Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:10, 15 November 2006

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)

Need your help

Since you were the user who welcomed me here, I was wondering if you could provide me some assisstance? The trouble is that some users find the content on my userpage "offensive" and have been pressuring me to censor it, despite the fact that I have posted a disclaimer on the page to the effect that my views do not reflect those of Misplaced Pages. I have no problems with agreeing to their demands, but the problem is that, as I have pointed out, other users are allowed to have much more offensive content (such as "This user is anti-American", "This user believes George Bush is a neo-Fascist", "This user supports the Nazis", "Who are you calling an illegal immigrant pilgrim") on their userpages. My repeated protests againt being singled out in this manner have fallen on deaf ears. Would you please have a look at the AN discussion and share your thoughts with me? Thanks. Cerebral Warrior 10:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please comment (the Cerebral Warrior issue)

User_talk:Cerebral_Warrior#A_Proposal_by_crazyeddie crazyeddie 15:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for your support during my recent RfA. Your vote of confidence is especially meaningful since I have been a fan of your work since joining the project. If you need another admin hand at working with various articles of Nat'l Forest, Parks, etc. or just need a pair of fresh eyes to review an article, do not hesitate to ask. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 16:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Dysgenics‎

I wonder if you'd be kind enough to put Dysgenics on your watchlist, please? I tagged it noncompliant and listed some of my concerns on its talk page. However, other editors have tagged it npov, and that tag has been removed at least twice. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Should the article be protected until the issues are resolved?--MONGO 06:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to say. So far, at least one editor seems willing to talk. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

So...

I saw Blazing Saddles for the first time a day or so ago. Anomo 21:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty average these days, but the jokes then were deliberately tailored to mock racism and well, Mongo was, for his brief few minutes in the picture, one of the highlights. I met Alex Karras, the former NFL player who played the part of Mongo in that film. He's actually shorter than I am, but a lot wider.--MONGO 22:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Until I put it in a few minutes ago, Alex Karras had no picture of him. Anomo 22:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Blazing Saddles is on the short list of movies that had scenes I laughed so hard at that I almost hurt myself. The movie as a whole might be pretty average, but a few of these scenes were hilarious—like where Mongo knocks out the horse. —Doug Bell  22:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Good job on the image Anomo...if it was free use, I'd tack it on my userpage...thanks. And the part in the movie I like the most is where the entire town is terrified of this Mongo character and the new sheriff asks Gene Wilder who Mongo is and Gene replies something like "Mongo is more of a what, than a who.--MONGO 22:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Elk

What's going on here? No discussion in advance? Can you explain your intentions, and let's work together to make it make sense. See Talk:Elk. Gnusmas 08:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and clarification. But please see my further comments on Talk:Elk and Talk:Red Deer. I'm quite happy to discuss it. I disagree that the clear primary meaning of "elk" is C. canadensis. I also think you have slipped up in not discussing this move with elk people as well as red deer people! I really do think that Elk should be the disambig page, not a page devoted to one interpretation of the word. But don't worry - I'm not going to get involved in an edit war. I believe in discussing things with all interested parties before making such changes. Gnusmas 08:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being so responsive - and apologies for the tone of some of my earlier contributions to the debate! I am delighted with the end result. Yes, the name of the new article is a bit cumbersome, but it is at least crystal-clear and unambiguous, and I think even the least mammal-literate wikipedia user will now understand what an "elk" is in all its shades of meaning - I think there was a serious danger of confusion the way you were heading. Incidentally, the photo of an Elk (or should I say "Elk"?) at Elk (Cervus canadensis) is so utterly unlike a European Red Deer that it seems "obvious" ;-) that it's a different species! Gnusmas 09:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Please consider looking at my editor review

I'd love some feedback from you if you can spare the time. If you choose not to participate, thanks too. BusterD 02:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Peer review needed

Aside from working on 9/11 articles, I am working on criminology topics which is an area that Misplaced Pages sorely lacks. Last weekend, I discovered there was no article on "Gun violence", so started one. Most of the research literature pertains to the United States, so the article has become Gun violence in the United States. Obviously, people have strong POV on this topic, and I'm perhaps entering a minefield here. To try and rise above politics, I have only included the highest quality reliable sources (most are from peer reviewed, scholarly journals). Personally, I really don't have a POV on this. The article basically presents the current state of research on this topic, and I think is close to featured status (if POV pushing can be kept out of the article). Nonetheless, someone has already come along and place a neutrality tag on the article. I could really use some peer review on the article, at this point. Do you at all agree with the person who placed the neutrality tag? Do you have any suggestions on improving the article or making it more NPOV? are there aspects of the topic that are missing? Any help would be appreciated. --Aude (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a complicated issue...I'll take a look.--MONGO 06:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

(copied from my talk page) Thanks everyone. Although some of the opposition was dissapointing, I was also really encouraged by the constructive criticism, particularly the very engaged and positive give and take you gave me, MONGO. I can't recall seeing such a constructive or engaged oppose to a RFA in the last year; it gave both of us a chance to revisit some conflict in a much more positive light, and I certainly learned something both about how I was seen and came across, and hopefully it helped clarify in your mind where I'd been coming from. It would have been so easy for you to just oppose and walk away; you didn't, and that was a real class act. I pinged Lar about doing something on enwiki along the lines of the meatball wiki "Defend each other" and I'd like to invite you to discuss it. I am certainly not ultimately discouraged; I got supports from a lot of people I respect a lot, and some I didn't think would support me. I learned a lot from the opposes and they give me some stuff to work on as it were. I'll send out the usual cute thank yous when my bandwidth allows, but I wanted to make sure I did something more personal first for some of the particularly valuable participants in the discussion. Again, thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 09:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't be discouraged. Being an admin doesn't make you "part of the team" or "better" than anyone else. Give it a few months and try again. I am always open to any criticism one might have and never expect editors to back me up no matter what. Le tme know what you come up with on the meatball thing, but I don't think we need a guideline or certainly not a policy on this. Maybe you're just too nice? Maybe it is a natural inclination for you to protect what may on the surface appear to be the underdog? Regardless, I know you have the project's improvement at the forefront of your desires and that's the most important thing.--MONGO 12:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking guideline or policy on "Defend each other", but it would make a good essay. It's just a good idea... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 19:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

A question about dysgenics

Hello Mongo. I noticed you seem to be on some sort of crusade against dysgenics, both in the eponym article and in others which refer to the term. I also seem to understand it stems from your feeling that dysgenics is more of a pseudoscience than anything else. On this, we totally agree. However, the term is still used here and there, and removing it from every article in the encyclopedia that carries it doesn't seem to me like the best solution. Rephrasing references to it by saying people use this term to describe some sort of revers eugenic effect without implying in any way shape or form that it is a legitimate science would, IMHO be a much better way. The way I look at it, I agree it's a pseudoscience, but as a concept (that somehow, selection conditions favor what is perceived as a weakening of the gene pool) is a legitimate concept, if not legitimate science: who is to tell that proper evolution has to go one way (e.g. humans always increasing in intelligence) rather than the opposite way? I don't think we can be the judges of where evolution should lead. However, this does not change the fact that some people think they can. Well, I'll stop from miring myself any deeper in philosophical considerations, but I'd urge you to reconsider your campaign to remove the word "dysgenics" from the encyclopedia. As I tried to explain, I feel there are better ways to address the problem. Please feel free to drop me a note if you wish. Good day!--Ramdrake 14:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Warning for your recent vandalism of pages containing the term dysgenics

(PA removed)... --Zero g 15:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Content disputes are not simple vandalism. Please make use of the dispute resolution process, instead. Luna Santin 21:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Inclusion of a "blatant vandal" warning (or any warning) on MONGO's talk page is not an appropriate way to address your concern about usage of a disputed term. At least two highly respected administrators have already removed it. I am not an admin but I agree with them that this is not a proper use of the warning template. The title of this thread, though I haven't changed it, is also uncivil. I strongly suggest that if you are going to pursue this issue you do so in an entirely different fashion. Newyorkbrad 21:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine, after re-reading the vandalism page, I gladly concede the point. Sorry if I misinterpreted the exact meaning of vandalism. I apologize to all concerned for the trouble I caused, but I would like to stress to User Mongo to please re-read the comment in the section immediately preceding this one. I truly believe these edits were misguided. I am open to discussion.--Ramdrake 21:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a better understanding about what is and what isn't vandalism will help you ensure you don't make a further editing error which may cost you your rights to further editing opportunities. I'll discuss my changes on the talk page at dysgenics, but my time right now is limited.--MONGO 21:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC

I opened an RfC regarding Fairness And Accuracy For All, it is located at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Fairness And Accuracy For All and would appreciate you comments if you have any. This message is being posted to anyone's talk page who it seems has had much contact with the user in question. --NuclearZer0 22:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Fakir005

As the blocking admin, I thought you should know about this apparent retraction of his legal threats . There has been a related conversation at WP:AN here. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yellostone

Please dont save bad edits like this one you altered the picture sizes in and it caused them to clip the text (in the geology section). Oversized picture settings causes photos to cascade. I managed to fix it in my previous edit but for some reason you decided to revert it.

The article is already cluttered enough and it's partially due to over sized pictures. (yeah, I know every wants their prized shot to stand out) If people want a better view they can click to enlarge each photograph.

• Camperstrike, with all due respect, you're messing up a featured article and you're the one making the mess...if this keeps up, I'll be forced to protect the page from editing.--MONGO 19:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

My RfA done I hope to wield my mop well (Her name is Vera) I appreciate The support you have shown me (I hope I don't suck) Anyway, I just wanted to drop you a line (damn, haikus are hard)

Sorry to hear that you had a similar run-in with DreamGuy as I did... on the plus side, I think a lot of wind has been taken out of his sails. Oh well, I've got better things to think about than some jerk. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

a few rs suggestions

Started thinking about reliable sources. Here's a few thoughts on academic sources, since it's what I know.

I think the most practical approach is to have a consensus checklist of criteria which satisfy a (rebutable) presumption of reliability. Things not on the checklist are not to be deemed automatically unreliable, but rather subject to debate and consensus. Here are some suggestions for such a checklist.

ISI listed journals. These are all peer-reviewed. If it's not on the ISI list, it's probably not really credible. Australian universities, for example, don't receive credit for production of non-ISI journal articles.

Books by university publishing houses. These are generally carefully reviewed, as the University reputation is on the line. Major universities are fairly obvious reliable sources. Full membership in Association of American University Presses should be a sufficient indicator of scholarly credibility. There are probably similar university press associations internationally.

Books by serious academic publishers, for example: Springer + Kluwer, Blackwell, Academic Press, Elsevier, Prentice Hall, Palgrave + MacMillan, Wiley, Horizon. The unifying theme of such publishers is that they have a focus on scholarly work, and thus a reputation to lose for publishing bunk. These could be given as examples, though an exhaustive list is probably not possible. A test for fringe academic houses would be if their books, as a whole, are widely carried by university libraries.

It would be tempting to allow individual non-fiction works if carried by several major university libraries. However, I think that's unsatisfactory, because universities may carry books because of notability, controversy, or interest rather than reliability. For example "Unfit for Command", absolutely riddled with falsehoods, is undoubtedly in most major libraries. Derex 08:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Derex...I will look these over in the next day or so...I hope we can figure out a way to get RS to be policy, but lately have been very busy with many matters. I will do a better job of contributing to discussions there this coming week. This isn't going to be an easy task...but if we can reach some kind of agreement with all parties, I think it will be a real benefit to the wiki.--MONGO 08:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

btw, , . alone, no big deal, but you know as well as i what the context is. you can bet plenty of emails were already enabled. Derex 05:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh now, don't be jealous just because I have friends. I'll be your friend too if your feeling Left out in the cold. MD

At this point...I'm hoping that blogs and private websites that are under the editorial control of only a few or one webmaster can be better regulated. As far as published books, I doubt much can be done to determine what is and what isn't to be used as a reference base...but of course, in articles that deal with science, I think we could be more specific as to what constitutes a reliable source.--MONGO 08:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that blogs is an easy case. They are simply not reliable, nor are private websites. They should only be cited for facts about themselves. Now, lots of news organizations ABC, MSNBC, WashPost, are starting "blogs". I think that's a different matter as "blog" is just a buzz-word for them, and the credibility of the news organization is on the line. Depends on whether it's a news- or an opinion-focused blog.

An interesting example is the Killian documents case. It is an important part of the story that a blog started the investigation. However, most of the detailed 'evidence' in that article came off blog posts, lots & lots of it. The situation was that way for a year till I started looking into. Virtually all the claims didn't hold up to scrutiny. Now, I don't doubt that the documents were forged, but that was a real lesson in using blogs as sources because most of it was just flat false. Basically, if that stuff had posted directly to Misplaced Pages it would have been blatant OR, but some random person posting it on a blog first somehow made it OK.

The harder part comes when dealing with media groups like Gannon's Talon news, CNS, CapitolHillBlue, or The Guardian which have histories of some dubious reporting, though they are superficially legitimate. I don't yet have a clear idea how to handle these. Derex 02:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

IN the last examples you mentioned, I think, since they have not always been reliable, then maybe what we demand in these examples will be a secondary source that is as least if not more reliable than they are...more mainstream overall. This isn't going to be an easy task, but I think if policy can be written so it reduces the ambiguity as to what does and what does not constitute a RS, we'll at least be trying to establish higher standards.--MONGO 04:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello!

Just dropping by to say hello. Sorry I didn't call first. :) – ClockworkSoul 07:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What's up...I've been a bit slowed lately in my editing, but turning the corner and going to get back to my land management articles and glacier articles as well. I see you're still kicking around and that's good to see.--MONGO 07:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've been keeping busy with various Wiki and real life projects. I've been acting as the coordinator for the Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject lately, and that's been enough to fill up most of my wiki-time. – ClockworkSoul 20:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Dalbury's RfA

My RfA passed with a tally of 71/1/0. Thank you very much for your support. I hope that my performance as an admin will not disappoint you. Please let me know if you see me doing anything inappropriate. -- Donald Albury 03:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Shiny new buttons

Two weeks ago I couldn't even spell administratur and now I are one (in no small part thanks to your support). Now that I checked out those new buttons I realize that I can unleash mutant monsters on unsuspecting articles or summon batteries of laser guns in their defense. The move button has now acquired special powers, and there's even a feature to roll back time. With such awesome new powers at my fingertips I will try to tread lightly to avoid causing irreversible damage and getting into any wheel wars. Thanks again and let me know whenever I can be of use. ~ trialsanderrors 06:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)