Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:32, 22 October 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)

What is going on here? The page I had to twice create was deleted. How does one communicate with these wildly deletive administrators? How do you know I do not have permission to use the text? Did you contact me? No. You just went ahead and deleted hours worth of work. I am no lonegr interested in Misplaced Pages. Hours of work deleted out of pure ignorance! Shame on you. Show yourself!

Sorry, wildly new at this. How do I go about convincing you of Anne Poore's notability? What if there are reasons her name should be recognized (especially in connection with Chester Olszewski) but there is nowhere on the web where one can find her other than a few French and Spanish Catholic websites? Just wanted an English language resource to list her. I was working on a more detailed article that would maybe explain her notability - should I shelve it, or, what - run it by you??— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewgabrielrose (talk • contribs)

If I restore it, in it's current condition, it will probably be deleted again due to failure to meet the standards for WP:BIO. Link me to a Spanish website and I'll try and translate it and see if it can be better verified. There may be an article on her at the Spanish version of Misplaced Pages.--MONGO 18:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I found this French site - http://perso.dromadaire.com/vivi_labine/statue.html, and this bit in Spanish - http://www.editorialbitacora.com/bitacora/galeria/fenomenos05/feno03.htm. I'm a monoglot, so out of luck as far as translating these.--andrewgabrielrose 12:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Neither website is very satisfying as far as a reliable sources goes. The Spanish one is very brief. Is there anything in print...in a published book?--MONGO 16:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Southeast Polk

Hi, I would just like to ask what your reason for deleting the image was on the Southeast Polk District page. I checked and it is allowed to be on the page.WatashiNoAiken 23:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It had no fair use assertation--MONGO 03:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

To clear things up, I have writen permission to use any images and information located on the Southeast Polk District website.WatashiNoAiken 02:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts on something

I put something together that you might be interested in: User:Junglecat/RfA Thoughts. I saw what happened to "Mr oppose-fails my criteria". I should have confronted him myself. Someone did a similar thing by leaving a "blank" oppose on a great candid’s RfA, and I among others didn’t like it. I got reprimanded a while back for my comments I left on someone’s talk page about it. Any hoot, feel free to edit the page and add to it. It is unfinished and needs more thoughts/ideas. I know it is POV of wiki policy, but I think quite a few would agree. I think the RfA process needs a new "guide". JungleCat talk/contrib 19:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of these things and I agree with most of what you have to say on the matter. My policy on Rfa's is that I usually don't vote unless I am familiar with the nominee or I see a potential problem. My own Rfa was very contentious, and it's interesting since I never personally solicited to become an admin. I was pleased that some of those that opposed changed their minds during the week. If I see an Rfa that ha s apile-on of opposition, I never add my name to that column since I see no reason to add insult to injury. Changing the Rfa process is something that will be very hard to achieve as numerous attempts to do so have met with only minor alterations. I do think that it is important to be civil as much as possible there and respect that, especially with newer editors, it's best to simply and politely explain to them that their experience is not yet up to par.--MONGO 19:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

True, I need to add that, and need tweak the language on the page a bit. I don’t want someone to think I was a revolutionary or something like that. Thanks for taking a look. JungleCat talk/contrib 19:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, best thing is to simply make comments at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship and see what kind of feedback you get...just don't expect any sweeping changes. Let me know what else I can do for you.--MONGO 20:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding "bold" redirecting of article to avoid AfD

Hi MONGO, I was wondering if you could take a look at something. On October 5, Calton nominated Sophie McLean for AfD. Smeelgova then redirected the page, apparently intact, to Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous. Just being WP:BOLD? Well, I don't know. She didn't move the {{afd}} tag, so now everyone's still arguing over Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sophie McLean (and you really ought to look at that AfD; almost all the votes are from SPAs), even though it's now a redirect with no {{afd}} tag, and Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous is also sitting there with no {{afd}} tag. Combine that Smeelgova's extremely intense involvement in continuous editing of a whole bunch of related articles (along with pitch-perfect Wikilawyering skills), and I have to say I think something's very wrong here. Can you look and see if process is up to snuff on this AfD? (I should point out that there appears to be a major orchestrated campaign, by two different groups of people, to screw around with all articles have much of anything to do with Werner Erhard, Landmark Education or EST. One side seems to want to delete them all, the other wants to create a walled garden of as many Erhardt-worshipping (and Erhardt-enemy-basing) articles they can get away with. I don't know anything about what started all this, but I do know I suspect serious bad faith all over the place and a lot of articles (and editors) that need serious attention from some admins. What should I do? Can you poke around? Should I post to AN/I? Or what? Thanks, --Aaron 20:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Smeelgova (talk · contribs) and Sm1969 (talk · contribs) are either the same person or both intent on promoting that series of articles...WP:SPAM. If there is evidence of an effort to evade 3RR, a request for checkuser may be a good idea. I'll comment that the Afd has been redirected, and that doesn't appear to be a problem. I will need you to figure out which side is content on the deletion of the articles and see if they are a rival enterprise. I can't see any reason why your comments above can't be transcluded to AN/I (mine can stay here).--MONGO 20:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the two I mentioned above are actually edit warring, but I saw comments that indicated there is a lot of edit warring and possible 3RR infractions on various articles.--MONGO 20:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to figure it all out later tonight and report back. There's at least five different people involved, and they all seem to be edit warring over the same few articles, some for more than a year if I recall correctly. --Aaron 20:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Lot's of promotional issues going on here...notice how this is akin to editors who solely edit to POV push conspiracy theory stuff, and have little other direction, only in this case, it's even more obtuse. I'll be offline for some time also.--MONGO 21:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Stor stark7

I invite you to join the discussion on Nazi Germany regarding recent edits by someone who appears to see a lot of good in Nazi Germany, and a lot of bad in the U.S. and their Allies.--Cberlet 12:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeech...that should be interesting.--MONGO 19:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you accept my text suggestion at Talk:Nazi_Germany#When_the_frontlines_reached_Germany_several_million_rapes_took_place?--Stor stark7 13:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

test5 warning

Sorry, typo (meant test4). But I AM guilty of repeatedly forgetting to subst... Cheers. Pascal.Tesson 13:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Got off on the wrong foot

Since we got off on the wrong foot, I wanted to go ahead and extend my apologies if you misinterpreted my intentions or were offended. I hope we can continue on in the spirit of friendship.

Best Wishes, Urek 01:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yet more user page

Hi. I was wondering if you could cast a second pair of eyes over User:WhisperToMe and see if you think I am being ridiculously picky about the 9/11 joke the user has there. I find it distasteful to make a joke like that about an event where 4000 people died; the editor is refusing (so far) to take it down. Be grateful if you have the time to take a look. Thanks. --Guinnog 06:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot foe your trouble, MONGO. --Guinnog 07:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem...it seems a bit distasteful and I can't see what it does to help the project overall.--MONGO 07:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Favor?

I have requested speedy deletion of Image:Foley-ad.jpg as a copywritten image failing criteria 2 of WP's fair use policy (must not be used for purpose other than original use). It is being discussed on Talk:Mark Foley scandal as being fair use, and not POV because it "exposes hypocricy", which only bolsters that it fails criteria 2. I have removed the image from the page, but would like to see the image deleted asap. Can you do that for me? Crockspot 17:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Strange Close & Re-List

The Afd that you voted on at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/James W. Walter has been closed and relisted by an Admin at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/James W. Walter (second nomination). Before re-listing, the vote was 19 delete, 5 keep. Morton devonshire 22:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

tinywords.com

On 30 September 2006, you did s speedy delete of Tinywords.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) deletion log. As the article's main author, I may be biased, but I thought that the article clearly established the significance of the website and its mailing list. Although I don't think the article mentioned it (mainly because I hadn't gathered the statistics to verify it), tinywords.com is the largest circulation haiku publication in the world (probably by a factor of ten over the next closest publication). Will you please undelete it (or do I need to go through Misplaced Pages:Deletion review)? 06:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I restored it...try to make improvements as possible to make it more notable.--MONGO 06:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I've now done a bunch of copyediting that I hope makes clear the importance of the subject of the article. I also moved it from tinywords.com to tinywords to emphasize that it is a publication and not just a website. I hope that those changes are sufficient to prevent any speedy deletions (as well as any WP:PRODing). 12:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Old Friend

When did you turn to the dark side? Agriculture 06:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I have always been on the dark side...it's my nature...back for good? Let me know if I can be of any help.--MONGO 06:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No I meant when did you join the cabal. I'm touring ATM, don't know if I'm staying back. This place looks more or less like the festering pit I left. Trolls galore, rogue admins, and vandals out the wazoo. Agriculture 07:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a "member" of any group and find myself juggling a lot of fine lines. I see most of the longtime editors as contributory, and regardless if I agree or disagree with their POV, I have no problem with them if they follow NPOV. I don't see many rogue admins, just people trying to do what they can help the project. Yes, there are lots of trolls and vandals though.--MONGO 07:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Looked to me like that piece of work Tony Sidaway is still around and still throwing his weight like it was no tomorrow, without consensus whenever possible. Agriculture 07:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, he decided to resign his adminship. I know others have had complaints about him, but I have no problem with his work and in fact have supported it most of the time. His recent dealings with some other editors are also editors I hold in high regard.--MONGO 07:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

When did he resign? Still looks like he is practicing... Agriculture 07:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It's been at least a week ago now. Seriously, I see him as doing what he thinks is right for the encyclopedia...many may disagree with that...again, those that have had "difficulty" recently with Tony are all, generally speaking, tremendous assests to the project. If you want to come back and edit, I welcome it...just try and let the past be in the past...the place can always use good help...just don't vapor lock on us.--MONGO 07:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible WP:BLP violation at Lori Klausutis

You may want to take a look at Lori Klausutis. The subject is 100% nn (and not likely to get any more n as she's 100% dead), but a lot of people are getting off on the fact that she assumed room temperature while in Joe Scarborough's Florida district office. The fact that Scarborough was in Washington at the time this happened, and that the autopsy showed zero foul play or reason to suspect it, doesn't seem to matter to a lot of editors; it's dirt against an enemy, and they like that. The article itself reads like a day-old newspaper article and says absolutely nothing worthy of WP:N; it quite obviously exists purely as an anti-Scarborough hit piece ... a perfectly wikilawyered hit piece on Scarborough, I must admit, but a hit piece nonetheless. Anyway, it's up for AfD, but the discussion has quickly degenerated into the usual factionalizing (i.e. the usual suspects want it kept at all costs), so it's certain to close as a "no consensus" unless someone goes in there and actually rules up or down on the WP:BLP and WP:N issues. Care to be that someone? *grin* Seriously, I'd rather it get closed as a full-blown "keep" as long as it meant an admin directly addressing the issues at hand; otherwise this is just going to keep coming up for AfD every couple of months from now until the end of time. So if you have a few minutes and feel like annoying some people... Thanks, --Aaron 23:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

A complicated matter...on the one hand, we have articles that provide the evidence as can be recorded from reliable witnesses. On the other hand, this is an event that now seems to have lost it's lifespan of notability as it is a passing affair, no offense to the poor soul who expired in such a sad fashion.--MONGO 03:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Red Deer

You mean like this? Image:RedDeerCaithness.jpg

That's a fascinating bit of info; I mean to read up on it. We have a lot in certain areas of Scotland and we just call them Red Deer. I think they are increasing numbers here. There are also Roe Deer and Fallow Deer; the latter are almost as small as dogs. I took the photo on holiday in Caithness last year. Best wishes, --Guinnog 08:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I chipped in. You are very welcome to use my picture if you think it adds to the article. Best, --Guinnog 08:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating, thanks for sharing. The debate about gorillas and chimpanzees also comes to mind. Did you ever read Steve Jones' book Almost Like A Whale? It goes into detail on the subject we are discussing. I added my pic to the article. --Guinnog 09:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Can't say I have read that one. Thanks for the image. Here is more on the matter of species and I'll check out that book you mentioned.--MONGO 09:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. I found out it went under the title The Origin of Species Updated in the U.S. market. Jones follows the structure of Charles Darwin's original masterpiece in light of new knowledge about genetics. It's amazing how much of Darwin's original material still holds up; it seems he was an inspired guesser like many scientists. --Guinnog 09:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, many thought Steven Jay Gould was trying to alter Darwin's theories, but Gould clearly stated that all he was trying to do was provide clarification.--MONGO 09:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Your ref harvard comments

Hi MONGO,

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I replied to them, placing my reply on my talk page as well...

Cheers,

--Ling.Nut 13:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it normal for this

person to patrol and edit/delete comments from Jimbo's talk page?--Tbeatty 20:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

He restored my comment. Is he Jimbo's admin or something? --Tbeatty 20:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge...is he even an admin?...I'll check--MONGO 21:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Can you say something to this user, User:Luci Sandor, regarding his comments? He was talking to User:ExplorerCDT, in what I would call an unacceptable tone. I asked him nicely to be careful in what tone he responds to other users and he reponded by saying Like I care. Please also report it to my posterior. Be careful, I just created three new accounts and I will just avoid those two aforementioned universities. Or, better, because I have a job and a girlfriend, I will consider doing it later and I'll leave you focused on my edits. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 23:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it continues to be this way, then I would suggest taking it to AN/I.--MONGO 04:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you very much for your support in my RfA, which passed on October 17, 2006 with a tally of 53/6/0. I am equally elated and humbled by my new capacity as administrator of Misplaced Pages, and I send my heartfelt thanks for your unflinching support. If you need me for anything, just ask me! With gratitude, physicq (c) 02:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

why are you screwing with me?

What is your motivation behind censoring the truth I've stated?

You didn't have time to read what I was writing, so you deleted with extreme prejudice, i.e., censorship.

It's not my credibility that is at stake here, it's WikiPedia's.

Why don't you calm down and read what people are writing before you fly off the handle and censor everybody. Confirm the facts first, do your research, or you're going to earn a reputation less than competent. --CyberSongs 06:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not here for organizations to use it as a promotional source.--MONGO 06:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I speedy tagged the new articles. They seem to be gone. I am going to go see who did it but don't want to stuff beans up my nose by asking how to check. --Tbeatty 06:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You can search for deleted articles here--MONGO 06:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I found it. I knew it was a deletion log and I could get to it from the AfD page. Just didn't want to give anyone ammo. Cheers. --Tbeatty 06:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ziteng

Why did you delete the Ziteng article? I wasn't the creator, but I think it's notable enough. It definitely wasn't vandalism. Consider restoring? - SpLoT 06:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No need to restore. I have the content in my clipboard. Do you think I should recreate? - SpLoT 06:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It fails notability and may be considered to be advertising anyway.--MONGO 06:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

My administratorship candidacy succeeded with a final tally of 81/0/1. I appreciate your early support. Results are at Misplaced Pages:Recently_created_admins#Durova. Warmly, Durova 21:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

New Project

I noticed you added the new project to the alphabetical list, and thank you for the information. Your project will hopefully be sent a copy of the partially corrected directory of projects in a day or so, with the hope that you can add your project to whichever groupings you think are appropriate. Good luck with the project, and I hope that this time I actually get within a week or two of my expectations. Badbilltucker 21:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Red Deer

Thanks for the note! I've added some thoughts - MPF 01:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the ref - I'd say if anything, it actually makes page sorting easier, since it quite clearly splits them into three species, Red Deer (C. elaphus), Wapiti/American Elk (presumably C. canadensis as that is likely an earlier published name than C. sibericus or any of the other east Asian taxa - need to check publication dates but that's easy), and Tarim Deer (presumably C. bactrianus). I'd even say we have to split the current Red Deer page, as keeping a broad circumscription of C. elaphus leaves it paraphyletic with respect to C. nippon (Sika Deer); their evidence for this is strong (the other option would be to lump Sika Deer into Red - not an attractive proposition). Fortunately, virtually all the sci names will have been published at species rank at some time in the past, so putting them as species on the basis of this ref wouldn't break WP:NOR. Then sorting out subspecies within each of the three species can be left to a later date when more info becomes available (cc. this to Talk:Red Deer). - MPF 21:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit count tool

Hey there. Did this tool for edit count link go dead or get moved? I cannot get it to work anymore. Or do you use a different one? Later - JungleCat talk/contrib 05:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't worked for me either lately...Essjay, the person who wrote the program, has been away from the project for some time now. Try at Misplaced Pages:Edit count.--MONGO 05:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check Wed. Gotta get some rest... JungleCat talk/contrib 05:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Howdy

Hey MONGO,

Just stopping by to let you know I'm back, although in a decidely less intense capacity than before. You seem to be at it as hard as ever.

Cheers, —Doug Bell  17:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed you had made some edits...good to see you're still around, and I look forward to your latest excellent work. I also chimed in in defense of ref:harv and am not sure why some folks seem so interested in getting rid of it...personally I like it a lot, but admit I have only used it on one article.--MONGO 18:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Mis?identification of K

Is the evidence by which that determination was made privileged? I (and, it seems, several other people) equated the two on the basis of writing style some time ago, and the behavior post-blocking tended to reinforce that, IMO. I'm curious — I'd be quite mortified, and quite surprised, to find I'd helped pile on an innocent New Hampshirian. (If you need to reach me, the easily found address works.) Choess 00:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I was informed via email that People Powered is not a Karmafist sock, but is a New Hampshire resident involved in the political apparatus of the state. That is all I was told via email.--MONGO 04:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFA/Cynical

Thank you for contributing to my RFA. Unfortunately it failed (final tally 26/17/3). As a result of the concerns raised in my RFA, I intend to undergo coaching, get involved in the welcoming committee and try to further improve the quality of my contributions to AFD and RFA. All the best. Cynical 14:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MONGO

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

PrivateEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)and Rootology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are banned indefinitely from Misplaced Pages. No action is taken against MONGO for any excessive zeal he has displayed. Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Misplaced Pages as may material imported from it. Users who insert links to Encyclopædia Dramatica or who copy material from it here may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. Care should be taken to warn naive users before blocking. Strong penalties may be applied to those linking to or importing material which harasses other users.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 02:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Jaakko Sivonen again

Hi Mongo,

Since you were the one to block this guy last time, I'm writing you... Since he got unblocked, he's still revert warrying (see for instance Finnish people or Vyborg (castle) ) resuming the same reverts and inserting the same highly POV/inflammatory content.

Could you take another look into it and issue him another warning or another appropriate measure?

Thanks in advance, -- Grafikm 12:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: Btw, I saw that the Arb case was finally closed. Congrats for making it, I always thought you've done the right thing... :)

Re:9/11 articles

Sorry for letting things get out of hand. It's just that I lose my temper when conspiracy theorists use Misplaced Pages as a propaganda tool to spread theories that every established source has rejected. I won't lose my cool in future. Thanks again. Cerebral Warrior 15:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you and in fact, I find most of the comments by many that are POV pushing such crap are either trying to be provocative or are simply ignorant. In the case of the latter, our job is to ensure they become educated and in the case of the former, if they persist in disruption, then they end up getting blocked.--MONGO 15:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I had the image speedied

02:15, October 20, 2006 FloNight (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:" (Arb case closed)

Hope you don't mind. --Tbeatty 17:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for that...you beat me to it...thanks much.--MONGO 20:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

For offering your opinion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination). The article was deleted. "The quality of mercy is not strain'd . . . It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice." ~ Wm. Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act IV Scene 1. Morton devonshire 22:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What is going on?

For some reason I'm unable to use the search function (the quickbar) when I'm logged in. For instance I'd put down "User:MONGO" below "find" in the quickbar and all I get is another search bar as if the page did not exist. Am I the only one having these problems? When I log out and search for articles this problem doesn't occur.--Jersey Devil 23:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, it appears to be working for me now (that was weird). Also would you know what is up with the "edit" link being to the left of a header? Is that something new?--Jersey Devil 23:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a restart may be needed...shut your system down and restart it and that may correct the buttons from shifting around...and then again, it may be the wiki servers lagging again.--MONGO 05:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It was happening to me, too. I think it was a server problem. Walter Siegmund (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, the buttons at the top of the page on Commons always shift around for me...maybe user error on my part!--MONGO 10:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I can no longer be bothered, but...

You might find this useful if you want to remove the offending links. I have removed a couple of dozen, but I will not attempt to remove any futher due to some opposition regarding this that I met on IRC - it is not such a big deal for me and I don't want to wage wars over it.--Konst.able 07:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

this ED admin has been reverting my removal several times, he knows very well about the arbcom case. Again, this is too frustrating for me to jump in any futher than I have myself, I will not keep reverting, nor block him over just inserting a link to his userspace. But as this is obviously an important issue for you I thought I'd let you know.--Konst.able 08:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate the effort and see that you asked for clarification at arbcom. I never use IRC and everyone who does should know that the logs there can come back to haunt them. I can't see what sense it makes to remove all the links to that website, especially from arbitration pages and old afd's, but I can't imagine what good it does us to make a beter encyclopedia when folks link to that website on their user or talk pages or start going around spamming folks for harassment purposes...of course we can't offend the pencil neck geeks that bother to edit a website that embraces bigotry. If folks at IRC want to challenge the arbcom ruling, they probably won't be editing this wiki very long. Best to keep out of it...they have tried for some time to get me to abandon wiki, like good little trolls, but it hasn't worked.--MONGO 08:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

ED purging

Mongo-- are you sure you should be deleting every possible link you can find to ED? I certainly can understand how we might want to delete links in the article space that in some way depend upon such an unreliable source. But I was confused by your deletion of a link on the semi-humor page Misplaced Pages:Embrace weasel words. Now I see you're removing links from user talk pages and even a user-page? Surely an absolute ban on linking to ED, ever, isn't called for.

I don't know the intricacies of the ED dispute, and its seems like its authors lack taste-- but based on general principle , how can we say "you cannot ever cite this particular speaker, no matter what they say, no matter what purpose the link"? It just seems like anyone-- even the KKK or a neo-nazi or even ED, has a voice in some instances, and I'm hesistant to see an outright ban on mentioning them.

I certainly don't object to you removing links in cases where you find an article which inappropriately cites ED. But I would strongly encourage you to please, don't try to conduct a wikipedia-wide purge or any and all links to ED-- or to any other site for that matter. --Alecmconroy 09:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Read the arbcom ruling...carefully...and also read my comments in the section immediately above this one.--MONGO 09:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

What exactly about that ruling am I supposed to be reading carefully? I see that they can be removed-- but do you really think this sort of wholesale deletion is warranted? I mean-- in the case above a guy is just talking about other websites he edits-- what is the harm in letting him link to it? --Alecmconroy 09:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well, I don't think I can explain it any better than the ruling does...it is concise and to the point. That is the ruling by arbcom...if you don't like the ruling, go complain to them about it.--MONGO 09:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

But all you do is show that you might be within your legal rights to removes such links, and that there probably is nothing anyone can do to stop you. It's still a "may be removed" rather than a "must be removed"-- so obviously there is some discretion in the matter. What is to be gained by deleting a link on a user page? If he wants to say he belongs to a stupid site-- let him, ya know? OR take the weasel words page. I don't know who added the ED link originally-- it wasn't me, but it seemed like it made a useful, humorous point that helped people understand what the problem with weasel words was. Is there something about that page that you find inappropriate and irrelevant? Or it is simply that you have some huge on-going dispute with the people who host it. (I haven't read all about what that disputes about, but obviously it sounds like they've been real jerks to you.

That said-- if there's something wrong with the link itelf, I can totally understand why you'd remove it. It wasn't particular integral, but a lot of peopel seemed to find it enlightening. On the other hand, if you removed the link just because you're mad at the people who host the site-- why penalize all of wikipedia by deleting the links? You're just cutting off our noses to spite our face.

--Alecmconroy 10:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Read the ruling. I haven't removed all the links, and clearly stated above that I probably wouldn't. The user you mentioned above had the link first removed by another editor, he replaced it, the first editor removed it again, he then replaced it, so I removed it...if you are here to defend that website, you will lose. I strongly recommend you find something more useful to do with your time...now.--MONGO 10:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I can tell you've had a rough time of things-- please try to keep in mind though-- i haven't done anything to you, so please, don't be quite so... imperative. You keep saying read the ruling, which makes me think i'm missing something in it, but looking it over, I can't see what. Obviously, it's an irreputable site and obviously, we shouldn't be trusting it as the basis for our articles. but what is to be gained in deleting it from the non-article spaces? If someone wants to proclaim, on their user page, they belong to the ku klux klan, and want to link ot the main site-- what is to be gained by deleting that link? It doesn't stop the person from being a racist. It doesn't stop other people from learning about the existence of the Ku Klux Klan. It just makes trouble. --Alecmconroy 10:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The ruling was made by the elected persons that voted on the case. If you disagree with the ruling, then you need to discuss the matter with them. I can't imagine how linking to the KKK on one's userpages would be congruent with the collegate efforts of this endeavour. See what can I not have on my userpage and Jimbo Wales comments which surely would not allow a link to a bigoted website that is sponsored by the KKK.--MONGO 10:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not that the ruling flatly wrong, because it seems to acknowledge discretion ("may" not "must), and I just wonder what is it you feel we're gaining by limiting ourselves, for example, in a way that prevents people from reading that "some argue" link that so many people like. It just seems like it's a dangerous policy to start saying "No links to ___". Where will it end?

It seems like this has been pretty thoroughally litigated, and your probably well within your rights to insist that the "some argue" link be removed. But I would ask you to consider withdrawing that insistence, if the only basis for it is a dispute with the web host of that article. Alternatively, if there's something in the article itself that you actually find to be harassment against you or otherwise objectionable, I of couse would understand that. --Alecmconroy 10:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I think I will abide by the arbcom ruling...how about you?--MONGO 11:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you might want to note the arbcom ruling in the ED article to prevent further discussion. Not why I'm here though... *Sparkhead 11:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well-- this brings up an interesting point-- do you believe the ArbCom ruling compells you to remove those links? Or merely that it allows you to in cases where that link is controversial. I had assumed it was the latter, but do you think it's the former? --Alecmconroy 11:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sparkhead has lost me on that comment...and as far as if I feel compelled...well, I never feel compelled, I make zero to edit this website, so all I am doing is enforcing the ruling. If folks don't like the ruling, they can go complain at arbcom. I think you have failed to read what I stated in the previous section...and since I removed less than 20 links to ED out of a potential of more than 200 links, it is hardly fair to assume I am on some ED purging spree.--MONGO 11:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Was that the ruling I should be reading? I'd only been reading the Mongo ruling-- I figured there was some reason Mongo kept re-iterating that I should consult the ruling. I apologize if I'm being dumb as a proverbial post, have been missing the fuller discussion behind all this. What ruling is Spark refering to? I don't see one entitled Encyclopedia Dramatica in the Arbcom archive.

I think we misunderstood each other on compelled. I wasn't trying to imply you felt "compelled" in the sense of "deeply emotionally driven". I just mean-- do you think the ruling requires the removal of any and all links to ED? (even you don't personally do all the deleting). Or alteratively, do you think the ruling only allows the removal of links in cases where the linked-to material is problematic or otherwise inappropriate? --Alecmconroy 11:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• MONGO, Let me clarify. The ED article is deleted and protected. Since you're likely to get further questions about it, you might want to put a note on the ED page (or talk) to save you the further discussion of people coming here and asking why you've deleted links. I'm agreeing with you here. *Sparkhead 11:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Alecmconroy, I'm only referring to the Arbcom MONGO ruling, which states ED links may be deleted, no other ruling. It doesn't require removal, nor does it require explanation for removal. *Sparkhead 11:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I sorted through the list of where ED was linked and removed most, but not all, of the ones I saw as unhelpful to Misplaced Pages. I might remove more and I might not...I can, and anyone can remove them all since the arbcom ruling states that links may be removed. Without going through some long wikilaywering, I imagine that the term "may" inplies that everyone has authorization to do so and they also have the right to not do so...but obviously it should be apparent that adding the link to that website is a blockable offense if done repeatedly or by those that should know better due to familiarity to the case as in the user we discussed a few comments ago.--MONGO 11:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can see had a hard time of things with the ED people, so I understand your frustration with them. But look at it from my point of view-- I wrote an essay and included a link in that essay I thought would be helpful. Now I'm being told that I'm not allowed to use that link. I'm not allowed to re-insert it. It won't even do any good to build consensus to re-insert it. And not, as I understand it because of anything that's wrong with what I actually linked to-- rather because some larger dispute you are having with the people who run the servers who host the article? You gotta admit, that puts me in a very frustrating position to be in.

If someone had said "Hey, Alec-- that link isn't a very good one, it doesn't help your essay, or it's somehow bad", I'd understand, and I wouldn't really give it a second thought. But if I understand things-- it doesn't matter how good or bad the link is-- all the matters is whose server it sits on. And that would frustrate anyone who spends time working on any project-- to have people striking text not because the deletion improves the work, but merely because of some other dispute that doesn't have anything to do with the article in question.

I would ask that you reinstate the link, or at least tell me why you think the essay is better without the link. IF you can't or won't-- well-- there doesn't really seem to be anything I can do to stop you from deleting it anyway. But unless you think _I'm_ one of a sockpuppet of one of you enemies-- why delete it just to spite me-- even if you can, legally? and even if I can't stop you. If it's a bad link and if it doesn't help to illustrate the problems with weasel words- fine. If they change the content to introduce harrassment against you into that article, then I'll delete the link myself. But don't just tell me it's a good link, but that I still can't link to it, "just because you can". --Alecmconroy 12:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Look...I'll make it simple for you: You reinsert that link, since you are aware that arbcom has made it clear I can and anyone can remove it, I will block you from editing for 24 hours. If you do it twice, I will block you for 48 hours...three times and I'll make it a week...and after that, it will be for good. I hope you understand...I hope this isn't too frustrating for you. NOW GET THE HELL OFF MY PAGE ABOUT THAT GODDAMN WEBSITE. I hope that answers your questiopn...post here again, and you'll be blocked for harassment.--MONGO 13:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Lori Klausutis Protection

I posted a question at Talk:Lori_Klausutis I'd like you to address. I'm not looking for an argument with non-admins on the merits of the (deleted) article. It's purely a procedural question, having to do with transparency of the administration process. If there's something procedural beyond the last AfD that details the actions (like there clearly is in the ED case) I'd like to see them referenced. Thanks. *Sparkhead 11:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I was heavily involved in Klausutis and I have never seen MONGO edit either Klausutis or Scarborough. Considering the number of people who participated in the AfD including Jimbo and Fred Bauder, to claim that they wouldn't be able to salt the article is ridiculous.--Tbeatty 14:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly.--MONGO 14:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The policy involves more than just editing, also involves commenting on the article in question. That's neither here nor there however. Read what I wrote over there very carefully. I didn't claim he couldn't salt the article, I claimed his actions seemed inconsistent with the policies I had reviewed, and was looking for other applicable policies to back his action, which he provided. *Sparkhead 14:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Geologic Trolling

You know this well already - but bear in mind that the M.O. of trolls who wish other editors ill, wanting them to quit WP, or to erode their credibility is to peck, little by little, over seemingly geologic time spans until the many-thousand stings of the swarm drive you over a cliff. Keep breathing deeply, and focusing on content, and you'll be ok. Take care. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, of course...that;s is the master plan...and when they repeatedly ask the same question, hoping to get a rise out of someone who is patient enough to NOT simply block them outright for disruption, they always run off to AN or AN/I and cry "waaaahhhhhh...MONGO was mean to me....". Next time, I won't waste anytime and simply remove their comments fro my talk page. The link to the arbcom case is all that is needed.--MONGO 14:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

For each person who trolls there are a hundred who appreciate you. Keep your head up. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)