User talk:ChildofMidnight: Difference between revisions

I begrudgingly agree my edits to the candy page were not sourced, although I wish I had a way to get a good reference. I grew up next door to Andrew Heide and his wife and their son drove that company into the ground. Note that Andrew died the same year his son sold the company. Do you think the details on the Heide company should be moved into the Heide page, which is now just a stub?

Gerbera (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the Artisan page you will see a Sources section and a Reference section. This seems to be redundant. Can you please explain the correct use of these and suggest a correction.

Thanks!

--ArtisanTony (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I am responding correctly, I am a new user. I got your message regarding my edit of the Artisan Page. I am an artisan and a design-build contractor. I was curious about what Wiki had to say about artisans and was surprised to see very little about artisan concepts.

I had quoted Louis Nizer’s work in my edit which I thought legitimized my thoughts. I suppose that I did that incorrectly. I do hope that you will making some additions to the page from someone you trust, otherwise Wiki will not even come close to capturing the essence of an artisan.

And yes, I would like to have any help with my new page you can offer, Thanks.

--ArtisanTony (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When the clock strikes midnight...

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.

	<font=3> Wishing you a "Feliz Navidad and a Happy new Year" Tony the Marine (talk)

On 30 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Burnt Hair Records, 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) 03:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice! Congrats on this! Ecoleetage (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recieved your message(s)regarding the Atlantis article, and I am extremely grateful for your suggestions and your help in general. Unfortunatly I am currently not quite as adept as I would like to be concerning the editing of these articles and as per your suggestion would love to request a third party opinion. However I can't locate the talk page for Atlantis article to do so. If you could guide me in the right direction I would be greatly appreciative. Thanks again. JonasAngelis (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...for your help with the Creepmime merge. It looks great, and I really appreciate you picking up my slack. Drmies (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. The Swiss IP address on a couple of posts (guess where this IIY is?) is also indicative and I'm sure more could be dug up on Google, but probably best not to bother with that. WP:COIN is starting to get very touchy about WP:OUTING these days, treating it as harassment (as if these self-promoters aren't harassing the rest of us!) so demonstrating probable association with an organisation is sufficient. Happy New Year likewise. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be rude, but I think that you embarrassed yourself in questioning the DYK hook of Crepidotus versutus by Sasata (talk · contribs), and thereby disrupted the DYK process. If the name of the mushroom is sourced to a reliable academic source, then we would need something much more reliable than your personal conjecture about why it might be named that way to question it. See also WP:NOR. Best regards,  Sandstein  07:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if the above sounded harsh, and I thank you for your efforts to improve our encyclopedia. Questioning the veracity of our articles to improve is a good idea, of course, but per WP:V and WP:NOR we must stay strictly within what published sources say. If our source says "perhaps it's because of the fungus's growth", and we find no source saying otherwise, we must report what our source says. Proposing own ideas instead, even if they sound more sensible than what the source says, is just an idle waste of time because WP:NOR strictly prohibits it.  Sandstein  08:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation, and to you, too, a happy new Year!  Sandstein  08:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. Based on the logic and rationale presented below and on the nomination, I do ask that you consider reconsidering your vote. I'm still getting the hang of this so I honestly do appreciate your comments and feedback.

All coverage was within a couple-month timeframe back in 2006. All of it focused on the founder's efforts. There is been no coverage since 2006. It appears that the efforts foundered and their has not been one item of evidence indicating any members and certainly no coverage to demonstrate notability since 2006. All that has existed of this group is a Web site that lists no members and does not publicize news of the party. danprice19 (talk) 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, I know. I took the author's own words to heart (he actually agreed to edits, though grudgingly, I'm sure), but maybe I shouldn't have, and I'm laying off of it. BTW, if you knew how many times I did NOT hit 'save page' after responses to his comments on AfD. Anyway, I did want to say thanks again for your helpful suggestions on Creepmime; I appreciate your patience. You also said you had work for me to do--were you joking? I don't mind helping out with whatever you're working on, even if it's symphonic metal, haha. I do wish access to metal sources was a bit easier. One of our colleagues has stacks of Kerrang and other magazines laying around, but there simply aren't a lot of notable references on the web. Hey, enjoy the last day of the old year, and all the best in the new! Drmies (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit Child of Midnight, will you stop finding my errors!!! It's embarrassing! Alright, an extra glass of champagne for you tonight. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for all your help! Drmies (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Child, I think I might like some of that Txakoli--you found some fascinating drinks, I have to say. Well, we're in Central here, so I got another four hours to go, but have already had a couple of glasses of Freixenet (and birthday cake--I made a practice cake for my daughter's birthday next week). Oh, it's been fun hanging out with the Mongolian experts; I learned a lot, about epics and a host of other things. That's why I like AfD so much: always something new to learn.

I meant to tell you, given that you made a culinary New York reference a while ago: tomorrow, here in the South, it's Black-eyed peas, cornbread, and greens, for good luck, wealth, etc. We'll save you a plate, and I'll let you suck the meat off the ham hock. Take care, and enjoy tonight and tomorrow. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that video, it's the silliest thing I've seen since this Washington clip. You sure like your food, don't you! I'm glad to have run into such an expert, though I have the feeling you're spoiled where you are--we don't even have a Japanese restaurant here...no one even sells cake flour in this town...(though I learned to make it myself). Now, your red velvet cake, I know that's some Southern favorite, but I've never eaten or baked it. I got a regular Alton Brown-inspired yellow cake here, with a layer of homemade dulce de leche in between, and pink frosting. Preeetty tasty, if I say so myself! OK, I just looked at the WP entry for devil's food cake--looks sinful. Oh, one more thing, "Genghis Khan" is also one of my favorite Iron Maiden songs, so there. Prosit! Drmies (talk) 02:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, boiled peanuts...only had em once or twice, and the last time, they were stale. Don't much care for them. Cake flour, I learned, can be imitated: 85 gr of AP flour + 15 gr of cornstarch... Now BBQ, that I love. Great thing about the South, and I make it purty good (on a little Weber grill, no less, with oak chips saved from carpentry projects). Sweet tea is good, sure, but even though I have an artificial 'organ' from [Medtronic|these guys] I try to lay off the sweets. The cake, well, that's for the others in my household. Quiet Riot? Brrr...! Ha! Yes, I remember Trader Joe, from the first time I was out in LA, back in 91 or so--looked like paradise to me. (You asked about languages? I flew direct from my home in Amsterdam to LA, maybe that answers your question.) And my last time in CA, just going through the supermarket in Sacramento, delicious. We just don't get that kind of variety out here, I'm sad to say.

I'd love to cook up some BBQ on Jan. 2, to munch on while my alma mater, the Crimson Tide, plays in the Sugar Bowl. But we are expecting another baby girl in the next couple of days, so I got plenty to do, haha. Hope I still remember how to change a diaper. Roll tide! Drmies (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ChildofMidnight: Your edits have shown traces of a sense of humor, which is disruptive of the serious, somber, and relentlessly grim mood that so many other good people in all walks of life have exhibited just before burning out entirely. Be advised that if you continue on this present course, you run the risk of enjoying yourself while at work on this project, and you may even have a similar effect on other editors. Please consider very carefully whether you want to be responsible for such consequences. Thank you. (This refers to your naming of this section.) -- — Sebastian 19:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Than how come the user:Iceflow got away with nominating Dez Bryant for speedy deletion, when that article had references and everyting on it. Sorry but I disagree with you and the other user, these articles are definitely eligible for speedy deletion according to Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Notability. --Yankees10 03:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, still disagree--Yankees10 03:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be deleted--Yankees10 03:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Make friends with my enemies.
2. Be victorious in editing.
3. More cowbell.

ScienceApologist (talk) 04:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...eh? Auburn? Doesn't that qualify for a speedy delete? Roll tide! Drmies (talk)

You know, I actually scoured the www.montgomeryadvertiser.com archives looking for mention of that award--nothing. (Granted, their search engine sucks the big one.) That award, every school must have one, and it's regional at best I think. Ha, yes I watched some of that LSU game, and I'm not surprised it was a blow-out. I never even thought we could beat them (but we did!). BTW, you're right about the coaching decision--no one seems to like the new guy already; a lot of Auburn fans wanted some other guy, forgot who, but a better-known person. And if your season is bad, there's little you can do to make anything good happen. Tubberville did them a lot of good though...six Iron Bowls in a row... But his offensive waffling this year did him in, I reckon. Well, as they said it best in my old bar in Tuscaloosa, Aubs Eat Boogers! Gotta go and be social. Happy new year, one last time! Drmies (talk) 04:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I've responded to your baseless accusations on the AfD page for that Auburn rascal, and I even extended a hand (well, a link) of friendship to you, to show you that we, in good Alabama tradition, are above such petty discourse (unless it concerns the War of Northern Aggression, of course). Now, for that tradition, is this what you're thinking of? Probably not notable enough for an article, but it does have Shaun Alexander's TD run against Florida in the SEC Championship, and that magnificent catch by Tyrone Prothro. Both, I can assure you, were incentives for heavy celebratory drinking. And you, sir, get yourself some beers and some BBQ sandwiches (oh, we do bourbon shots at the start of every quarter which we shoot after reciting the magic chant "Ooh goddamn roll tide shit"--we're a classy outfit!) and get ready for the 2009 Sugar Bowl. Drmies (talk) 06:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you creepily stalking me, editing every article I create? :) Seriously though, thanks for helping with The Green Bible. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year to you as well! Thank you for the compliment on the interesting nature of my articles too, good luck to you in '09! Scapler (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Child of Midnight. I'm Simplynetworked (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the article about Albert Beckford Jones as my first wikipedia article.

You have flagged the article with an advert tag. If you could please give me some guidance as to what aspects of the article you see as problematic?

Some Background. The fellow I'm writing about is working for a Non-profit organization and he wanted me to post some information about his background, education, civic involvement etc.

What sections would you cut out or remove?

Thanks for the welcome on my talk btw. Simplynetworked (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Child, check out the third picture--that's good eats! Drmies (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started coming up with some basic "Micronations FAQ" questions in my sandbox. Feel free to edit it. After we get enough questions, we could move it to a subpage of the WikiProject. --Micromaster (talk) (contributions) 22:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...I don't want to talk about it! Goodnight!

I made two changes and took the tag off for copy-ed. (Saw it on your Welcome list on the talk page of the creator of Anya Bast. You'll might have to find a replacement now.... Sorry. Peridon (talk) 13:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ChildofMidnight. Maybe I mis-remembered a bit... By coincidence, my wife prepared Genghis Khan for New Year's Eve, and it didn't have the grill up on top, only the circular "moat"-type thing, in which we boiled the meat, with mushrooms and vegetables. After scooping out the food, you dip it in a sauce before eating. Once that's all done, you plop the rice & gim into the remaining water to make the gruel. I mentioned to my wife that I'd remembered that we grilled the meat on top first-- as I described on my talk page, and as it looks like the Japanese version does-- and she said that there are several different ways to prepare "Genghis Khan", and that that is one... So I probably remember that from a restaurant in Korea years ago... Dekkappai (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking at the Vereniging Basisinkomen article. I have posted a further comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vereniging Basisinkomen (2nd nomination) which may be of interest. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a non-notable dutch neologism for welfare. I don't see anything wrong with covering the subject in the appropriate political articles, but I don't see notability for an article on this subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Basic Income in the Netherlands--some exciting reading! As for football and all, bleh. I'm also a Colts fan... AL has one or two good receivers (Jones, and the tight end Walker), but I think the Tide just got outcoached and outplayed. Grrr. What's your college fave?

BTW, please have a look at that welfare discussion again--'merge' may now be an option. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I love the Colts, and that's hard for me, since I was at Alabama when Peyton M. was strutting his stuff. So I'm having a bad week! I don't know where Wilson might go. Brodie Croyle went somewhere, so he might too. He certainly is a tough kid. Ha, I'm sure Andre Smith made a wise move not coming back for his senior year--Tuscaloosa wouldn't be kind to him. Hey, I'm just biding time here--we're about to go into labor. Keep your fingers crossed, Drmies (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello luv, hopefully you have had a marvelous Holiday Season :-). As it is a new year, and all things start a fresh, I believe it is now time to address the issue of Intellectuals and Nazism or any given name it may bestoed under Richard's direction. I believe we have a server case of ownership here. The article, or list, has wandered significantly from the orginal concept, and has now become just a hodgepodge of individuals from Martin Luther through Alfred Rosenberg that now needs the approval of Richard to be included, along with his approval of sources. Any suggestions? Once again, Happy New Year. ShoesssS ^Talk 21:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -LOL – I agree with the headache part. You handled it exactly right. Back off for a while, let it run its course and revisit later. As I give the advice, I also take it :-). Regarding the title, its current one List of Nazi ideologues is not that bad, but a little misleading, in that the piece is about the thinkers and not the ideologues. Possibly naming the piece Nazi ideologue proponents would be closer to the truth? As to the content of the piece, I am a little confused as to the criteria for inclusion or exclusion. We have Martin Luther on the one hand, but discount individuals such as Reimond Tollenaere. Again, areas that I will address later. In the mean time, tons of things to do at afd to keep me busy :-). Happy New Year. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: When Wikipedia:Citing sources, please follow this convention:

Author (last name, first, middle/initial; year if book). [Link (optional) "Article Name" (in quatations)]. Publication (book titles and newspaper names italicized). Date of publication (articles only). Page(s) #s (if book). ISBN (if book). Retrieved: 2009-01-04.

Thus, this:

Sproles, Chargers shock Colts 23-17 in overtime upset by Jarrett Bell, USA TODAY Jan. 3, 2009 USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2009-01-03-colts-chargers_N.htm

Looks like this:^[1]

Article titles are not italicized. Don't abbreviate months. Words like "by" are just extra fluff-n-stuff that are not needed. If you copy something from a source that is in ALL-CAPS (article name, author name, publication title), take a minute to re-type it in lower case were needed.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

- 4.240.78.11 (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Different editors use different citation methods. I try to follow the established method in an article. I prefer one that presents the information in a useful form and that's not unduly burdensome to format. I don't like your format. I don't know why the author should come first, or why it has to be last name first, first name last (which is not the order in articles so requires additional editing when copy-pasting which causes more errors). I think the title of the article or book is more important than the author's name. So I like that information first. I'm not familiar with random authors, but I can tell the difference between a source that has the title "Sproles greatest running back of all times" and "Ohio State crushes Kansas State again". I also don't like the date last, because a lot of people put the access date there, so it's confusing. I also like to see the actual HTML link, unless it's unduly long. It's annoying to me to have to go to the edit page or to have to click through to actually see the web address, and to have to guess what the actual source is. The main thing, as the article on citations makes clear, is to provide the needed information. As you're proficient in dishing out advice, I wonder why you aren't using an actual account as is encouraged. I hope you'll do so in future. It's more pleasant to communicate with a user name and someone with an account and history than with an anonymous IP address. The "How to Format Citations" section here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources supports various methods, FYI. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also long strings of hyperlinked text can be hard to read, and authors tend to cut short titles. I'd rather have the link be separate, include all of an article or book's title, and show the online address (which often has little or no connection to the article or book source) as the link that it is. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many are supported, but obviously, some are preferred. All of the citation templates (whether in the {{Citation}} format or the {{Cite x}} format) have the author first, with last name first. So it's clearly the preferred format. Bongomatic 04:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Why ask why? Bongomatic 04:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tastes great. I try to provide reasons for my opinions and avoid the "everyone else is doing it" arguments. It makes sense that the templates would follow a common format. Why are press releases done differently? Why is the author not listed in that order in the actual articles? I try to make information accessible. So if there's no reason for a protocol, and good reasons to avoid it, I'm happy to try alternatives. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I'm being thick here, but I don't see support for any use of first-name-first in either of Wikipedia:Citing sources or Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style. Press releases don't have authors, which is why the author doesn't come first. Wikipedia article titles aren't references, but . . . uh . . . titles, so the name order on them doesn't seem terribly probative. Bongomatic 04:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ChildofM,

Rosie came out this morning at 9:20, after a long, long night... She weighs 4 kg and is very healthy--got a great set of lungs, already pays attention to Dutch lullabyes, and nursed cheerfully. Take care, Drmies (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...good man! Bon appetit! Drmies (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thanks for coming on board to help with the Kapap article. I started trying to add some 3rd party stuff, but an unregistered user keeps deleting it. I really appreciate the assistance with the clean-up. May I ask why you chose to start a reference section, but left no footnote for it? --KravTeacher (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I just read your commments. I understand how they would appear, I just noticed you chose not to do so and was cusrious why. I will read the links you left me on my talk page and will see if I can find an anser to my question. Thank you. --KravTeacher (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can disregard my question, I overlooked the citation..... however, I would prefer if it read something to the effect of "Kapap History from Israeli Educator" in the notes section. Moshe is an Israeli Martial arts representative to North America, mostly, though I hear he is currently planning tours for New Zealand, Australia and Italy. He trains under Itay Gil from the Human Weapon series and is very knowledgeable. Thank you again for your help, with so many rules and regulations it's hard to decide what applies and what does not. It seems that this scenario meets partial criteria for several flags, but I could not find one which fits 100%. --KravTeacher (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ChildofMidnight,

I saw you made some good edits on the Love Systems page that I've been working on. Thanks for that.

I've also been working on the "Nick Savoy" page and I was wondering if you could give me some feedback on the page. Anything that might needs to change, let me know! This page has to go through DRV to get it back up. Any feedback is much appreciated. Thanks in advance. Coaster7 (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with, the sources in question themselves may or may not be reliable. In all fairness, they seem more promotional than otherwise. My information comes to me via a conversation with a YAMAM instructor who has researched Mr. Nardia's claims. It is not Moshe Katz, but someone he and I know in common. I have questioned him about Mr. Nardia's claims to have trained certain units, which he has been part of. The situation is that Mr. Nardia's YAMAM claims in his advertising and articles are greatly embellished. However, I left them alone and only wished to cite sources/references/whatever to show another side of Kapap as Israeli's, living in Israel, view it. The common view's of Marital Artists in it's country of origin deserve a place of recognition, in the Wiki-article, which conveys current views on the subject at hand. Mr. Katz and I have neither one ever met Mr. Nardia, and frankly he is not a concern to me other than that the unregistered contributor seems content with their citations/references/sources being there, but nothing from anyone else. Mr. Katz has establisehd himself as a authority through 15+ years training in Israeli Martial Arts and other Self Defense/Combat Systems and travelling across North America on semi annual educational tours. Here are a few of his tour itineraries: 1 and 2. The page I have chosen to use as a reference, from his site, is not of a promotional or political nature. It is educational and informative. It gives insight into the views of current Israeli Martial Artists. I have posted on a mediation page, asking for this to be investigated and blocking of the IP address of the unregistered user to be considered. I have not hear anything back yet. I hate to do this, but perhaps you are right, it may be the only solution.

Back to the articles, I decided a few days ago to flag the Wiki-article for Conflict of Interest. The article I chose from Mr. Katz' page plainly shows Kapap as an antiquated term and that Lotar doesn't really even refer to an actual system, but rather a way of operating against terrorism. This may bother them as they may feel it makes them look illegitimate. I am not sure of the motive, however, I can see where it may bruise one's ego a bit. I make note in more than one comment on the unregistered contributor's talk page the I respect Mr. Nardia's attempt to revive Kapap as a modern term and modern system, but for things to remain neutral, even a slightly opposing view needs representation. If Mr. Nardia's article(s) remain sources/citations or whatever, it should somehow be explained that the system he teaches in NOT the Kapap taught to Palmach. They learned explosives arming and disarming, shooting, radio commmunications, navigation, survival (wilderness and desert), and a myriad of other things all under the term Kapap. He does not teach all of these things. Others do, Dennis Hanover for example, who chose to call his system Dennis' Hisardut (or Dennis' version of Survival). The only question I have is; if it is true that Mr. Nardia was never operational as a YAMAM "fighter", then all of his articles become questionable by virtue of a showing of lacking integrity, would they not?

I hope this explains my view clearly enough. --KravTeacher (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm all about Rosie the Riveter--great character, and she makes for good writing assignments. For Rosie it's a bit early, but her older sister already has power tools and helps her papa do carpentry (she's almost three). She also has a real kitchen knife (sharper than mine) and, when she was two weeks old she wore a Motorhead onesie. So I got no problem with Rosie the Riveter! We just came back from the hospital; everyone's doing well, and tonight everyone will sleep. Hey, thanks for putting that picture up there--it really livens up the joint!

Remember Creepmime? I just got their first album in. It's not bad (for a bunch of Dutchmen), but it ain't great.

A final note on football: grrrrr. I love Alabama, spent 8 years there, but I love offense--my favorite soccer team is AFC Ajax, and that's why I root for the Colts also, and for Florida, for instance. Never cared for the Ravens, don't know why.

Yes, AfD--did you see I got a note on Nazi ideology? It's an interesting list, but I'm not well versed enough in that matter to really make remarks on content. Later!

Haha, yes, I followed you to the Nazi list (from the note above), but I beat you to it at AfD. That Dutch company, that is one awful, awful article, but can easily be rewritten. I just hate writing articles for companies, almost as much as I hate reading PR masquerading as encyclopedic knowledge. Oh, thanks for the Sugarcubes--brings back a lot of memories! Drmies (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to leave messages on the Discussion page, from work so I did not log in. The unregistered contributor does not reply. I have also left messages on their talk page to no avail. Is it just me or does it seem as though this person is getting away with murder here. I simply added some relevant information which meets wiki guidlines and now I am accused of edit warring? Where is the neutrality in any of this? I followed your suggestion and did not revert any more and this is how I repayed for following requests? This seems biased to me.... pray tell how else am I to feel when the currently protected version is excluding material which meets requirements as well or better than the material left up?

--KravTeacher (talk) 05:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I forgot that your edit after mine was just to revise the citation. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I suppose I am just getting too sensitive about it all. Be well. --KravTeacher (talk) 06:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I hope you don't mind - I've combined your 3RR report with KravTeacher's as both related to the same set of edits. Re the Kapap page, as a first step I've assumed good faith and simply protected it for a day to encourage discussion. Any views you might have on this cotnent dispute would be welcome at the article's talk page. Euryalus (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment at the 3RR page re combining the reports. Both Kravteacher and the IP broke 3RR. I have not accused Kravteacher of edit-warring, and note he stopped reverting when asked. Page protection simply assumes good faith and that one or both parties might not be that familiar with the 3RR rule. If the IP continues reverting without discussion when page protection ends, there will be an opportunity for stronger action. Euryalus (talk) 07:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want thank you and Euryalus for trying to help. While I do believe Moshe is an authroity on the subject, I can see why it might be percieved as less than objective. However, I stand by my original assessment of him. As an Israeli, living in Isreal, and a long time student of martial arts; I think he deserves a place. He is no way connected with Kapap or any of those people and his article has been on the internet for some time. In fact, long before I began trying to use it as an external link. I will read the other reference material you sent me and check it for accuracy. Thank you again. --KravTeacher (talk) 05:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a suggestion to the Kapap talk page after reviewing the information you sent me. I discovered there is a LOT of oniline misinformation about Krav and Kapap. So I used two (one you sent and one I found) to attempt to develop consensus. If you get a chance, will you please take a look at my suggestion and the sources I think might work? I'd like to hear your thoughts on putting it together. --KravTeacher (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The edits you reverted which I removed were not necessary as the text was already sourced from a secondary source, the tertiary web sources are not necessary and do not follow the academic source provided completely, at either rate they would just be redundant.--Chef Tanner (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please don't take any of my tone in the improper way, I am away on vacation and attempting to keep as brief as possible so I can go out and enjoy myself. I think we can come to a compromise as long as the articles fit the context of the statements, the context can be made with better articles in my opinion, and I agree more sources might help. I just don't have the time to do so right now as I am in Boston and should not be sitting at a computer, I'm sure you understand. I will talk to you soon, I don't want this to turn into another huge issue.--Chef Tanner (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just read the articles that were used from BBC, they had little or nothing to do with the lines they were used to cite, they were a stretch if anything. I agree it would be good for multiple sources, just not these sources, and it has nothing to do with the controversy of the articles. I'm going to spend some time looking for some more sources to help out.--Chef Tanner (talk) 05:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, you are really using sources that so stretch the information that you are attempting to source, with an obvious attempt to push a POV that dog meat is controversial which is highly inappropriate. for instance, using an article that talks about sanitation of dog meat stands to source that dog meat consumption dates back to antiquity is utterly absurd.--Chef Tanner (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, before adding that youtube link to the article Jingisukan again, can you please provide evidence that it is not a copyright violation? To do so, you need to show that the original authors (eg. the musician Niiyama Yukihiro who created the song) have given permission for it to be published there. As you certainly know, linking to copyright violations or other illegal content is not permitted on Wikipedia. --Latebird (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I cannot read Japanese. Badagnani (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Big Al (mascot).jpg

Keep the faith, brother! Keep on deletin' them Auburn playas! Drmies (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ChildofMidnight. I saw your whitelist request. I think you *don't* want to whitelist the Google cache, you want to request whitelisting of the original link that it is a cache of: www.associatedcontent.com/article/907333/native_american_musician_douglas_spotted.htm.

This link probably can't serve as a reference for any matters of fact, since Associated Content is unlikely to be considered a reliable source. The author of the article, Joshua Givens, is an undergraduate, and the article cites no sources except the subject's own personal web site. Sources to justify keeping the article would still need to be found elsewhere. This link still might make the grade as an WP:EL. EdJohnston (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your interest. The field of Native American music isn't well documented to begin with, and this particular case is interesting because the musician in question seems not to be of Native American heritage. There are dozens of prominent Native American musicians with active recording careers who don't ever state one way or another, on their websites or anywhere else, whether they're actually of Native American heritage or not. By avoiding the issue, they can continue to do well in their careers, keeping their heritage private. This article provides the most comprehensive background and explanation of this. It's centrally important to having a properly comprehensive and encyclopedic article on this individual. Badagnani (talk) 07:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly it's just about that source. The article is about a certain individual, basically no details about that individual are available anywhere but that article, thus to have a properly comprehensive and encyclopedic article about the individual, the source is needed. Badagnani (talk) 07:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note; I've left a response on the article talk-page. Regards, EyeSerene^talk 08:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is bad. This vandal you also reverted is making false references to his edits. [1]. And is intentionally introduce incorrect information to pages, se here [2] to Chokladboll, almost correct but false. He was blocked, how can he go on editing?

Warrington (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A brilliant idea!

Warrington (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message about the template. I am glad that you are using it! If it spurs someone, anyone into jumping in and getting involved, that is a good thing! – ukexpat (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CoM,

I was wondering if you care to weigh in on the AfD discussion for Geoffrey Eggleston. I know we have agreed and disagreed on deletion proposals in the past, so I would value your opinion. Rgds, Bongomatic 02:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Another editor pasted your comments into the AfD, and I formatted them as a !vote. Rgds, Bongomatic 02:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...I'm really not that much of an expert...his list of credits looks pretty impressive (though all these bands are a bit young and British for me, haha) but Google really delivered nothing but that NME Kaiser hit. I didn't yet speak out on AfD, but I think the prospects are bleak. As for the movie, there's a couple of movie buffs who can dig this sort of stuff up easily--MichaelQSchmidt comes to mind, and there's a few that specialize in Eastern movies. I think Erik's question on AfD should be taken seriously, but I don't speak Chinese. Or read it. I even eat it only rarely. Oh, as for the Dutch, don't worry too much. They don't have a basic income yet and are unlikely to get it any time soon. But I'll be glad to put in a word for you--start by memorizing the Sinterklaas article and as many of the Sinterklaas songs as you can! PS Baby came home today--strange, another living being in the house. Drmies (talk) 05:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you are interested to know more about Assam. Please be in touch. Feel free to drop a massage regarding that anytime. I'll will try to provide you detailed facts of Assam through wikipedia.

(Footage (talk) 06:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I'd say for Bush ballad an image of one of the early published collections of bush ballads (usually lyrics only), or the title page thereof would be best. The photo you found is good but would be better at Bush band. Badagnani (talk) 07:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the email I sent via Flickr mail. Do you have a Flickr account? It's a good tool to have one, as an active WP contributor.

“

Hello, I am one of the thousands of volunteer editors at the English-language Wikipedia, where I edit various music-related articles. We have an article on Australian bush bands, but so far have found no photo to illustrate this type of band. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_band Your photo of a bush band trio playing outside a shopping center in Adelaide seems to be the best one on Flickr, so I wonder if you would be amenable to our using it at that article? In order to upload it, Wikipedia requires that photos be licensed under a free license such as Creative Commons (but without non-commercial stipulation). The reason for this is that, although Wikipedia is not for profit, they wish all the photos that appear there to be freely usable by anyone who finds them there, for any purpose, including educational, commercial, or any other use (however, both Wikipedia and anyone else down the line who uses the photo must credit the photographer and make a link to the photographer's page). Wikipedia is now the eighth most visited website in the world, so I think it would serve a great educational purpose, and you would likely get a lot of views. If that would be okay with you, would you please let me know? Thank you very much for your consideration. If you agree, I'd love to let the band know, if I could find their contact information (maybe you could hunt them up by phoning up the Royal Adelaide Show?) By the way, I play in one of the very rare bush bands in the U.S. (I estimate fewer than a half dozen total, in all 50 states). I know it sounds strange, but in Australia you guys have a lot of country singers and bluegrass bands, so maybe the bush band tradition will grow here eventually. Best, -- User:Badagnani Kent, Ohio USA

”

Badagnani (talk) 07:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if that was meant to be humorous, but to respond to your point, if someone was insisting on deleting something notable and properly sourced from an article (as the photographer who took the bush band photo was not), my tone may have been different. Badagnani (talk) 07:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to post something on your page inquiring about your Bush band, but it's so nice and tidy now. I'll have to see what I can dig up... ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try to watch the videos I added; Warren Fahey is one of the real historians of this tradition there in Australia. Badagnani (talk) 08:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The big issue that I ran into that I stopped to ponder for a while and was waiting to see if anyone chimed in, is the inclusion exclusion criteria. There is a blurred line between the poetry and the lyrics, being a bush band (geographically) and a bush ballad (musically). So I was trying to get that clarified in my mind a bit. Any band in Australia in the 19th century is in some sense a bush band... and there are no clear lines, but I have a better idea now where I want to go based on the sources and information that I've found. Thanks very much for your cleanup. I found a lovely Waltzing Matilda rendition on the web, but I don't know if it's copyrighted. There's shockingly little on youtube (not that any of it can be used much for sourcing) but even just for background. I was very surprised not to find an article on this topic on Wikipedia. It seems critical to Australian culture and traditions. I'm experiencing the same phenomenon in dealing with tiki. There are various cultural biases and then an academic bias as far as how it can be covered, or so it seems. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity.... at what point did it become a 5x expansion? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it can be further expanded, put a copy in a sandbox, expand the heck out of it, and then add the the larger version informations en-masse to main space once its 5x. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can be a great help of mine. It'll always be my pleasure. You too take care. (Footage (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

A number of warnings are present on Talk:Ayn Rand about unnecessarily personalized messages directed at editors rather than arguments. Consequently, I regret your comments about another editor being ignorant. You could have made the points you wished to make without directing them at the editor as opposed to the argument. Please do not do this again. The amount of trouble and disruption to that page by uncontrolled personal attacks and similar behaviour means that it is necessary to move to qickly stop any such comments being made. I suggest that you strike out your comment and replace it with one which does not make the personalised comments about the editor. Remember, two people have been blocked for making personal attacks and continuing them after the last strong warning about this. I do not want to put you at risk of being the third. Thank you.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right, I was actually headed back to revise my statement at the time I received your message. I have done so now, and if you don't think it's enough please let me know. I would point out that having never heard of something is by definition being ignorant of it, but I agree that gentler phrasing would have been more prudent. Thanks for your comment. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's my understanding that the flaunting of academic acheivements for the purpose of winning arguments is frowned upon on Wikipedia. I'm sure it's deeply upsetting to those who have spent their lives in academia, but we're all supposed to have equal standing here and to have our arguments measured based on their merit rather than the number of degrees held by their author. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the changes you are going to or have already made. I certainly agree that flaunting academic degrees as a means of bolstering one's arguments is quite unacceptable, and one that, being an academic myself, I constantly criticized others for doing, though it was almost never well-received. Argument from Authority in this context advises that the quality of a position is better solely judged by the arguments one advances in favour of it, and not the eminence or authority of the person advancing them.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your respectful guidance and discussion. Much appreciated. As you agree with me, at least in part, you are clearly a very wise fellow. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...with the Claw Boys Claw. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, thanks for the tweaks! (Can you tell I translated from the Dutch article?) BTW, I left you a shitty note on the Basic income in the Netherlands talk page--I'll give a translation as soon as I've had a nap. Drmies (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being the food-minded individual that you are, I thought that you might be interested in square milk jugs, lots of interesting facts for DYK (a shocking number actually). If you know anything about this subject let me know (or fix it up if you see anything wrong), I will put it in the mainspace soon, but want to get some pictures of them, and the "regular" style too for it before I do. They bottle them here, but I have never seen them, although the grown onions here and you have to beg borrow or steal to get any of them too!--kelapstick (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious! WHAT!!! Actually I think there is something in the NYT article that said that the milk was in the cow that morning and in the store that evening...I think the only thing fresher is putting a glass under the udder...But that doesn't sound so appealing...Anyway I am done with it for a little while, so if you have anything to add feel free, and well done on the leading sentence...I had a hell of a time with it, much more gooder.--kelapstick (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the freshness claim was because they can be packaged faster, and shipped sooner. Unless I missed the section of the article about the magical properties of the square (perhaps a new section?) I haven't seen any benefits of the old shape, other than being more labour intensive so creating more jobs. I will poll 100 dairy cows on my way home tonight to see what their thoughts on the matter are, but I think they will all say tell the farmer to get his hands off my udder--kelapstick (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HA! I can appreciate the skepticism, glad I brought you in on this, it is always better to get someone else to check your work and see where the holes are. I have the criticism section, but all I could find was they didn't pour well (pour poorly), and the people who hated them hated them for only that reason, relearning how to pour a milk jug isn't that great a hardship (I will let you know when I try), but it still needs some work.--kelapstick (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Soviet Russia, milk pours you!--kelapstick (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No padded cell...Yet....Although I think I have one on standby somewhere. Yes the talk page was where I put the hook for Hoist (mining) when that article lived in Sandbox 1. I found an article that says that they may have made it as far as Washington State, but it might be worth some research.--kelapstick (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have read the source, I suggest you move the word "amateur" out of the article head (it is only one source's opinion) and add it to the philosophical criticism section. Something like, "Anthony Quinn (not to be confused with the movie star and notorious father of many love children) writing in the oxford dictionary of amatuer philosophy says..." Of course you should use appropriate wording. Make sure you move the citation there too. Then I will back you up. The matter is simply absurd. The current citation discusses her status as a philosopher. The matter was debated ad nauseam, and the editor refuses to address the prior consensus in the archives, after I invited him to do so. Welcome to wikipedia. Kjaer (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is Steve Wolfer's and my position that there was no consensus for the radical edits that have been made to the Ayn Rand page since the end of Dec freeze. If you wish to keep fighting each little nibble piecemeal, you can try, but since no consensus was reached, (although they keep asserting it) we believe a rollback to that version is appropriate. Changes with actual consensus can be made from there. If you agree that these radical changes have been made without consensus, please join us by stating your opposition under the request for comment once it is posted. Kjaer (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC asks "was there consensus for the deletions since the freeze was removed?" Over one quarter of the article was removed or turned to criticism, but the response to criticism section was removed. Was there a consensus for this? Rand has turned from a philosopher with a system based on reason to a political adviser of alan greenspan's - based on a consensus that is not there. If you want to keep battling alone on the presumption that every little deletion, like Rand not being a philosopher, should be battled separately, when all this has been addressed at length for years - read the archives - then fine. But all I am asking is that you type ' ' ' o p p p o s e ' ' ' under the RFC if you think there was not consensus. Simply add that comment if you agree that the matter is still in dispute. Since you do not see any consensus, no vote, no RFC by those with whom you are mud wrestling now, that should be clear. Kjaer (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...I should put you on salary: grrr. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah refbuster, I had a look at your Ghostbusters. Who you gonna call? (I'm watching FL score right now...yeah SEC!) Seriously, I think this sort of stuff is really sad, and brings down the level of WP--but no lower than the average city paper that writes this nonsense (BTW, I'm NOT talking about Ayn Rand here, haha). Then again, WP has six million articles on Pokemon stuff, so I can live with this one thing... Drmies (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Including paranormal researchers from Jersey doesn't bring down the encyclopedia. The subject is what it is. Bias, quality issues, and neglect are more serious concerns. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Faked references are pretty sad. Look at this. Bongomatic 02:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I came here for the historical and scientific articles...paranormalics from Jersey, that's just depressing...! Oh, Bongomatic, nice work! Drmies (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've noticed your focus on serious historical and scientific articles *cough* *cough*. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bushwackers are good but very rock-influenced and don't use the authentic tea-chest bass (they use electric bass and drum set, to be louder and appeal to a wider audience). Regarding bush ballads, it should be made clear that some of the early poets, like Banjo Paterson, didn't sing their poems, but the poems can be either sung or spoken. Also, people like Tex Morton and John Williamson are more country singers, though influenced by bush balladry. There is a lot of overlap. Badagnani (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on my talk page, though it might be better to copy it to the Rand talk page and continue there. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, Moloch, horrid king, besmeared with blood

Of human sacrifice, and parents' tears;

Though, for the noise of drums and timbrels loud,

Their children's cries unheard that passed through fire

To his grim idol.

--John Milton, Paradise Lost

TallNapoleon (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, If you want to remove my comment from the Rand talk page, go ahead. I'm done. It may not be helpful but it's true. It's a waste of time to try to get an accurate piece, it will only be changed by another Rand hater if you do suceed. Wikipedia is far less perfect than the world and there are better way to spend my time than playing around with people who pretend to be about NPOV when they have a very considered POV. It's laughable. They are fighting over nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan a dawe (talk • contribs) 11:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out--I left the user a stern but Tide-friendly warning. Hey, great game last night...at least the SEC won the UNDISPUTED national championship! (right?) Oh, with the help of chemistry I actually slept some last night, and I'm ready to rock. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, that paranormal thing is getting wacky! If someone makes a good argument for why those regional sources are really local, or why they should not be considered *that* strong, I might just change my mind. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I hope you'll regift my gift! ;0

And I hope, incidentally, that some of the big wigs will weigh in on the Jersey group. It's not unlike the Auburn dog-bitee: where does "trivial" begin? Drmies (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved square milk jug to the main space, and put up a DYK, I wanted to include the cookies but couldn't get it to work in the 200 character limit, anyway i put you up as co-creator as you did a lot of work for it. Thanks!--kelapstick (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The great square milk jug pour of 2009 went off without a hitch,^{[dubious – discuss]} while it does require a different technique to pour than a traditional jug, there was a significant lack of "milk spilling everywhere" as had been predicted by earlier reports. I could see how pouring it may be difficult for children (the problem is likely that a gallon of milk ways 8-10lbs, which is quite a chore for children to pour regardless of container layout) and possibly adults with an inner ear infection. A potential modification would be to make the opening a little smaller (perhaps the size of the old one), but really I don't see what the fuss is about. Maybe I should upload a picture of the proper pouring technique for the page, or maybe a page devoted to square milk jug pouring technique?--kelapstick (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How-to guides are discouraged, but a Wikiversity program might be beneficial. Making the opening smaller might cause the glug-glug and spillage of air not being able to get in smoothly. I think a video of you pouring it would be a valuable external link. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought since the cows live about 3.5 miles (1,100 rd) from the bottling plant (in this case a juggling plant I suppose), which is 1,000 feet (3,000.0 hands) from the bakery where I got the milk which is 1.1 miles (1.9×10⁻¹³ ly) from my house, the milk only traveled 25,288 feet (4,215 fathoms) to get to the glass, so I was willing to take the milks freshness at face value as indeed I was preoccupied with getting the pour right.--kelapstick (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really need a gallon? I think a quart or two might have been enough for you. Also, you've made no indication whether it was skim, 1%, 2% or whole. Would this affect the pour? It seem to me that you may be trying to cut down on visits to the bakery? Do they have some good stuff? And what about raw milk? Goat's milk? Soy milk (which comes in tetra paks)? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They only juggle it by the gallon (cuts costs I guess), but we usually get a half gallon. It was 2%, although they have skim and whole, maybe higher fat content would slow the pour? We currently have 50 litres (you want to see stacking efficiency) of rice milk in the garage (in tetra paks) for my son (it is far cheaper in Carson City than it is here).--kelapstick (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a nice infobox that might ineterest you...

Take care, Warrington (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was the Dark and stormy night reference inspired by my Dirty Harry reference?

Yes. And your username, of course! ChildofMidnight. Nice. But indeed not all nights are dark, like the nights when the moon is shining, out in the nature or especially on water. You can notice the stars shining too, differently than in the city.

Night haiku

Clouds hide the full moon,

the cat creeps slowly towards

her prey: life or death?

Still dark, yet nearby

a blackbird sings; liquid notes

spill into the dawn.

At sunrise the breeze

stirs the windchimes; there is

laughter in my dreams.

Warrington (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it is politics, you say? My impression of the username ChildofMidnight was a sharp, dark, dramatic figure, mysterious, and reclusive in gentlemanly way, from a long line of strong men. Alternatively a dark beauty, who enjoys cooking (something like Nigella Lawson...

Warrington (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You do not have to answer this question, if it is too private, but I was curious what kind of historical dawn. "Born to the tumults of history", are you talking about?

Warrington (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing your description reminds me is Russia and the new free countries.

Warrington (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Red Barnstar
		Yu have been awarded this because your username is awesome!

Welcome, welcome. Yes I did that, but I wasn’t trying to make your photo look less glorious. It is not my shot, I was stealing that picture from the Norvegian Wikipedia. Oh, what a lovely picture, thank you! I can see the magnificent lion. This kind of guardian spirits have been in use since ancient times. Mine are ancient Chinese. Similar ones were used in the Forbidden City.

Warrington (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you replied to what I said at your DYK. It goes from the date of creation not the date of nomination. I think you could still get it in because, as of right now, 1 January is still in the "expiring noms" section. If you moved it down and maybe said that it had originally been at a date further up someone might review it and it might turn out fine. Good luck! --➨♀♂Candlewicke _S^T _# :) 03:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i tend to veer toward the controversial but try to keep an open mind. don't know about the medication but a bubble bath and some wine/chocolate/smoke/heroin would probably do me some good. ;) this place is addictive. i see your point about rome and am taking more time off between slackjawed surfing episodes. thanks again, and wish me luck. Untwirl (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like me to send you the whole NYT article we were talking about, just so you can verify I'm not being unscrupulous (I know we assume good faith but as the person who opened the AFD it's easy to think I have a little bias!) please let me know and I'll email it to you! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added the trail info to the Spruce Woods Provincial Park article... essentially and for all intents and purposes a "pre-emptive" merge. Someone had slapped a speedy on it and it might not have lasted until the end of the AfD. And point of fact, it reallly does belong in the larger article... where it has context and where readers might expect to read information about that trail in that park. I explained as much at the trail AfD with one of the most polite "delete" !votes ever made. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On your good example, I have modified my "delete" to a "merge/redirect". Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you remove all the 'Drs', 'PhD's, etc please to conform with our MOS? Thanks. The Michael Salla article actually starts off well but then someone started adding 'Dr' although he should be just Salla in the body of the article, which I've fixed (which makes it consistent now). dougweller (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I thought you might be interested in this merger proposal in light of our recent discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On January 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bush ballad, 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.

Royalbroil 04:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I'm teaching you to suck eggs, but I noticed your comment on a single-purpose account which cropped up at an AfD here (there appear to be a couple of others in that debate). There's quite a useful template, ({{SPA}}, which can be used in such a situation, where (for example) using {{SPA|Gb}} generates : " This template must be substituted." Hope that helps in the future. _Gb^T/c 09:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As you commented on the AFD for the page Exopolitics Institute, you may want to comment on the AFD of the successor article, Exopolitics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Thanks, Sceptre ^(talk) 17:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please stop these constant reversions. We discuss all changes on the talk page, by consensus, thanks Peter Damian (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've avoided making reversions as much as possible. I've tried to compromise and move forward in collaboration. But that doesn't mean that I can't make edits to "your" version of the introduction, even if you make a bet that people will correct your mistakes. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the RFc on the Ayn Rand page, there is no consensus to support the edits and deletions made by one faction following the Dec 31 freeze. The vote as to whether there was a consensus for the changes was 9 to 3 against, 7 to 5 if one counts only experienced editors, and adds votes for two editors who commented but did not make an explicit vote. In either case, a minority, no matter how vocal (the talk page has never been so large, and so empty) cannot claim to have established a new consensus.

Hence, we shall revert to the actual consensus version of Dec 31, and I respectfully request that all editors accept and defend this long standing consensus version as the starting point for new edits. Reversions to the controversial shortened article should not be supported against the vote of the RFC. I request that those who wish to modify the article state the changes they want on the talk page, and request a vote for the changes they wish to make. I request that editors not simply assert that there is a new consensus for deletions as has been done, since the RFC clearly shows that this is not the case.

If you have suggestions for improving the article (I support trimming down all sections which have their own separate wikipedia article, such as Objectivist movement) please discuss them, conscisely now, but let us not revert to an edit war. Kjaer (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, CoM, this is the exact same message that I put on everyone's talk page, the wording was chosen to be neutral, and I commend you on your good work on Ayn rand, with which I am in full agreement. Please do read specifically what I said, and try to help keep the version on the Ayn Rand page the actual consensus one per the RFCKjaer (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've been gored by a bull for your impudence! Scapler (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that guy is wearing a cup. The bull doesn't look like it's faring too well either. I prefer to "shoot" things with my camera and to "fight" for the right to party. But I'll eat just about anything... I would like it noted that poking the bull with little spears until it dies doesn't seem like the most humane butchering method. At least they don't scalp 'em ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSICBIO has a long list of attributes... and if ANY ONE OF THEM applies, then the artist is accepted as notable. Even if he does not have major write-ups in the press, if one goes down the list of attributes it would seem he meets 2 or 3 of the neccessary criteria. He does pass WP:N per the applicable guideline. Or am I crazy here? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look now at your tweaks... as I am answering this before having done so. I plan myself to give it a major facelift to re-adress its assertions and format as advised at the talk page over at talk page for Notabilty (music). It may be deleted before all improvements are in (unless relisted to give me more time), so I will be copying improvements to User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox Christopher Rojas as I progress. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do so now. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look here and advise on this work-in-progress: User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox Christopher Rojas Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of mediation, I think we should try to bury the hatchet and work together. The reason that most current edits appear "anti-Rand" is that the article used to be unreasonably pro-Rand. This is not my "agenda", as Steve likes to call it, but the fact that the article was stripped of its good article status because the criticism section was deficient and the article as a whole inflated Rand's reputation (the reviewers' words not mine, we appealled the decision without success). A number of us have been editing this article for some time (JReadings, TallNapoleon, and myself) and we are willing to make compromises, but because the article before the changes was considered too "Rand-friendly" to become a good article, some improvements towards good article status will likely not be Rand-friendly. You seem like a reasonable person (you haven't engaged in the AGF rhetoric that Kjaer, Steve, and some "anti-Rand" folks prefer) so I just wanted to explain myself a bit in an attempt to keep the dispute from escalating so that the mediation can hopefully resolve matters. Idag (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's 1:20 here already--bow 'bout we meet for lunch? I think I want an Ozzy. Drmies (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• BTW, this edit was hilarious--how do you find these things?? Drmies (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--but just as I had read up and was going to take the case I found that the plaintiff had already removed it... Drmies (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 00:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

The mediation request has been rejected because of you, even though 10 others had agreed already. [3] Was that your intention? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may not be involved, but keep in mind that five other people would have had to accept it before it could pass, so it is not wholly his fault, and it appears doubtful that some of these others would have signed. Scapler (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that 10-1 doesn't look good, but as Scapler points out, a block of involved editors did not sign on. I'd like to see more of an effort to work together before expanding the drama to new fora. I'm certainly willing to reconsider if those who didn't sign on express in interest in mediation or if attempts to work out difference on the talk page fail to produce results. At this point I think a cooling off period may be the best thing, but it's very possible that I'm wrong. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And just to clarify, no, I wasn't expecting that my indication would immediately nix this opportunity for mediation. I was under the impression that people would have the oppoprtunity to discuss it with me and the other editors not yet signed on before a rejection would be issued. Live and learn. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't sign on because perhaps they were unaware of it, perhaps they had other things to do and were getting around to it, or perhaps they don't live by their computers day and night. Either way, it's unfortunate that by explicitly rejecting mediation you scuttled a genuine attempt at conflict resolution. I, too, would like to see less drama and a greater collaboration based on a genuine interest in writing a balanced article following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Let's hope that your re-direction to the Ayn Rand talk page leads to better results the fourth time around. Regards, J Readings (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as mediation goes, there is a lot of heat and some light on the article discussion page. The protected version is the most recent one, so it's not like the side that hasn't signed on to mediation is getting their way. I would like to see what the other have to say in regards to mediation. I am under the impression that mediation is not a magic wand that will solve the disputes of 16 or 20 editors with the wave of a wand. I think some of the issues can be solved with compromise and then if there are still issues unresolvable it would be appropraite to move to more intensive dispute remedies. If you think otherwise please let me know why. I'm open to input and willing to reconsider. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CofM, if you didn't intend your objection to nix it, please make that clear to the chair of the MedCom, and he might consider reversing the rejection. The page did state clearly that if anyone objected, it wouldn't go forward. As things stand, a Request for Arbitration has now been filed because the mediation was turned down. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will do so now. Thanks for the suggestion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I did not understand that not going forward and immediate rejection were the same thing. My concern was that it would move forward before all parties were ready/ willing. I would like to hear from the parties that feel the article has been trampled on without consensus. My focus has mostly been preoccupied with the introduction, so frankly I haven't had a chance to review all the changes, but some of them looked very shakey. I don't approve of the section on homosexuality being removed in its entirety or to new sections sourced to a single attack piece being added. I think a more reasoned and collaborative approach is needed. The philosopher issue for example has drawn some good input. I guess my perspective may be skewed by the fact that I haven't been involved in the dispute as long as others, but with newcomers comes naivete I suppose. I still have optimism. Are you sure that immediately embarking on mediation is preferable to a time out and some consideration before moving forward? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing that, CofM. We have, I believe, seven days in which to sign up, so hopefully everyone will get on board by then (or will at least remove their names if not interested so that the rest of us can go ahead). I can't see any other way forward at the moment, as people are just talking past each other on the talk page, and continually reverting to older versions. We can only benefit from having someone uninvolved help us out. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A request for arbitration has been filed with the Arbitration Committee that lists you as a party. The Arbitration Committee requires that all parties listed in an arbitration must be notified of the aribtration. You can review the request at [[4]]. If you are unfamiliar with arbitration on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Arbitration. Idag (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind picking a position on the mediation thing? I'm not trying to be catty, but I just spent the last hour making an ArbCom request, so I'd rather not scrap all that work if we're not going to mediation. Essentially, the way mediation works is that an uninvolved editor helps us iron out a compromise. Since Kjaer and Steve's big concern is that other editors are pushing some type of anti-Rand agenda, a neutral editor will help solve that problem. However, everyone has to agree to the mediation or its rejected. I have to step away from my computer for a time, but if you do agree to mediation, would you mind scrapping my arbitration request and notifying folks of the change? (I've already notified everyone involved of the arbitration request) Idag (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, hold off on scrapping the ArbCom request because there's a good change that Kjaer will reject mediation anyway. Idag (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your good faith efforts and I apologize if my misunderstanding of procedures has contributed to your doing unnecessary work. It was certainly not my intention. I do think rushing into any new process seems imprudent moments after a lock down of the page. I want to hear from the editors who haven't had much to say of late except to push hard for a roll back. That's the approach that seems most appropriate to me at this point. But I am willing to consider all suggestions and comments. For what it's worth they are stuck with the most recent version of the article page, so it's not like they have some kind of obstructionist self-interest in refusing to discuss (something I have very recently experienced in other disputes that went on for weeks over what I consider to be trifles as opposed to the reworking and writing of a contentious article as is the case here). And I appreciate your earlier comment and you should know I am not one to hold a grudge or to carry a hatchet. There is no time, but the present, or something like that. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way Idag, as I had objected to the last mediation request, wouldn't it have made sense to discuss it with me before initiating a new request? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation is that Rand is no doubt well-known and influential in the US, and Quinton is not. But this doesn't make Rand a philosopher, though no doubt she did write on philosophical themes, and devised what one might call a philosophy. Being influential, and writing on philosophical themes, and having/inventing a philosophy, and being a philosopher, are four different things. I could name quite a few philosophers who have had little influence and who don't even have articles in Wikipedia. In philosophical terminology, writing on philosophical themes and having a philosophy are necessary but not sufficient for being a philosopher, and being influential is neither necessary nor sufficient. Ben Finn (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. Nothing wrong with political philosophy, it's a perfectly respectable branch of the subject. And for all I know, Rand might be a philosopher, but if she is not generally regarded as such by existing professional (which in practice means academic) philosophers, then I don't think she is. Arguably if even just one or two philosophers do say she is a philosopher, and none say she isn't, then she is; so you may be right. But it is the professional philosophers who are in a position to know (and we are not qualified to contradict them) who is a philosopher and who isn't. I don't take much store by newspapers calling her a philosopher - they use the word very loosely. And I don't take much store by her not getting discussed by most philosophers - philosophers just wouldn't discuss a non-philosopher's work - why would they? - this doesn't count as 'ignoring'. But if it is the case that some discuss her work and call her a philosopher (even if a bad one) then that probably does make her a philosopher. There may of course be contradictory sources saying she isn't a philosopher. Personally I think 'amateur philosopher' may be accurate (though admittedly with negative overtones), or I am quite happy with e.g. saying she developed a 'philosophical system', which seems quite accurate.

C.f. (in a turgid analogy) if A claims to be a structural engineer and BCDEFG ordinary folk say A is a structural engineer, but the structural engineers say A is not a structural engineer but a charlatan who's got no qualifications and whose buildings would fall down if you built them, then A is not a structural engineer (it's not just that A is a bad structural engineer - I think you'd at least need the qualifications for that) - though you could accurately say she designed buildings. For only the structural engineers are qualified to know what structural engineers do, e.g. how to ensure buildings won't fall down, and hence who is doing structural engineering and who isn't. It's just possible the structural engineers are wrong, and may later hail A a great undiscovered self-taught structural engineer, but until that time comes, the non-structural engineers (and Wikipedias) don't have sufficient grounds for claiming otherwise. Ben Finn (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re the student of engineering who wrote about it and then engineered a series of built structures - 'student' to me means someone who at least is working towards professional qualifications! And there's also the issue of whether the structures fall down or not. I think the analogy you'd like to make is the one you make elsewhere, of painting - anyone can call themselves a painter as long as they do enough of it, regardless of their training/qualifications or indeed quality of the results. But I don't think the analogy holds: philosophy is an academic subject with professional qualifications. Granted, in ancient Greece it wasn't, so if you developed a philosophical system and were influential with it then you'd count as a philosopher. But this is no longer the case.

Philosophy is much closer to the sciences than the arts - perhaps on a par with economics in that respect. I think one could only call oneself an 'economist' these days if one were employed by a financial institution with 'economist' in your job title, or if you were an academic involved in teaching or researching economics. No doubt there are people who write about economics, e.g. for newspapers, but who are not economists (you might call them economics journalists or writers on economics). If they developed their own economic theories, then they would be an anomaly, but unless and until recognised by economists as an economist (which would probably entail being influential on at least some economists) I don't think you could call them that. Anyway, I'm sure I've got my point of view across by now. Ben Finn (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Greek philosophers would be (and of course are) recognised now as philosophers - not because of their academic credentials, but because they are regarded as philosophers by those who have the necessary academic credentials. You asked what the professional qualifications for being a philosopher/economist are - I say simply, having at least (say) a PhD in philosphy/economics! (And to actually be a professional philosopher/economist as well as having the qualifications to be one, you'd then need to be being paid to be one.)

Anyways, I'm leaving Ayn Rand, as I am no expert on the subject (indeed know nothing about her) and hence have made no edits to the article itself. I left a message on the talk page summarizing what I thought the whole problem with the article was, which is the same as the problem with much of Wikipedia (not enough experts + too many idiots = poor quality results) - but it seems criticism of the Wikistate is so unwelcome that it's been deleted from the talk page! Hey-ho. Ben Finn (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Years ago I was attending a university and stopped by the Philosophy dept. I mentioned Atlas Shrugged at the time not being aware of the animosity toward her in some circles. This prompted one of the professors to make a comment to the effect of "oh, yeah that Ayn Rand crap..." Further inquiry revealed that she'd never actually read the book - or any others of Rand, but was simply reflecting word-of-mouth bias and had concluded it wasn't worth her effort to investigate any further. Yet her contempt was absolute. This was a paid "professional" in Philosophy.TheJazzFan (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to this edit, I would say I am more of an advocate of utilization than a pioneer in utilization. And to correct your comment on the DYK page, I was able to pour the square milk jug without spilling while simultaneously juggling kittens....on a unicycle.--kelapstick (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The jug did fit on the door, but a regular jug of milk does too since we have a pretty big fridge. However after reading about the horrors of drastic temperature changes,^[1] affecting the milks longevity, we have moved the square milk jug to a place of honour in the mainspace of the fridge. As for being a part of the magic that is square milk jugs, you may have to rush out to a Costco or Wal-Mart to get one for yourself.--kelapstick (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(from your post on my talk page)

I am curious to know what your opinion is of the introduction as written. I would also like to know what your view is on mediation and whether you plan to participate, why or why not. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Mediate what? After the RfC the Rand tolerant faction was extremely moderate. Look at the edits that followed it. You will see simple reversions and all on the part of the Rand critical faction. TallNapoleon broke the 3RR rule. The critical faction (an that is a generous name) had issued over 100 edits in the hours after the freeze was lifted. Not one single one of their edits was based on mediation or consensus. Every single edit either deleted relevant verifiable information or was purposefully couched to make Rand look bad. Now, after their unilateral edit war, after the RfC showed there was no consensus for their radical revision of an article, now they want mediation? We don't need mediation, we need adhernce to wikipedia principles - no deletion of sourced material, no pushing of a POV which is what several editors have explicitly said is their goal, no deletion of valid material, but rather expansion into a new sub article if there is too much info. (Note that I fought pro-Rand forces to remove her embarrassing remarks on homosexuality, fought ARI supporters who want Rand to look blameless in her split with Nathaniel Branden, have never tried to delete references to opinions that she was cultish - since these opinions do indeed exist.)

The call for mediation, besides being unnecessary, and an attempt at an end run around the RfC, is improper in that it includes admittedly hostile editors who have already said that they themselves are not qualified to edit the article, includes new editors who have been recruited since the RfC who had not edited the article, but who are apparently "qualified" in the view of one faction befcause they are Rand-hostile, and excludes Jmaurone and DAgwyn who are Rand sympathetic editors who have edited the article recently and who participated in the RfC.

As for the current lead as written, I oppose commenting on it specifically, because to do so would presumes its legitimacy. It was imposed without consensus by a POV faction who simply ignored wikipedia policy, removed cited data, and used their own opinion of Rand as the criterion by which to judge the relevance of any comments. Suffice it to say that it is both heavily biased and factually flawed and is not acceptible in any case.

I will be busy with personal matters for the next week, and may go for some periods without editting or contributing. Feel free to contact me by email. Kjaer (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll chime here, univited, but with an opinion. I see no value in mediation when there is no recognition of the RfC results, no recognition of the blizzard of negative edits that followed the previous freeze, nor an honest admission of the degree of bias in the editing of those that dislike Rand, nor even a consideration of returning to the last stable point - where we were at the time of the previous freeze. That version of December 31st was the last honest version, the last version that represented consensus and a period of stability and acceptance. It was frozen because the edit warring over radical changes could not produce an honest article - edit warring never does. We were actually reaching a consensus on the Influence section and might have been able to find common ground for moving forward from there. But, after the freeze, it was an anti-Rand feeding-frenzy and the resulting article doesn't represent encyclopedia standards. Editors piously call for others to stop imputing motives, while in practically the same breath smearing other editors as 'randoids' or 'cultists.' That is not an environment conducive to productive mediation. --Steve (talk) 07:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is DAGwyn and Jmaurone. Kjaer (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there ChildofMidnight. I thought I'd come here rather than carry on the thread on my talk page because I want to clarify an important point. When you called me Ry Ry, I presumed you were mistaking me for a user who used to be User:RyRy, before being renamed to User:RyanCross. We get mistaken quite a lot and I was only trying to tell you that I wasn't RyRy. I've just read what I wrote to you again and it appeared that I was being abrasive. That certainly wasn't my intention, I was just short of time so I apologise for that. I don't mind nicknames at all - I've grown up being called "Poss" by everyone including teachers at school and lecturers at university so you're more than happy to call me whatever you like (as long as it's not something like "Idiot Ryan" ;-) ). I hope that explains things and I'm sorry if you thought I was being off with you - that wasn't my intention. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you just knocked User:DGG from his previous post as such. Yeah, you get to be a cabal member. The pin can only be seen remotely, though. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

on the subject of New Jersey, did you see that the Junior Senator from the Garden State challenged the incoming Energy Secretary because his entire state has been designated a high-priority corridor for the creation of new power lines? [5] Poor state really can't get a break. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will a courtroom suffice? I don't even known what the joke is here, But I had to try something? :) Scapler (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you implying? What, what?!?! Scapler (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of non-notable rock bands, and also a lot of non-notable string quartets. A young quartet that doesn't have CDs out, for example, should wait until they do to write an article about themselves. I don't see that this quartet (who are probably in their early 20s) have put in their dues to be able to get an article about themselves. Badagnani (talk) 07:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've recorded soundtracks for many independent films yet don't presume that I deserve a WP bio page. Badagnani (talk) 08:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the premise for your movie, the titles of a number of "cuisine" articles has bothered me for some time. Tex-mex is a style of food and drink, not a cuisine itself. I'd actually prefer the term "Tex-Mex food and drink" but I am happy for the term "cuisine" at least to be removed from the article. There are a number of other articles with the same issue, like "Cuisine of New York', we do not have a "cuisine", we have ingredients and restaurants, those alone do not make a cuisine, a specific culture needs to be created with a universal culinary practice throughout a region along with a number of other sociological elements. Anyways, if anyone argues with you on this element, I will certainly back you up.--Chef Tanner (talk) 13:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note, as I had not yet learned the results of the AfD and it came as a pleasent surprise. I am gratified that it was a "no consensus default to keep", but I will work toward addressing concerns that led to "no consensus", as certainly there are ways to more strongly underscore his quailifications under WP:MUSICBIO. Again, thank you very much. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_revisions/Trial#Straw_poll_on_implementation. Badagnani (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat perplexed somebody at the article for anarchism would perpetuate this misconception. Please read the article. Zazaban (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be perplexed. Just use your dictionary: "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness" ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A "state of lawlessness" is a neutral phrase which does not imply "a free for all." It merely indicates an absence of state enforced edicts: laws. Whether such a scenario would impact positively or negatively is left unsaid. Further, understand you are quoting "Anarchy." Understand that the popular definitional use of "anarchy" is entirely removed from the term "anarchism", a socio-political philosophical tradition which posits that governments are at best ineffective, or at worst harmful, in maintaining social harmony, and provide theorized/speculative social alternatives to harmonize society. I must press that you should read the article. --Cast (talk) 03:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used the term free for all on the article's talk page. Your idea of a lawless state and mine might be a little different, but free for all sounds about right. Anarchy and anarchism are closely related linguistically and ideologically. I think your distinction is hard to support. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistically the two terms are linked, however you are largely mistaken in the view that they are ideologically linked—especially given that anarchy-as-term is not an ideology. I will grant that it has been argued by post-leftists that anarchism is at its best when it is critically developed as a non-ideology based philosophy, and so use the term "anarchy" in place of an "anarchism". You would be incorrect in your supposition that my distinction is hard to make. I have a whole list of notes and over 169 years of history which makes the case. --Cast (talk) 03:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're right that one is the ideology and the other is the state of being. But as far as a difference beyond that? Not so much. Of course I've been wrong before. But the online dictionary seems to make a good case for my being right. Are you sure you're not turning subtle academic distinctions into giant ideological rifts that aren't significant for a general encyclopedia? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the article 'anarchism' will support our view. Please read it, I beg of you. Zazaban (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't. I think I'm elaborating on a major philosophical tradition and getting nowhere. Have you started reading the anarchism article yet? These distinctions are hardly "academic" and insignificant. Anarchism has had a direct impact on the global history of the world since its inception. It is tremendously disheartening that you feel internet dictionaries can properly counter a library of philosophical literature laying out anarchist philosophy.--Cast (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I cry for the future of humanity. Zazaban (talk) 07:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did the redirect for the school. though it is in Queens, the relevant diocese is Brooklyn. Some of the earlier version were vandalism to the extent that nonsense wasn't an absurd thing to call them. DGG (talk) 03:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, did you find my bush band? You can always add links to audio and video (I do). Regarding the flagged revisions, I'm personally against it, as a newly created corps of "surveyors" will be needed to approve each new edit before it appears to the world. That's what Citizendium calls "constables." These "surveyors" may not know anything about the subject in question, or drag their feet in approving a queue of edits by editors lower on the rungs. That's why I support our current mode, where editors such as us watch pages we care about and are knowledgeable about, and do that same job, reversing questionable edits and vandalism quickly. The reason they're trying to do this (and have done at de:WP) is that they're embarrassed by vandalism that shows up briefly, and they don't even want it to appear to the public even briefly, hence holding new edits until "surveyors" can either approve them or throw them out. This is likely due to WP's reputation and (probably more likely) its market share, which is tied to its reliability. I don't believe it's a good trade-off. And, by the way, they want you to think it's over your head and not give your opinions. The comment pages have been moved several times and discussion posts asking for wider community input removed more than once, in an effort to discourage wide community knowledge or understanding of this crucially important proposal. Badagnani (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...whenever you get tired of Ayn. Here's the boys for you, playing an old Iggy tune: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX6n8YX3UZI. Later! Drmies (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GX-pVhTZg0U

I'm not much of a fantasy island fan. What happens at the end? Weren't they trying to get off an island, or onto one? Wait was that Gilligan's Island? That show was great! ... a three hour tour... a three hour tour... I'm actually using a computer powered by coconuts. The pedaling is quite a workout! ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not either, but Ricardo Montalbán died yesterday. I thought a little bit of "The plane! The plane!" would be a nice balm. Bongomatic 08:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They say it's the thought that counts... I assumed it was the little guy that passed, but I think he kicked the bucket a while back. Several of Gilligan's Islanders are gone now too. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust I suppose. Spartacus (Kirk Douglas) was a real loss, and Paul Newman of course. Only the beat of the tribal drum, the bongo, seems to go on for ever... the rhythm that is life and death. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, There...I really appreciate the advice on getting an article going. ;-) Take Care! Anthonylpeterson (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind message. I am greatly appreciative of your friendship. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS, almost forgot:

{{subst:Wikipeace}}