![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 35 |
It's a really bad idea to block that bot given the number of vandalistic edits it reverts every single minute. Furthermore, you left autoblock on, which means that potentially all the bot operators and every single other bot on cluenet (including several archival bots) are now autoblocked. I've undone the block, since ClueBot NG ( talk · contribs) does not appear to be making any more false positives than usual. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 20:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Ched, thank you for the barnstar, did you see my reply? Please start over and subst the template, it's getting a little embarrassing the way it says "I, Darwinbish, would like to present you". Nobody else can fix it, y'know, that wouldn't get it to say your name. Oh, and right now, see how it says User:MelbourneStar would like to present me!! (No, they sure wouldn't, they think I'm a vandal.) You see the principle? That's how {{REVISIONUSER}} works, it puts the name of the person who wrote the last "revision" on the page. These templates are too clever for their own good. darwinbish BITE ☠ 11:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC).
Sorry to bother you. Could you please take a look at User talk:Avario87 and Talk:Grace Jones? I am approaching burnout with a user who has done just about everything it is possible to do wrong. I have been editing the article so blocking isn't an option, even if that is called for; it probably isn't. Some (outreach/mentoring/firm advice/I don't know what) would be very much appreciated, by me if not by Avario87. Thank you for anything you can do. -- John ( talk) 16:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Zappa
O
Mati is wishing you a Happy
Memorial Day! On this day, we recognize our fellow countrymen who have fought our nation's battles for the past several hundred years, protecting our freedom and safety. We remember those who paid the ultimate price and we support those who continue to willingly sacrifice their safety for the sake of their country. Happy Memorial Day!
Share this message by adding {{ subst:Memorial Day}} to a fellow American's talk page.
I have decided to take you up on your nomination offer. Please note that this will be my second RfA and that Go Phightins! will co-nom. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout ? 16:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
92.41.237.161 ( talk) 19:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
While I understand and appreciate your attempt to provide a calm voice for the whole KW saga, I suspect it's doomed to failure. Honestly, I think it's that witch-burning climate that drives more people off than any single editor's actions. I know it's damned near had that effect on me. It's far easier to ignore one random voice than it is a baying mob. Intothat darkness 14:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar |
I award you the Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar for the thoughtful comment you left on Dennis Brown's talk page. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 05:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC) |
And I award you a wikikiss for your timely appearance here. Hope you're doing well! Bishonen | talk 11:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC).
Hi, Ched. FYI, Fladrif has evaded his block by using 75.7.198.193 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), but Dennis Brown already took care of it. I just wanted to let you know, since you have previously blocked Fladrif indefinitely back in April 2013. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 20:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Ched, are you planning to close the ANI thread Ubiwit opened? I've been busy with RL work commitments and haven't been able to contribute diffs, etc. before this morning. I think you should know that I believe Ubikwit is Dylan Flaherty who was indef blocked back in 2010. User:Izauze was blocked for being the sockmaster, but he later denied it and was unblocked. If what Izauze claims is true, then I think Ubikwit is Dylan evading his block. I don't know if a Checkuser can go back that far, but Checkuser evidence isn't necessarily the only evidence needed, correct? I can point to behaviours that are identical. Collecting diffs would take a couple of hours or so. Let me know. Thanks. Malke 2010 ( talk) 15:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Is this considered to be a personal attack? PantherLeapord ( talk) 04:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Most certainly not. It is just a warning, users should beware certain editors on this site. It makes no representation regarding the user. ★ ★ Retro Lord ★★ 05:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
It's probably a PA of a kind. It's certainly a clear demonstration of a total lack of of maturity and if he wants himself to look completely silly he's welcome to keep it there because it serves more as a warning to all about his attitude than it does about mine. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Ched, could you please finish your AFD closure? The tag is still on the article; there's a process for that, but since I'm not an admin, I'm unaware of all the steps you must do to get the tag off the article and recorded in articlehistory. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
Article History}}
, you shouldn't add another, but instead add parameters to the existing one,
like this. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
21:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Ched, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, you said, "given the current tone here" and you linked "here". However, the link is circular and points right back to the case itself. Did you want to link somewhere else or just not link at all? I was going to "fix" it, but then I thought I might do something you didn't intend, so here I am. Truly a minor issue, but I like minor issues - so much less drama. :-) Hope you're well. Best.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Yo, Ched, I saw your comment on ANI and responded snarkily, of course. But now I'm thinking about it seriously, and I wonder. It seems to me that our job really is just to protect editors, and not to protect articles. I see it as being along the lines of "ANI doesn't decide content" and the like: we don't rule on content matters while wearing our admin hats. The point is that our job as admins is to protect the editors so that they can then go on to protect the articles free from disruption. Of course, the line does get blurry, particularly in the case of edit-warring and the like where both "sides" are in the wrong. And there's really not much of a difference in practice. But that's kinda the approach I take to all things admin: my job is to protect the people, so that they are then free to protect the articles. Your thoughts? Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 15:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Have attempted to start discussion here regarding page protection and being involved [4]. An eventual RfC may be useful to clarify this issue as different admins seem to have different opinions on what is and is not appropriate. Appreciate your input. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
— Ched : ? 21:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I have quickly drafted this. It is in no way definitive, but the effort is to keep it very simple and on track. You are welcome to develop this further on its talk page or tweak the draft until such times if and when a collaborative effort can be moved to RfC space. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I meant to respond but it was gone when I logged in later. I didn't want to give the impression that I was being snarky but was a little rushed and trying to gather the diffs you'd asked for & then I couldn't post them. Anyway, I don't know what the solution is to that kind of situation, but it's gone now. I'm not sure that's the right solution either once a thread has been started, but not really for me to say. Anyway, just wanted you to know. Victoria ( talk) 01:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
huh?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey Ched, regarding the Visual Editor, there are two options if you don't care for it (which I am guessing you don't). First you can go to "edit source" which edits the page the old way (no funny business involved). The second is you can just turn it off by adding importScript('User:Matma_Rex/VE_killer.js'); to User:Ched/common.js. Personally I don't mind it, and have been messing with it a bit, and I like that it is easy to move from VE to old school, but that's just me. Let me know if you need anything, you know how to get a hold of me. I had been talking to Ironholds about it, and unfortunately there is not way to turn it off via preferences as of yet. -- kelapstick( bainuu) 00:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Ched, you're the best of editors and so many admire you so. I hope you decide to stick around. You're more appreciated than you'll ever know. My best wishes for you. ceran thor 02:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey - I heard WMF hasn't stuffed that VE crap down the throats of the simple.wikipedia ... so may go over there when I get back. Anyway, I appreciate the kind words - and wish you the very best. (and thanks to anyone who fixed my own talk page back to "real" wiki editing where I get a "real" window to work in.) Cheers. — Ched : ? 11:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar | |
For always cutting through the wiki crap and telling it like it really is. We always know where Ched stands. GO CHED GO! PumpkinSky talk 23:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC) |
![]() |
Great to see you back editing again! It worries me when you leave, each time I wonder if it means the universe is unravelling or if there's just not enough pie in the world. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 19:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC) |
Hi Ched, I've done some preliminary formatting for your case request. However I need you to add any other parties to the request, and the diff of the notice you left them so they know they've been named in a case request. Also if you could add in some of the RfCs you mentioned, perhaps the big ones which didn't work (etc) and/or which relate to infoboxes as a whole rather that one specific type. If you need any help feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Regards, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 14:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, Are you certain that Gerda is German? I thought she was Austrian.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 18:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
It isn't clear to me what you want the ArbCom to do about the Infobox issue. (I am not an arbitrator, but I know that they will want to know what they are being asked to do.) I suggest that you add to your statement something on proposed remedies. The ArbCom can ban users. It does not appear that you are asking them to ban anyone. The ArbCom can topic-ban users. Do you want them to topic-ban any users from creating or discussing infoboxes? The ArbCom can impose discretionary sanctions, which would allow uninvolved administrators to intervene to resolve disputes about infoboxes. That might be reasonable. If so, I suggest that you say so. The ArbCom can impose interaction bans, which would forbid particular users from responding to other users whom they dislike. Are you asking for that? Please say what remedies you are asking. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Ched, I see that you have Ezra Pound added to your list of evidence for the infobox RfAR, [9]. I'm curious why you chose that particular page? I'd prefer a reply on my page, and forgive me in advance if I'm slow in responding - am dealing with some intermittent health problems that keep me from editing on some days. Thanks. (formerly Truthkeeper88 now Victoria ( talk) 01:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 31, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ 21 17:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
{{
adminhelp}}
... could a kind passing admin. please block me for maybe 8-10 hours? It's a preventive thing. See, I'm kinda pissed about many things on wiki - and if I actually say what I'm thinking, well, it would be a bad thing. I'm also about to indulge myself in a bit of alcohol, and I can get a bit nasty when I do that. So just to prevent me being a drain on the projects resources, I think a block would be a good thing. I'll turn the computer off now, but I know that in a bit I'd be tempted to turn it on again and make some very unkind comments. thanks, your ever present "wp:diva" - —
Ched :
?
22:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps he cannot reply, but then his talk page stalkers can. I hope this was just a little humor because, to take advantage of a block in this manner (requested or not) seems rather inappropriate.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 22:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
"I'm also about to indulge myself in a bit of alcohol, and I can get a bit nasty when I do that. ... I'll turn the computer off now, but I know that in a bit I'd be tempted to turn it on again and make some very unkind comments. thanks."I'm assuming he simply forgot to mention, or to think of, User:Chedzilla. If Ched's pissed about many things, Chedzilla's pissed, too, and if Ched indulges, Chedzilla indulges, through their shared circulation. Darwinbish may have put it in her own inimitable way (which Ched's quite used to, indeed they're good friends), but yes, I've blocked Chedzilla for ten hours. Bishonen | talk 23:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC).
Ron .. thank you for the block ... but you fucked up big time buddy. I didn't ask for my talk page to be blocked ... I didn't ask for my email to be be blocked. You fucked up buddy. Not that I don't care ... I appreciate the the thought. Let me ask ... did it somehow feel good to click on that block button? Did it in some way make you feel powerful? I know I baited someone into this. —
Ched :
?
03:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
|
just in case you need it -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 03:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC) |
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology#Review of navigational templates.
Lord Sjones23 (
talk -
contributions)
18:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
You were involved in a past discussion about this user, so you may be interested in this: WP:ANI#Request swift admin intervention to prevent further disruption to the Jesus article by User Strangesad.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 00:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I am uninvolved and know little about the situation but, as I read the discussion I feel you made a good call. These are never easy situations and many individuals will be unhappy with the result, but I want you to know I thought your decision was very much based on the strongest arguments made.
Have a cupcake.
-- (Amadscientist)
Mark
Just ask!
WER
TEA
DR/N
04:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
May I ask why my input was apparently not considered? I don't have a issue with your decision, but you listed those opposed to the unblock without listing me. GregJackP Boomer! 10:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I should have said thanks for your support sooner. ``` Buster Seven Talk 03:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
It appears that you got confused: I can't see that the latest contents of this talk page is archived anywhere.— Kww( talk) 08:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Your comments on your talkpage certainly are not of
no value
--
Rs
chen
7754
08:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Your comments on your talkpage certainly are not of
no value
--
Rs
chen
7754
08:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your many contributions to Wikipedia and best of luck in your future endeavors. NE Ent 12:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
First - thank you so much folks - your kind thoughts are dear to my heart and I appreciate them beyond belief. Granted that it is obvious that I've become increasingly frustrated with the stupidity and lack of true leadership on Wikipedia; but that is not the sole or primary reason for my actions. I chose the middle of the night on Sunday of a holiday weekend to simply delete my page and talk, thinking that it would be the quiet way out ... obviously that didn't quite work out the way I intended. While I failed miserably in my efforts on the infobox case, I do ask for forgiveness. Days after I filed, I was presented with some real life situations which I was not expecting. Now, with real life situations I must understand that my emotions were driving how I was and am thinking. I know that I'm not able to be fully objective and at times I even have difficulty being civil to some.
To be honest, I likely would not have posted anything but for the most honorable User:Bishzilla. It's likely not a secret that Chedzilla has a certain attachment to the luscious lizard. OK ... Yea ... I think the world of Bish. Anyway .... my lack of participation is not solely out of anger or frustration with the Wikipedia project. It's a self-awareness that I'm not currently able to be objective, spend the time to research all aspects of a dispute, and offer a solution that is fair to all sides. For that reason I've scrambled my admin. account and put it on a thumbdrive.
For now I just won't be able to be on the Internet (or Wiki) for 4 or 5 hours a day. If I am online, and I see a typo, I'll fix it. I will do my best to find my way back to you folks, but it may take some time. Let's not make a big deal of it, and everyone go create some great content. Best to all. (BTW - Bish has full authority to archive and manage my pages as she sees best. Others (PS, Gerda, Montanabw, Iridescent, etc.) are also free to manage things as they feel best) — Ched ZILLA 05:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding behaviour around the use of Infoboxes in several articles has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
- Pigsonthewing ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes.
- Nikkimaria ( talk · contribs) is admonished to behave with the level of professionalism expected of an administrator.
- Gerda Arendt ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from: adding or deleting infoboxes; restoring an infobox that has been deleted; or making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. They may participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction, and include infoboxes in new articles which they create.
- Gerda Arendt ( talk · contribs) is admonished for treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves.
- Smerus ( talk · contribs) is reminded to conduct himself in a civil manner.
- All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general.
- The Arbitration Committee recommends that a well-publicized community discussion be held to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article.
For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ 21 00:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
— The candles you have lit will not wane. WE cannot replace you but will do our best 'till you return.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 35 |
It's a really bad idea to block that bot given the number of vandalistic edits it reverts every single minute. Furthermore, you left autoblock on, which means that potentially all the bot operators and every single other bot on cluenet (including several archival bots) are now autoblocked. I've undone the block, since ClueBot NG ( talk · contribs) does not appear to be making any more false positives than usual. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 20:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Ched, thank you for the barnstar, did you see my reply? Please start over and subst the template, it's getting a little embarrassing the way it says "I, Darwinbish, would like to present you". Nobody else can fix it, y'know, that wouldn't get it to say your name. Oh, and right now, see how it says User:MelbourneStar would like to present me!! (No, they sure wouldn't, they think I'm a vandal.) You see the principle? That's how {{REVISIONUSER}} works, it puts the name of the person who wrote the last "revision" on the page. These templates are too clever for their own good. darwinbish BITE ☠ 11:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC).
Sorry to bother you. Could you please take a look at User talk:Avario87 and Talk:Grace Jones? I am approaching burnout with a user who has done just about everything it is possible to do wrong. I have been editing the article so blocking isn't an option, even if that is called for; it probably isn't. Some (outreach/mentoring/firm advice/I don't know what) would be very much appreciated, by me if not by Avario87. Thank you for anything you can do. -- John ( talk) 16:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Zappa
O
Mati is wishing you a Happy
Memorial Day! On this day, we recognize our fellow countrymen who have fought our nation's battles for the past several hundred years, protecting our freedom and safety. We remember those who paid the ultimate price and we support those who continue to willingly sacrifice their safety for the sake of their country. Happy Memorial Day!
Share this message by adding {{ subst:Memorial Day}} to a fellow American's talk page.
I have decided to take you up on your nomination offer. Please note that this will be my second RfA and that Go Phightins! will co-nom. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout ? 16:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
92.41.237.161 ( talk) 19:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
While I understand and appreciate your attempt to provide a calm voice for the whole KW saga, I suspect it's doomed to failure. Honestly, I think it's that witch-burning climate that drives more people off than any single editor's actions. I know it's damned near had that effect on me. It's far easier to ignore one random voice than it is a baying mob. Intothat darkness 14:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar |
I award you the Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar for the thoughtful comment you left on Dennis Brown's talk page. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 05:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC) |
And I award you a wikikiss for your timely appearance here. Hope you're doing well! Bishonen | talk 11:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC).
Hi, Ched. FYI, Fladrif has evaded his block by using 75.7.198.193 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), but Dennis Brown already took care of it. I just wanted to let you know, since you have previously blocked Fladrif indefinitely back in April 2013. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 20:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Ched, are you planning to close the ANI thread Ubiwit opened? I've been busy with RL work commitments and haven't been able to contribute diffs, etc. before this morning. I think you should know that I believe Ubikwit is Dylan Flaherty who was indef blocked back in 2010. User:Izauze was blocked for being the sockmaster, but he later denied it and was unblocked. If what Izauze claims is true, then I think Ubikwit is Dylan evading his block. I don't know if a Checkuser can go back that far, but Checkuser evidence isn't necessarily the only evidence needed, correct? I can point to behaviours that are identical. Collecting diffs would take a couple of hours or so. Let me know. Thanks. Malke 2010 ( talk) 15:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Is this considered to be a personal attack? PantherLeapord ( talk) 04:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Most certainly not. It is just a warning, users should beware certain editors on this site. It makes no representation regarding the user. ★ ★ Retro Lord ★★ 05:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
It's probably a PA of a kind. It's certainly a clear demonstration of a total lack of of maturity and if he wants himself to look completely silly he's welcome to keep it there because it serves more as a warning to all about his attitude than it does about mine. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Ched, could you please finish your AFD closure? The tag is still on the article; there's a process for that, but since I'm not an admin, I'm unaware of all the steps you must do to get the tag off the article and recorded in articlehistory. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
Article History}}
, you shouldn't add another, but instead add parameters to the existing one,
like this. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
21:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Ched, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, you said, "given the current tone here" and you linked "here". However, the link is circular and points right back to the case itself. Did you want to link somewhere else or just not link at all? I was going to "fix" it, but then I thought I might do something you didn't intend, so here I am. Truly a minor issue, but I like minor issues - so much less drama. :-) Hope you're well. Best.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Yo, Ched, I saw your comment on ANI and responded snarkily, of course. But now I'm thinking about it seriously, and I wonder. It seems to me that our job really is just to protect editors, and not to protect articles. I see it as being along the lines of "ANI doesn't decide content" and the like: we don't rule on content matters while wearing our admin hats. The point is that our job as admins is to protect the editors so that they can then go on to protect the articles free from disruption. Of course, the line does get blurry, particularly in the case of edit-warring and the like where both "sides" are in the wrong. And there's really not much of a difference in practice. But that's kinda the approach I take to all things admin: my job is to protect the people, so that they are then free to protect the articles. Your thoughts? Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 15:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Have attempted to start discussion here regarding page protection and being involved [4]. An eventual RfC may be useful to clarify this issue as different admins seem to have different opinions on what is and is not appropriate. Appreciate your input. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
— Ched : ? 21:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I have quickly drafted this. It is in no way definitive, but the effort is to keep it very simple and on track. You are welcome to develop this further on its talk page or tweak the draft until such times if and when a collaborative effort can be moved to RfC space. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I meant to respond but it was gone when I logged in later. I didn't want to give the impression that I was being snarky but was a little rushed and trying to gather the diffs you'd asked for & then I couldn't post them. Anyway, I don't know what the solution is to that kind of situation, but it's gone now. I'm not sure that's the right solution either once a thread has been started, but not really for me to say. Anyway, just wanted you to know. Victoria ( talk) 01:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
huh?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey Ched, regarding the Visual Editor, there are two options if you don't care for it (which I am guessing you don't). First you can go to "edit source" which edits the page the old way (no funny business involved). The second is you can just turn it off by adding importScript('User:Matma_Rex/VE_killer.js'); to User:Ched/common.js. Personally I don't mind it, and have been messing with it a bit, and I like that it is easy to move from VE to old school, but that's just me. Let me know if you need anything, you know how to get a hold of me. I had been talking to Ironholds about it, and unfortunately there is not way to turn it off via preferences as of yet. -- kelapstick( bainuu) 00:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Ched, you're the best of editors and so many admire you so. I hope you decide to stick around. You're more appreciated than you'll ever know. My best wishes for you. ceran thor 02:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey - I heard WMF hasn't stuffed that VE crap down the throats of the simple.wikipedia ... so may go over there when I get back. Anyway, I appreciate the kind words - and wish you the very best. (and thanks to anyone who fixed my own talk page back to "real" wiki editing where I get a "real" window to work in.) Cheers. — Ched : ? 11:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar | |
For always cutting through the wiki crap and telling it like it really is. We always know where Ched stands. GO CHED GO! PumpkinSky talk 23:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC) |
![]() |
Great to see you back editing again! It worries me when you leave, each time I wonder if it means the universe is unravelling or if there's just not enough pie in the world. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 19:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC) |
Hi Ched, I've done some preliminary formatting for your case request. However I need you to add any other parties to the request, and the diff of the notice you left them so they know they've been named in a case request. Also if you could add in some of the RfCs you mentioned, perhaps the big ones which didn't work (etc) and/or which relate to infoboxes as a whole rather that one specific type. If you need any help feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Regards, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 14:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, Are you certain that Gerda is German? I thought she was Austrian.-- Peter cohen ( talk) 18:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
It isn't clear to me what you want the ArbCom to do about the Infobox issue. (I am not an arbitrator, but I know that they will want to know what they are being asked to do.) I suggest that you add to your statement something on proposed remedies. The ArbCom can ban users. It does not appear that you are asking them to ban anyone. The ArbCom can topic-ban users. Do you want them to topic-ban any users from creating or discussing infoboxes? The ArbCom can impose discretionary sanctions, which would allow uninvolved administrators to intervene to resolve disputes about infoboxes. That might be reasonable. If so, I suggest that you say so. The ArbCom can impose interaction bans, which would forbid particular users from responding to other users whom they dislike. Are you asking for that? Please say what remedies you are asking. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Ched, I see that you have Ezra Pound added to your list of evidence for the infobox RfAR, [9]. I'm curious why you chose that particular page? I'd prefer a reply on my page, and forgive me in advance if I'm slow in responding - am dealing with some intermittent health problems that keep me from editing on some days. Thanks. (formerly Truthkeeper88 now Victoria ( talk) 01:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 31, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ 21 17:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
{{
adminhelp}}
... could a kind passing admin. please block me for maybe 8-10 hours? It's a preventive thing. See, I'm kinda pissed about many things on wiki - and if I actually say what I'm thinking, well, it would be a bad thing. I'm also about to indulge myself in a bit of alcohol, and I can get a bit nasty when I do that. So just to prevent me being a drain on the projects resources, I think a block would be a good thing. I'll turn the computer off now, but I know that in a bit I'd be tempted to turn it on again and make some very unkind comments. thanks, your ever present "wp:diva" - —
Ched :
?
22:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps he cannot reply, but then his talk page stalkers can. I hope this was just a little humor because, to take advantage of a block in this manner (requested or not) seems rather inappropriate.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 22:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
"I'm also about to indulge myself in a bit of alcohol, and I can get a bit nasty when I do that. ... I'll turn the computer off now, but I know that in a bit I'd be tempted to turn it on again and make some very unkind comments. thanks."I'm assuming he simply forgot to mention, or to think of, User:Chedzilla. If Ched's pissed about many things, Chedzilla's pissed, too, and if Ched indulges, Chedzilla indulges, through their shared circulation. Darwinbish may have put it in her own inimitable way (which Ched's quite used to, indeed they're good friends), but yes, I've blocked Chedzilla for ten hours. Bishonen | talk 23:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC).
Ron .. thank you for the block ... but you fucked up big time buddy. I didn't ask for my talk page to be blocked ... I didn't ask for my email to be be blocked. You fucked up buddy. Not that I don't care ... I appreciate the the thought. Let me ask ... did it somehow feel good to click on that block button? Did it in some way make you feel powerful? I know I baited someone into this. —
Ched :
?
03:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
|
just in case you need it -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 03:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC) |
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology#Review of navigational templates.
Lord Sjones23 (
talk -
contributions)
18:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
You were involved in a past discussion about this user, so you may be interested in this: WP:ANI#Request swift admin intervention to prevent further disruption to the Jesus article by User Strangesad.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 00:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I am uninvolved and know little about the situation but, as I read the discussion I feel you made a good call. These are never easy situations and many individuals will be unhappy with the result, but I want you to know I thought your decision was very much based on the strongest arguments made.
Have a cupcake.
-- (Amadscientist)
Mark
Just ask!
WER
TEA
DR/N
04:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
May I ask why my input was apparently not considered? I don't have a issue with your decision, but you listed those opposed to the unblock without listing me. GregJackP Boomer! 10:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I should have said thanks for your support sooner. ``` Buster Seven Talk 03:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
It appears that you got confused: I can't see that the latest contents of this talk page is archived anywhere.— Kww( talk) 08:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Your comments on your talkpage certainly are not of
no value
--
Rs
chen
7754
08:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Your comments on your talkpage certainly are not of
no value
--
Rs
chen
7754
08:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your many contributions to Wikipedia and best of luck in your future endeavors. NE Ent 12:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
First - thank you so much folks - your kind thoughts are dear to my heart and I appreciate them beyond belief. Granted that it is obvious that I've become increasingly frustrated with the stupidity and lack of true leadership on Wikipedia; but that is not the sole or primary reason for my actions. I chose the middle of the night on Sunday of a holiday weekend to simply delete my page and talk, thinking that it would be the quiet way out ... obviously that didn't quite work out the way I intended. While I failed miserably in my efforts on the infobox case, I do ask for forgiveness. Days after I filed, I was presented with some real life situations which I was not expecting. Now, with real life situations I must understand that my emotions were driving how I was and am thinking. I know that I'm not able to be fully objective and at times I even have difficulty being civil to some.
To be honest, I likely would not have posted anything but for the most honorable User:Bishzilla. It's likely not a secret that Chedzilla has a certain attachment to the luscious lizard. OK ... Yea ... I think the world of Bish. Anyway .... my lack of participation is not solely out of anger or frustration with the Wikipedia project. It's a self-awareness that I'm not currently able to be objective, spend the time to research all aspects of a dispute, and offer a solution that is fair to all sides. For that reason I've scrambled my admin. account and put it on a thumbdrive.
For now I just won't be able to be on the Internet (or Wiki) for 4 or 5 hours a day. If I am online, and I see a typo, I'll fix it. I will do my best to find my way back to you folks, but it may take some time. Let's not make a big deal of it, and everyone go create some great content. Best to all. (BTW - Bish has full authority to archive and manage my pages as she sees best. Others (PS, Gerda, Montanabw, Iridescent, etc.) are also free to manage things as they feel best) — Ched ZILLA 05:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding behaviour around the use of Infoboxes in several articles has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
- Pigsonthewing ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes.
- Nikkimaria ( talk · contribs) is admonished to behave with the level of professionalism expected of an administrator.
- Gerda Arendt ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from: adding or deleting infoboxes; restoring an infobox that has been deleted; or making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. They may participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction, and include infoboxes in new articles which they create.
- Gerda Arendt ( talk · contribs) is admonished for treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves.
- Smerus ( talk · contribs) is reminded to conduct himself in a civil manner.
- All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general.
- The Arbitration Committee recommends that a well-publicized community discussion be held to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article.
For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ 21 00:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
— The candles you have lit will not wane. WE cannot replace you but will do our best 'till you return.