→Ched you are a friend (even if that is bad): cmnt from Ched |
|||
Line 197: | Line 197: | ||
Maybe one day you can understand, but until then I consider you a beautiful human being in a land of toxic craters. You are a true oasis in a sea of gasoline, a clear path in a minefield, and I hope...a friend. [[User:JohnHistory|JohnHistory]] ([[User talk:JohnHistory|talk]]) 07:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory |
Maybe one day you can understand, but until then I consider you a beautiful human being in a land of toxic craters. You are a true oasis in a sea of gasoline, a clear path in a minefield, and I hope...a friend. [[User:JohnHistory|JohnHistory]] ([[User talk:JohnHistory|talk]]) 07:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory |
||
:Wow, not sure what I did to deserve such praise, but thank you. I'm always proud to make another friend John. ;) — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>[[User:Ched Davis|Ched]]</b> : [[User_talk:Ched Davis|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;"> ? </font>]]</span></small> 15:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:48, 7 October 2009
This page is where I exchange comments with friends and other editors. All users are welcome to leave a message. Unless you state otherwise, I'll assume we are (or can be) friends. Feel free to leave any notes, suggestions, complaints, or anything else. I respond to almost anything reasonable, (but I'll only respond to vandalism or stupidity if it's funny). Note: I frequently take long breaks from AN, AN/I, RfA, and other drama related pages. If you feel I should know about something, or would like my views on something, do not assume that I am aware of anything in particular, or that I am simply ignoring you or a topic. Drop me a note here, and I'd be happy to look.
|
|
|
Template:Archive box collapsible
- October 2009
To Follow up on
Since we're maturing as a community, maybe it's time to revisit these things. — Ched : ? 15:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
For taking up a standing barnstar offer and inquiring about whether it applied to alt accounts at the exact same time when (unbeknownst to you) I was commenting on the sockpuppet policy. This is the closest available award to a Barnstar of Irony. Durova320 18:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC) |
I'm starting to reconsider. You can see this discussion. Frankly, I don't think vandalism, pretending it's not you, and then brushing it off doesn't show the type of conduct we want. I've suggested an IB topic ban, but I really don't know anymore. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'd like to request that you reconsider the unblock of ObserverNY. His reverts and attitude behind them are non-productive and overly heavy-handed, IMO. For the most recent example, please see the Glenn Beck talk page and section "Break" for my personal concerns. Thank you. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, I appreciate you letting me give someone a second chance. Some people learn, some don't. I tried to give good advice at the time, but I didn't try to monitor or be a mentor to anyone. I didn't even think that a block at the time was "wrong", I just requested a second chance, with the understanding that I would offer some "do's and don'ts". I appreciate you allowing me that. If there is disruption, then by all means it should be stopped by whatever means are necessary. I don't really have time at the moment to review these things in detail, so ... hey ... I trust your judgment. Whatever you think is best for the wiki. I'll try to have a look tomorrow if you'd like, but I don't feel it would be right for me to just outright "block" without looking. If you're familiar with the situation, and believe in your heart that it's the right thing to do - please don't hesitate on my account. Best. — Ched : ? 21:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am willing to give a second chance, but if someone doesn't learn (or want to learn), that's enough. He's been indefinitely blocked again, and the first condition to returning in my opinion should be a topic ban on all IB-related pages. His behavior elsewhere, while probably enough to get more people blocked, is at least somewhat tolerable. Let's see if he can get a third chance. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Apology?
Why on earth should you apologize? So far as I can tell, you did nothing which would seem to require any sort of apology. John Carter (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you John, that is very encouraging. I also believe that as well; however, I realized when I accepted Pedro's RfA nom that I would be held to the highest degree of integrity. I also realized that I was accountable to the community as a whole, therefore my moral compass pointed to speaking outright, and offering myself for review. There are a great many people screaming for justice (or at least that's what they are calling it), and I am remembered of the poem First they came.... I could not stand by silently while those I know stand before a stoning mob without stepping up to face the music. I would rather fall for what is right, than to stand for what is wrong. Thank you for your kind words. ;) (link for those who are wondering.) — Ched : ? 23:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you've done anything wrong
From what you have said, you did not do anything wrong at all. From the very beginning I have maintained that nobody is obliged to rat on a friend (or anybody else). You have no duty to report. You only have a duty not to falsify. Knowing that Law == The undertow a few weeks ago did not put you into any sort of conflict of interest with Wikipedia policies as far as I can tell, according to the principles that I believe in. Regards, Jehochman Talk 00:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- So we're letting Ched off ? I was getting amped up for the stoning. How utterly disappointing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you Jehochman, I think there a lot of bad things going on in regards to the whole situation, but I have far less knowledge of WP history than many others. I see that undertow requested a review of a ban/block that was handled "off-wiki", and ArbCom did not respond to the request. I also see that Law was a good editor, and a good admin. I'm having trouble seeing any justification much of the current treatment and accusations being tossed around. Other than that, I'll let ArbCom handle the issue, I'm here if anyone has any questions.
- CoM, I'm assuming that your comment was meant to make me smile ... thank you. ;) ... Just in case it wasn't though ... My recall page is now posted at: User:Ched Davis/Recall — Ched : ? 06:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
+ me. I see no need nor reason for an apology from you; I gently reject it as unnecessary. You remained silent; you did not deceive nor aid and abet anyone to violate an ArbCom ban. You found out well after the Rfa; so you couldn't have been a party to the breaches of trust which have many of us concerned. The policies that have been broken have been neatly outlined by Barberio:
- Wikipedia:Banning policy — Overturning and assisting the overturn of a ban without the consent of community consensus, or the Arbitration committee, is forbidden by any means.
- Wikipedia:Sock puppetry — Alternate accounts must not be used to avoid scrutiny; mislead or deceive other editors; edit project-related discussions, such as policy debates or Arbitration Committee proceedings; or circumvent sanctions or policy. Collusion to support this is a grave breach.
- Wikipedia:Civility — Aiding and abetting someone's breach of policy is a hostile act against the community. Engaging in a cover up is a hostile act towards the community. They are a grave breach of civil behavior.
- Wikipedia:Administrators — Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities.
and you have done none of those things. Finding out after the fact and not being a whistle blower is not a policy violation nor a breach of trust. If anything, those who placed you in that difficult position owe you an apology, but otherwise, I see no reason for an apology in your case at all, and certainly not from you. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you puppy! I really appreciate the leader of our puppy cabal taking the time to offer such kind words. Honestly though, nobody even hinted that I should say anything ... except for my own conscience. The thing that I hate is all these folks that I admire and respect who are bickering, pointing fingers, and looking for a person to blame. I thought the "Law" account did some great work here; both as an editor and as an admin - and I hate to see that laid to waste. I never knew "the undertow", so I can't really comment on that - except that it appears that he did request through ArbCom channels to have his block reviewed. I get the impression that it was lost through technology (rather than being ignored), and the whole "system" was something that needs to be improved. I guess I've been so very lucky on so many fronts here at WP. First the great folks like Huntster, Royalbroil, and Pedro who took me in and taught me how to work here. Then - I work largely in the NASCAR articles ... and that's just a such a special group of folks. We'll bicker and all, but at the end of the thread - we laugh, and find a way to improve the content. I understand that when folks work together for an extended period of time that hard feelings build up; be it an oppose at an RfA, an XfD, or some content issue. I know that those types of things are unavoidable. It's just that as I see it - we're in some uncharted territory here, growing as a community, and I think we have to work to fill in the gaps rather than trying to find someone to "blame". Just IMHO thoughts. Cheers and best .. "woof" — Ched : ? 00:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Good point Malleus. Knowing the user's former identity does not necessarily mean knowing about all the circumstances. That's why I've focused my concerns narrowly, just on those who I'm pretty sure did know the full facts of the matter and helped him through RFA nonetheless. Jehochman Talk 01:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think the RfA is worrying. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. I disagree with Kww, who feels that those who knew Law was a ban-evading sock should be summarily de-adminned - although I can see his point - but that the nominator and two of the most vocal supporters at the Rfa knew is much more serious IMO. It doesn't help that althoguh the nominator has expressed some regret, he seems to think the concern is largely personal and not about corruption and nepotism etc - and the other two have been defiant and self righteous in every post I've seen so far. For those like you and Ched who didn't have the backstory, and didn't know or realize it was an Arbcom-enacted sanction evading sock, no concern or blame at all is directed your way SFAICT. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think the RfA is worrying. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Trolling by JohnHistory
If you're going to claim to be objective, you need to keep your word. Get your political cohort to stop his trolling NOW. --Calton | Talk 03:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I see you're quite distracted right now, but I do have a question on what we've been developing. Are you sure the second round of qualifying still applies for the Daytona 500? This source doesn't talk about it and neither does that gray matter memory chip inside my skull. There used to be second round qualifying about 10 years ago. You've used a book reference that I can't access. My jayski source looks excellent for polishing off that section about exactly how the Daytona 500 field is currently set. I knew that something was missing! Royalbroil 04:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sigh ... you know RB, I tried so hard to just stay away from the drama stuff and concentrate on content, I really did. Occasionally I'd see something that wasn't quite fair, and I'd try to balance things out - or see someone getting the short end of the stick and try to offer a helping hand. Sometimes I'll see a person getting insulted and attacked, and I'll try to stop it. But here recently I found that some folks were getting really mauled for something they didn't say, but simply knew about. Actually, lots of folks knew, and I knew a part of it too. My conscience wouldn't allow me to stay silent - but I know it's all stuff you avoid, so ....
Ahh ... I could send you a photo of the page in the book I used for reference so you can check to see if my wording accurately describes what is said. The book was published in 2000, so if you think it's better to just eliminate it - I'm not going to be upset - whatever is best for the article. That Jayski source looks great!, I have no problems with any re-write on this stuff. I haven't looked over it, but did notice you'd been working on it, and I'll run through one more time to see if I see anything too. I noticed one thing in my last proof-read that really made me laugh. A line in there said the restrictor plates had been in use since 1998 .. instead of 1988 ... had been there for over a month I think. Anyway, I'll take a look, and drop a line on the talk page if you're about done. Cheers. — Ched : ? 04:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- What's in the article was correct in around 2000, now it's changed to what's on jayski. I suppose the article needs to state both scenarios, it would be an improvement to expand the history. I'll need some time, of course. I'll probably head all the way to Rockford Speedway tomorrow for the day, so I guess the article will have to wait a bit... I hope that problems can be resolved swiftly so that everyone can focus on building an encyclopedia instead of drama. I did notice your catch about the year of the restrictor plate; I hope that I would have caught it in my thorough reviewing that I'm doing right now. I hope to be done with the article this week before Thursday Oct 8th because I'm on a road trip from Oct 9 - 11. I'll be coming home with pictures from the LaCrosse Fairgrounds Speedway for that upcoming article. I need to do the major rewrite to David Pearson's article before I can get to that article. I want to let the Daytona polesitter list/article sit for at least 1 full week before we propose it at FLC. Royalbroil 05:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. I doubt the problems will be resolved quickly, but I don't have plans to get involved too much other than to answer any questions that are asked of me. I'm going to concentrate on a couple DYKs here for a bit, and get back to cleaning up some BLP uncat stuff. Folks know where to find me if they want me, and I'm not ashamed of anything I've ever done here. I've made mistakes as we all have - so I'm content that I've learned a lot in my short time here. Enjoy your road trip - I'll be gone for about a week starting Oct. 14. - driving an elderly couple to Flordia for the winter. Not sure how much I'll have access to the net, but I'll check in when I can. — Ched : ? 05:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Good plan about the sitting back part. I dug around a little to see what's going on, and it sounds pretty big. No need to comment on my last sentence or this part of my comments - you've said enough. I'm not fishing for a response; I'd prefer that you didn't/hadn't responded. That type of stuff makes my head ache and I fortunately lose interest pretty quickly. Let's wait with attempting FLC until after you get back from the trip. I want to finish up the article before you leave and let any dust settle while you're gone. I read the article twice and I think it's almost there, the main thing is that I need to rework the pre-Top 35 lineup vs. the post-Top 35 lineup. There are a few sentences that flip topics too fast without a smooth transition. I'll try to rework them or bring them up to you to see if you have ideas. I'm off to the races (tee hee)! Royalbroil 12:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. I doubt the problems will be resolved quickly, but I don't have plans to get involved too much other than to answer any questions that are asked of me. I'm going to concentrate on a couple DYKs here for a bit, and get back to cleaning up some BLP uncat stuff. Folks know where to find me if they want me, and I'm not ashamed of anything I've ever done here. I've made mistakes as we all have - so I'm content that I've learned a lot in my short time here. Enjoy your road trip - I'll be gone for about a week starting Oct. 14. - driving an elderly couple to Flordia for the winter. Not sure how much I'll have access to the net, but I'll check in when I can. — Ched : ? 05:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- What's in the article was correct in around 2000, now it's changed to what's on jayski. I suppose the article needs to state both scenarios, it would be an improvement to expand the history. I'll need some time, of course. I'll probably head all the way to Rockford Speedway tomorrow for the day, so I guess the article will have to wait a bit... I hope that problems can be resolved swiftly so that everyone can focus on building an encyclopedia instead of drama. I did notice your catch about the year of the restrictor plate; I hope that I would have caught it in my thorough reviewing that I'm doing right now. I hope to be done with the article this week before Thursday Oct 8th because I'm on a road trip from Oct 9 - 11. I'll be coming home with pictures from the LaCrosse Fairgrounds Speedway for that upcoming article. I need to do the major rewrite to David Pearson's article before I can get to that article. I want to let the Daytona polesitter list/article sit for at least 1 full week before we propose it at FLC. Royalbroil 05:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
JohnHistory Issue
Okay, that's what I have been hoping for just to come back to some new tirade of insults and personal attacks. But, I would point out that I have tried extremely hard to not go to the level that Calton has, in a carefree way, in this "discussion". However, the issue with me was not Calton, but getting some guy, who confidently claimed I was a sock puppet, names wrong and then telling him, in good faith just like the story, to not become the boy who cried wolf which I thought was an appropriate allusion and good healthy example given the circumstances and evidence put forth. JohnHistory (talk) 05:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
- BTW, I have not been on in awhile and I didn't see the thread, or what have you that you said was started about me and ObserverNY. In that link, I just found something about her and nothing by you. JohnHistory (talk) 05:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
- You essentially agreed that "the boy who cried wolf" is a threat, and not a basic advice, and that the colossal difference in language between the allegation of a threat (boy who cried wolf) and Calton's "A lesson for your ass" about ObserverNY block, and the use of the word "cohort" by him some how was the equivalent to what I said to the guy who confidently, yet falsely accused me of "sock puppetry". I totally and completely disagree with that assessment. Not only were they two separate issues, but two totally different things. JohnHistory (talk) 06:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
- I didn't look real close as I noticed that MuZ has posted before me. Basically I'm saying you two shouldn't post to each others talk pages. Too many variables to always get exactly the right responses. Too many threads get missed and not read by admins trying to stop the disruption, too many admins and other editors who will side with someone regardless of the facts, and too often it ends up with both editors being blocked. Some admins block for WP:CIV - others won't until WP:NPA. I know it's not fair, it's just that that's the way it is. I'm not sure who filled the sock report - but that obviously got laughed at because it was so ludicrous. Calton's history is known to many, I'd simply suggest just staying away from his talk page all-together just to be on the safe side. If he keeps coming at you - save the diffs, and if it becomes outright violations of NPA or harassment, then ask at WP:AN/I in a calm, non-accusatory fashion that the diffs be reviewed. Stick to the high-road, and nobody of any consequence can every come at you, and you'll end up further ahead in the long run. If you have any questions, feel free to stop by here (my page) anytime, and I'll try to help as time permits.
- I'm not sure what happened with ONY. I requested an unblock for her a while back, gave her some links to read about NPA and dispute resolution - somewhere she to blocked for WP:3RR - not sure why. Then she got blocked again today - again, I'm not sure why, but if she keeps her cool, she can get unblocked. If she mouths off in a smart-alec way, even if she's right, she likely won't get unblocked. Calm, professional, mature conversation is the way to achieve acceptable results in the end. A lot of folks who were perfectly correct in what they were saying have been banned because of the way they responded to things. Stay cool, be patient, and stick to the high road - it'll work out in the end. — Ched : ? 06:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Okay fair enough, but we had an edit dispute so can I please post my little late night continuation to your pre great advice thing? I'm going to do it!!! here it goes in all it's debauchery and glory...Anyway, I understand you must purify and adjudicate yourself, but at some point you bite into the margins of the man. You kill a little something of yourself. That is something akin to a bullet in the head to me. Now, don't get me wrong, the whole Calton thing was unhealthy at this point since he refused to deal with the issues and instead was just slandering, but the ohamaunited (I thought obamaunited) sock puppetry thing was totally separate from that and in no way what Makenzie (sp?) was alleging. Anyway, lay me prostrate upon the cross of Wiki, may my blood run and not boil. May it license itself to the hereafter and not the here within. May it run and not thicken in my assessments of the totalitarian nature of this foul year of our lord, two thousand and nine, and all that has becomes her. JohnHistory (talk) 06:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
WikiProject Films September 2009 Newsletter
The September 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Happy Ched's Day!
![]() |
User:Ched has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
ahhh.. awww ... geesh ... I don't even know what to say here. I mean .. THANK YOU!!!!, it's just that there are so many great folks here that probably deserve this kind of thing. Thank you Rlevse, I am truly honored and humbled by this. — Ched : ? 00:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Congratulations! I celebrated by having a calzone, stromboli, and mango. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Congrats on your own day Ched. --Pedro J. the rookie 18:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Good initiative, Ched. I'll join (but will wait for admins to join at the top of the list!). The lead is very nicely written, except for the very end: "and this project is an effort to consolidate those efforts". I'd have changed the first "effort", but can't think what to put. Over to you. ("Attempt" would be OK, but not positive enough, IMO. Or just "... this project aims to consolidate these efforts."?)
Have you seen WP:New admin school? I stumbled on it a while ago; you might consider linking to it, but I must say I haven't looked at the Admin coaching page properly, so they might be too similar. Tony (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yep ... one of the first things I did actually. Not sure it's on the project page ... if you get to it before I do, please add it.
Thanks for starting this, Ched. It is serving a very useful purpose. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Blocked
Just in case I'm not able to edit when I get back ... I'm only trying to help .. honest! — Ched : ? 05:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- No ones gonna block you for thinking of ideas. If I'd been blocked for each time I voiced an opinion, popular or unpopular, I'd have a block logas large as Australias foreign debt. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 08:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support block It's time to teach young Chedsky a lesson about how we do things here on Wiki! No mercy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
You have been blocked, time you take time to think what you did in WIKI we have rules man. --Pedro J. the rookie 18:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- <* smiles *>. For those of you wondering .. I started-up Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator after following up on some of LHvU's work and talking to him. Once I moved it out to main space - I spammed a WHOLE bunch of folks. It's tongue in cheek humor. Of course ... if the "thought police" ever establish a beachhead here ... I might be in trouble for some of my thoughts of the outright crap that's been going on lately. ;) — Ched : ? 18:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
BRC
Thanks for your note, which is a great example of "AGF". I've corrected my post at RfAR, and I apologize for the error. Will Beback talk 21:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. I know that 99% of the folks here are here because they want to help the project. — Ched : ? 18:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Deletion
Hey Ched, would you mind deleting User:Ceranthor/Awards? It's a stale page, I don't use it. ceranthor 21:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Requested, in a longer sentence structure, via IRC. This is to prevent people from thinking something dubious happened or that Ched and I are mind readers. ceranthor 21:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
FG
Family Guy is now a GA thanks for helping me with that around this month, Thanks =D. --Pedro J. the rookie 18:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. --Pedro J. the rookie 18:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
WPBio
A while back, WP Biography decided all bands would be tagged with their project. Did that change recently? Chubbles (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- The last I knew there was a discussion on one of the BLP talk pages that indicated that Bands and/or groups would not be included. Let me see if I can find that link - if you could find the link you're referring to, I'll have a read through that as well and we'll see what should be done. — Ched : ? 20:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- User:Rich Farmbrough went through and tagged several thousand band pages many months ago. I think bots were also tagging them, too; there are probably tens of thousands so tagged. I just hope you all can make your mind up about it. Chubbles (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, sometimes I wake up to find 1200 edits on my watchlist, all courtesy of taggers for WPBio. Not that anyone should edit with the goal of keeping my watchlist small, but it makes me wonder whether the time isn't better spent doing something else. I don't actively work with the project and am content to leave that to the pros. Chubbles (talk) 13:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Ched you are a friend (even if that is bad)
Maybe one day you can understand, but until then I consider you a beautiful human being in a land of toxic craters. You are a true oasis in a sea of gasoline, a clear path in a minefield, and I hope...a friend. JohnHistory (talk) 07:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory