Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:37, 22 February 2007

Archives Archive 1 (January 2005 to June 2005) Archive 2 (July 2005 to October 2005) Archive 3 (November 2005) Archive 4 (December 2005) Archive 5 (January 2006) Archive 6 (February 2006) Archive 7 (March 2006) Archive 8 (April 2006) Archive 9 (May 2006) Archive 10 (June 2006) Archive 11 (July/August 2006) Archive 12 (September 2006) Archive 13 (October 2006) Archive 14 (November 2006) Archive 15 (December 2006) Archive 16 (January 2007)

Posting

Just for your information, consensus and majority doesn't rule on Wiki. -Signaleer 19:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the circumstances. I don't disagree with you at all about majority or consensus as they aren't the only things that decide content, but the important thing for you is do what you can to work with others as well as possible. Three seperate complaints on the noticeboard on your editing patterns doesn't indicate you are trying to work well with others. I know you can do better than that and encourage you to do so.--MONGO 21:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The niggle

MONGO, you endorsed the indefblock of Cindery with reference to the four recent blocks. I'm the first to admit I haven't researched the case—no time—but I have a niggle of doubt. This is a little unusual, isn't it? I have an e-mail from the user also. If you have information which puts this indefblock out of doubt, would you mind sharing it? Best, Bishonen | talk 01:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Amusing...

(scroll to bottom, see "Look This Is Our Viewpoint") and Sounds like a Cplot strawman. --Aude (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

A very bored individual is all that person is. At least there are enough sane folks on Wiki to recognize nonsense when they see it...so he seems to be quickly reverted now whenever he posts his stuff.--MONGO 20:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Talk:FrontPageMag.com#I_strongly_object_to_this_deletion up for deletion. Travb (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like its now unprodded.--MONGO 06:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

... for the userpage revert. Appreciated! :) riana_dzasta 04:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. Best wishes.--MONGO 04:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Note of apology

I know this is probably going to do squat for my reputation now (Not that I ever really had one), but I thought I'd leave a note of apology to everyone involved in my recent actions. An explaination is in order too. First off, I had a bad real life situation, that I really don't want to talk about, on the day this all started. I shouldn't have edited on Misplaced Pages afterwards, but I did. When I saw the situation with Riana's RfA, it kind of set off a build up of unvented anger at my situation & it was un needed. My whole tyraid had very little to do with the RfA, but I guess I took it out on that angle anyway. The way I was handled could have been better, but I wont go there in threat of making this sound like a back handed apology. My apologies go to Riana, who was also having a real life crisis at the time too. Basically the whole thing was a misunderstanding & venting process which I involved you all in. In regard to the whole sock puppetry thing, I had told my brother about my problems in due trust & he went & did something stupid on here. I don't really know what else to say but sorry. If that & a little bit of hard work repairing relationships on here doesn't change your current view point of me, then I don't think anything will. So again, sorry if I've inconvenienced you guys in any way & I hope that over time you'll think better of me. I'd love if you guys could forgive & hopefully forget & I wasn't really in control of myself these past few days. Hopefully things can get back to normal. :) Spawn Man 06:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC) P.S. Although I didn't feel happy with the way others treated me at this time, I thought that despite my behaviour, were very civil & I respect you excessively...

Like I said, I would simply move on. Doug and everyone here knows you have done good work and can do more, and none that I have seen are interested in seeing you leave Misplaced Pages. Try to not take things personally and since we already know you can write great articles, make that your emphasis for now...I look forward to reading them. You don't have to apologize to me at al...I'm just trying to keep the peace and reminding you that your article writing is your forte.--MONGO 06:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Federal Clowns Editing?

Cplot would go wild with this one: Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2007-02-12/More government editing.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 22:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I always make sure my Q clearance badge is in my pocket at photo sessions for just this very reason. --Tbeatty 23:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that editor was more interested in disrution than in actually believing any of the nonsense he was posting. If I had a dollar for every corporatation that had an employee or former employee post good or bad news about their employer, I could retire. I'm not sure if the signpost article is even news worthy as it's not like this should be a surprise.--MONGO 06:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your inflamatory edit summaries don't help

Dear Mongo, here we go again? It is one thing to oppose an edit, but it is another to characterize it as an "extreme POV push". What you removed here is certainly no such thing. Consider the lead of the main article (to which a link remains): "The background history of the September 11, 2001 attacks includes US foreign policy with regard to predominantly Muslim countries and Israel in the latter part of the Cold War, the growth of radical Islamism, and prior terrorist attacks on the United States." Most of the summary I added came from this lead (again, this is standard practice). Moreover, it is also a pretty good summary of the material in the rest of the section in the 9/11 article. Though it could be improved in this regard. In the future, please explain what you think is wrong with edit, not the editor. Just out of politeness. Thanks.--Thomas Basboll 14:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I find your edit to be an extreme POV push. I think it is obvious what you goals are. Nothing you added in the above is sourced, is germaine or helpful to the article. I have repeatedly told everyone that the article needs to be more specific about the exact events of the day, not go into summaries about peripheral events that are not specific to that article. Your edits in totality are inflammatory. Do not bring another content dispute to my page again.--MONGO 14:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This (as always) is not a content dispute. It's about your completely unnecessary and counter-productive attack on my motives (now amplified). It's the sort of personal thing that has no place on the discussion pages. Policy is pretty clear on this, even where you suspect POV-pushing, it is not cool to use that as an argument for an edit. Have a nice day.--Thomas Basboll 15:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Your POV edits have no place in article content. If you want to tell me to fuck myself, then don't beat around the bush, pal....surely you know when you say "have a nice day" in the context of the disagreements we generally have, that is the slang way of saying, "Fuck you"...surely you know this. Interestingly, no one ever seems to say anything like that when confronted with my physical presence...something about my persona generally makes that a risky choice to make. I now encourage you to never post to my talk page again. I have the articles watchlisted, so I can always respond there. Thank you.--MONGO 15:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As you can see from this post, Thomas Basboll has found your above message to be very threatening and it seems like that to me too. I'm sure you appreciate that intimidation of other editors is not tolerated, so your immediate withdrawal of these remarks and assurance that you have no intention of physically or in any other way intimidating him will clear the matter up. Failing this, I will have to act on the assumption that you do unfortunately wish to cause intimidation. Thanks in advance for sorting this matter out. Tyrenius 23:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you and I have had a severe disagreement in the past, so I'll kindly ask you to go away as well. Your email to Jimbo and lies and misrepresentations made to him about me and several other editors was as cheap a shot as any done by anyone I have encountered here on Misplaced Pages.--MONGO 00:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the proper forum for discussion such matters. I see no reason for anyone to go away. Please be civil, I am sure you did not mean the give that person the impression that you were physically threatening him, but that is what happened. InBC 02:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) MONGO's remarks to me are yet another personal attack. FYI there is a report on AN/I. Tyrenius 02:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see Mongo's comment as implying a physical threat. I think it's probably best just to drop the issue before it escalates further. SlimVirgin 02:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd go with that too. Don't make a drama out of a crisis, or something. -- Heligoland 02:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with that too. If MONGO asks people to discuss these things on the article talk page, why not oblige? I see nothing that implies an intent to cause bodily harm. And I think that someone who has had a serious disagreement with MONGO in the past really ought not to be the one to "take on" this matter. Musical Linguist 02:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you're talking about me. I was rather surprised at MONGO's antagonism, because it was not my perception that whatever had happened in the past still had such a charge for him. When I realised that, I withdrew and posted on AN/I, so I don't think there is anything to worry about. Tyrenius 02:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You withdrew? Obviously I'm just imagining that I see the post directly above the reply I'm typing right now, and the one at 02:34, both posted (except that of course I'm imagining them) after MONGO asked you not to post on his talk page. Musical Linguist 03:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to be facetious. You made a comment about me. I'm replying to you. I wasn't aware that users could ban other users from their talk page arbitrarily. I withdrew from dealing directly with MONGO over this issue and posted on AN/I. That doesn't mean I am not going to comment on it. Tyrenius 04:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Since it's over and you apparently are now having a "serious dispute" with User:Musical Linguist, why not take it to her page and leave MONGO in peace as he requested? --Tbeatty 04:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. That's just stirring things up. I suggest you post on my talk page instead of here. Tyrenius 04:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tbeatty 05:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Misplaced Pages for making threats to other users; I'm specifically referring to this remark and the subsequent hostile responses to good-faith users approaching you to solve the dispute amicably. You will be able to edit again in 24 hours; I suggest you take this time to cool off and perhaps reflect upon the fact that Misplaced Pages is just a website and certainly nothing to threaten someone over. gaillimh 02:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

While certainly out of line, that bit of innunedo was not an actual threat. El_C 02:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I intend to unblock after discussing it with the blocking admin, if no one beats me to it. SlimVirgin 02:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I fully support unblocking. You can't go around blocking people for writing that "have a nice day" at the end of a post of criticism is not generally seen as a good wish, and that it is cowardly do do it if you wouldn't do it to someone's face. And for heaven's sake, why do people have to keep posting on user talk pages when it's clear they're not welcome? MONGO watches the articles. Musical Linguist 02:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"something about my persona generally makes that a risky choice to make." may not have been meant as a threat, but is certainly looks like an attempt to intimidate to me. InBC 02:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

MONGO took the "Have a Nice Day" as "Fuck You", and while that might be considered a threat, it is most likely just a colloquial expression meant to express displeasure. They are both the same. Let it go and unblock. --Tbeatty 02:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm female, and I can't imagine being intimidated by that. I wish people would give a little bit more consideration before they go putting permanent records in someone's block log. Musical Linguist 02:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

My block record is better than yours! Actually, yours sucks. It's so... plain and bland. No personality whatsoever. El_C 03:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The blocking admin seems to have gone offline, and I'd say there's a consensus here and on AN/I that the block wasn't justified, so I've unblocked. SlimVirgin 02:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Not an act I would have taken, but one I can support. InBC 02:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi! I believe that we can all see that the diction and tone that MONGO used was selected with the overt intention to intimidate Thomas Basboll. For me, that's completely inappropriate and rather confusing, as I cannot fathom acting like that to someone, especially over a website. The block was, in my opinion, quite necessary, however if another administrator wants to unblock the user and watch this dispute to ensure that it doesn't escalate further, then I'd surely be fine with someone undoing my actions (that is, I'm not concerned about a wheel-war or anything). Cheers gaillimh 03:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No, Gaillimh. I don't think "we can all see" that MONGO intended to intimidate Thomas. Several admins can't see it. What we can see is that his block log now has a permanent and indelible record of "intimidation and thinly veiled threats of violence". These kind of blocks really MUST be discussed on the admin noticeboard before they are implemented. It turns out that you didn't have support, but there's nothing that you can do to remove it from his record. Musical Linguist 03:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Good, since the record should be clear, and Mongo's actions are clear to anyone but his droogs… bah, let the bygones be bygones… still friends Mongo? You really need to control that temper, you know? And Linguist you could take a look at that Nuclear case, think that sanction imposed on him is excessively harsh, at least if we judge our standards by this act. Lovelight 03:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid to post on this talk page! :( Lovelight 03:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Mongo, I demand a clear and clean apology for this insult. And you don't know me, either you apologize or I'll whoop your ass. :P Lovelight 03:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mongo, I don't for a minute believe that you meant that comment as a physical threat, but at the same time I think Tyrenius was acting in good faith in trying to calm things down, so for the sake of peace and harmony, it might be a good idea to reassure him that no harm was intended. He can let Thomas Basboll know if you don't want to contact the latter directly. That would put an end to the whole thing, so I hope you'll consider it. Best, SlimVirgin 05:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Mongo would be comfortable dealing with me directly, so maybe if you effected the mediation, that would be best. I feel Thomas Basboll was genuinely disturbed by this, and that isn't the environment we want to create. Tyrenius 05:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Outrageous...the blocking admin is obviously nuts if he saw my comment as a real personal threat...completely nuts! Basboll and I have had more than one heated exchanges over the past year..I have told him in the past to not bring content disputes to my talkpage..especially accusatory ones in which he tells me in finality to have a nice day...which in the context it was given, certainly was a "fuck you" for all basic purposes. Tyrenius is contacted by Basboll since he knows that Tyrenius and I had a major disagreement not so terribly long ago...hence, Tyrenius might be likely to respond to do his bidding for him. Tyrenius emailed Jimbo Wales and misrepresented that myself and several other editors were violating BLP...discussion here. Now I see what is certainly a comment by Lovelight that he'll whoop my ass above, yet nothing is done about this....excuse me while once aghin ponder why I should try and add on to my 28,000 edits, my 270+ stubs and articles I have created and my ongoing efforts to minimize conspiracy theory nonsese in our articles when I have a libellous block log sitting in front of me.--MONGO 06:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

My blocklog still wins! Seriously though, MONGO, you need to exercize better restraint. That is, after all, in your best interests. Regards, El_C 06:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Your block log is ridiculous but now I am apparently a violent person...that's nuts! Anyone know who this blocking admin is...prior username that is. If it's supposed to be a secret then, no big deal...but if there is a conflict of interest here...Anyone care to tell LOvelight to not troll here anymore...and block him for making an actual threat of physcial violence against me...surely everyone must see it!!!!! My personal safety is in jeopardy!!!!--MONGO 06:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I totally reject your characterisation of me above. I don't regard it as a major disagreement. I thought we ended up with an agreement which clarified BLP for the betterment of the project, and has been enforced since. I certainly don't "do people's bidding". I make my own judgement. I did not misrepresent you and kept you fully informed. There was nothing hidden. I said a particular user was violating BLP, not you. You did not come in for any particular censure, so I really don't see what the fuss is about. You seem to be hyper-sensitive about this short-lived event that happened 5 months ago, yet not allowing Basboll any similar sensitivity. It cuts both ways. In case you hadn't noticed, and no one else seems to have mentioned it, Lovelight put a smiley after his remark, thus obviously indicating it was to be taken as a joke. Now I would be very pleased to let these matters drop, and depart from your user page, if you refrain from posting further about me on it. Thanks. Tyrenius 01:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I just like everything up front, not in hidden email messages to the "boss". If you think that under the circumstances that further, even obviously joking comments such as Lovelight made were welcome, you are mistaken. However, I am also obviously kidding about the block and was trying to find the humor in why I was blocked for my obviously (tongue sticking out fingers, wiggling from my ears) comment that Basboll wouldn't make the same snide comment to me if he was in my presense. That I am also being overtly facetious that Lovelight needs to be blocked for his "threat" seems to have slipped by you...but the point should be obvious...blocking Lovelight would be as ridiculous as was the block I had...especially considering the now forever embedded "intimidation and veiled threats" rationale.--MONGO 06:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I've sussed it, and there is no obvious COI that I can find. I don't know why he went private, but at the time he had no outstanding RFARs or RFCs and in his last 500 user talk edits had no interaction with you or Basboll. Thatcher131 20:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Slim's quick unblocking makes it clear he had little consensus for the action...others might disagree. I can see I guess why some might see what I said as being rude, but an overt physical threat or intimidation...I can't imagine how it could be construed as that.--MONGO 21:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, and assuming I've followed the bread crumbs to the right gingerbread house, he's a relatively new admin and his block of you is his first block (under either account) of an established editor (not an obvious vandal, username vio, or IP address). I'd call it a newbie mistake. Thatcher131 21:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a done deal...I suppose I'll just not respond to anymore provocativeness and hope the new admin will exercise more restraint in his block reasoning entries.--MONGO 21:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If by ridiculous you mean totally awesome, then yase! Anyway, a moderate tone serves as a shield from hyperbole. If there is someone whom you wish to refrain from editing your talk page, I can help you with that. El_C 06:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As for threats to your physical safety, I quote "no one ever seems to say anything like that when confronted with physical presence" :) --Tbeatty 06:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No...Lovelight could be anywhere....my safety is in jeopardy! Help, Help...I'm being threatened with physical violence...won't anybody help me????--MONGO 07:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I tlied. Which isn't to say that I tried... El_C 07:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No, your efforts are appreciated...but hey, if my comment is to be construed by anyone as a physical threat or intimidation, then Lovelights comment that he is going to Whoop my ass is certainly more egregious than what I stated. He indicates he is going to do something...I never once did this.--MONGO 07:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I know. :) I'm offering my help for what it's worth. El_C 07:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it's cool...I really don't care about Lovelight...I was simply showing the absurdity of the situation...I get blocked for a "veiled threat"...sound familiar eh? I think I need a sanity pill...either I'm going insane or something else is amiss.--MONGO 07:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I wish the admins were this quick in blocking FAAFA. That guy doesn't edit anything without taking a personal shot at someone, either in the edit summary, or in the edit. He gets a finger wagged at him, then he goes right out and keeps on doing it. - Crockspot 18:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sanity is overrated. You need (other kinds of) free drugs! El_C 07:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, MONGO, I gave Basboll some advice on dispute resolution, but I haven't looked at anyone's edits and it wasn't a judgment on anyone. Just generic "try the usual avenues" stuff. — coelacan talk — 18:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm just sort of perplexed that anyone would find my comment to have been a threat.--MONGO 20:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi, MONGO, I just wanted to thank you for your support on my RfA, which was successful with a final tally of 61/0/2. I'm glad you felt I could be trusted not to abuse the tools; I hope my conduct as an administrator will justify your thoughts. If you have any comments about my use of the tools I would be glad to hear from you on my talk page. Thanks again! Heimstern Läufer 06:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Good...best wishes.--MONGO 06:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked again

Edits such as this one should be considered more carefully in the future.

brenneman 07:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I deserve it...me bad MONGO again!--MONGO 11:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

It's been a week since my recent request for adminship passed, and since I haven't managed to delete the Main Page - yet - I figure it's safe to send these out. Thanks a lot for participating in my RfA; I hope to do a good job. If you see me doing something wrong, need help, or just want to have a chat, please don't hesitate to drop by :) – riana_dzasta 07:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

An apple turnover from Ann

Hi, MONGO. I've been meaning to give you an apple turnover for some time. I know that a lot of people leave when things start getting unpleasant, and while I'd never want to put pressure on anyone to stay if it just meant more and more stress, I'm always sorry to see a redlinked userpage from someone I respect, or a "This user has left Misplaced Pages" notice.

So, here's one of my apple turnovers for you. It will keep you going if you get hungry during one of your blocks. By the way, do you think I should block Bishzilla? She's certainly guilty of "intimidation", and I'm not even sure I could say that her "threats of violence" are "thinly veiled"; they're not veiled at all! Musical Linguist 13:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)