not. On the other hand, one could argue that the Lewinsky word has had no meaningful impact on politics or culture, where as the thing with Santorum has had a direct impact on a presidential campaign--this is undeniably true--and been a prime example of the "Google Bomb" phenomenon and a minor touchstone in the debate over gay rights (which I also think is true).

Of course, one can also say that both of these are absolute crap and should be nuked, or even that both should be kept. People have gotten very heated about these two articles for understandable reasons, but I think the issues are a bit more grey and open to debate than some are suggesting. Personally I haven't read through all of the arguments and am not entirely sure where I stand on either of them (not that anyone cares).

Like I said I just felt like saying this, I guess because you've always seemed like a very reasonable sort of fellow and probably wouldn't mind if someone popped in to say "hey Ched, I think you are kinda wrong about that!" for no particular reason. Also it's probably a good idea to stagger awards and dissenters from your viewpoints throughout your talk page, so I'm totally helping in that regard. Anyhow, no big deal, happy editing and all that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

WOW, I am truly flattered Bigtimepeace. I've been an admirer of yours for quite some time, and look forward to replying to this. Unfortunately at this immediate moment, I must run out the door, so this is simply a placeholder. Be back soon. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  23:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Last thought/post for tonight. Again, I am truly honored to be approached by such an established Wikipedian. To be honest, my early time here was spent trying to just fly under the radar. Edit articles, try to not be obnoxious, and avoid any controversy whatsoever. When I grew disgruntled, I took a break rather than speak my mind. I watched for a year, read the posts, and never spoke my mind. I decided that I needed to voice my thoughts here. I had avoided ANY political discussions in the past. The "santorum" issue caught my attention because I live in PA., and am familiar with the man and his views. (not that I share them). I had/have been concerned about our BLP policies. I view the entire ball of wax as a fork from what we are attempting to do here. I realize and understand that there are often some very subconscious thoughts that move people to voice the views they do. (myself included). I do my very best to disassociate myself from my personal feelings, and be objective. To be honest, I'd rather see a "Lewinsky" article, than a "santorum" one. But I know that it's an inconsistent view.

Yes, I agree and I believe you are 100% correct that cases can be made on both sides of the "santorum vs. lewinsky" debate. Rather than make a case for one or the other, I'd offer that neither one are really the type of things that an "encyclopedic" venture should be putting forth. Yes, there are strong feelings and emotions on all sides here; but I say leave that to the blogs and opinion pieces. I don't condem those who feel strongly one way or the other. I don't ever mean to patronize or deride those who don't share my views. I admire the entire "consensus" concept that we have in place.

Views: ... In the circle of people that I am in contact with, I will say this. It is often viewed that Misplaced Pages is considered a "liberal" slant to political articles. My thoughts are that perhaps the bulk of the editors here are mid-20's, fresh out of school, and have been exposed to an environment that encourages a liberal mindset. Not a bad thing. The dynamics of it all is in a constant state of flux. Sometimes it's a 60/40 thing, and sometimes it's a 50/50 thing. Where I live there is an old saying: "If you're not a liberal when you're young - you have no heart. ..., If you're not a conservative when you're old - you have no brain" I can't say that I subscribe to that in it's entirety, but I also see some insight to it.

I realize that I have rambled on and on here, and I apologize for that. You offered me the chance to discuss these issues, and perhaps I took advantage of that. Regardless, I do so appreciate you offering me the opportunity to voice my thoughts. Cheers and best my friend. — Ched :  ?  04:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

First they came...

There's been some recent discussion to the effect that citing First they came.. in any way which could refer to the actions of editors may be regarded as comparing them to Nazis, and hence a personal attack. I'm not sure that I entirely endorse that view myself, but I noticed that you've used it a few times and so you might want to be aware of how it's perceived by others.   Will Beback  talk  23:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed. Amazing thought experiment, isn't it? But thank you for your note, it is actually appreciated Will. Cheers and best. — Ched :  ?  23:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• BTW, if this in regards the shameful BarkingMoon incident, then I am most certainly willing to discuss it further. The entire episode has left a very foul taste in my mouth, and I'm not ashamed to state my views on it. Cheers again. — Ched :  ?  23:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• No, it's unrelated. I was searching for use of the term and your name kept popping up. If you'd like to discuss BarkingMoon I'd rather do it off-line.   Will Beback  talk  03:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• done .. email sent to you. — Ched :  ?  04:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely-unfucking-believable! Malleus Fatuorum 23:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

glad I'm not the only one that thought that. — Ched :  ?  04:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Impersonator alert!

• Hi Ched, I wish to make complain about a newly registered user Dave1184 (talk · contribs), who is currently going around to impersonate as me vandalising/irritating others and/or reverting some of my edits. Can you help? --Dave 07:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Please disregard that last message, Gogo Dodo just blocked him. --Dave 07:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I have asked for the associated IP 203.223.238.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to be blocked also. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Hey Dave. Well, if you have someone going to the trouble to impersonate you, then you must be doing something right. :). Glad it's been taken care of. — Ched :  ?  10:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)