| Revision as of 22:24, 26 October 2006 editRyanFreisling (talk | contribs)8,808 edits →I just read your factual article at ''that site'': Could you also ask them not to solicit for MONGO's 'Power Word - RL' real name? That would go a long way.← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:45, 26 October 2006 edit undoSchmuckyTheCat (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers23,934 edits →I just read your factual article at ''that site''Next edit → | ||
| Line 160: | Line 160: | ||
| ::Could you also ask them not to solicit for MONGO's 'Power Word - RL' real name? That would go a long way. -- ] ] 22:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | ::Could you also ask them not to solicit for MONGO's 'Power Word - RL' real name? That would go a long way. -- ] ] 22:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :::No, because in a previous edit war over the ED page (maybe before Mongo was an admin, even) Misplaced Pages protected the ED page while it linked to several attack pages on ED people - including names, names of work superiors, real life phone numbers, and work e-mail addresses. Those that tried to remove that information (me) were blocked. Misplaced Pages set the rules on that one by stating (by action) that attacking ED admins and revealing their info was fair game. So on ED, which does have a "No Real Names" policy for sites like LiveJournal, Misplaced Pages admins (any of them) are open to real life exposure. | |||
| :::I don't set or make the policy. That's what it is, and that's the story behind it. Don't kill the messenger. ] 23:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | == ] == | ||
Revision as of 23:45, 26 October 2006
My RFA!
|
MONGO, thank you so much for your support for my RfA. I passed with a vote tally of 61/0/1. I am honored that the consensus was to allow me the added privilege of the admin mop. I appreciate your support on my RFA! --plange 23:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC) | 
|
You're welcome
I just believe there is no place for harrassment here or anywhere else. And thanks for the offer. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Straight to the point
Are you open to this? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- No, not really...I think it is best you do your thing and I do mine and we both try to avoid each other and that should be a lot easier now that the ED article and the drama based arbcom nonsense is over.--MONGO 20:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Considering how things went down, if I thought "try to avoid each other" was a viable option, I wouldn't have brought this up. I'm frankly concerned about a lot of the implication that have been levied on me, and I'd like to think that, in the future, we'd be able to work together on something if need be without some cloud hanging over the past situations. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Much to say, but in an effort to be civil, I'll refrain and inform you that I think you and I should create distance.--MONGO 21:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, that might not work, especially since you seem to be holding something back now, which you haven't hesitated to in other areas where the implications were much more damaging. It's why I think some sort of neutral party might be a good thing --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, I repeat my comment bascially...go do your thing and let me do mine. You edit a lot of the policy related pages and I don't, so that makes it easier. If we bump into each other somewhere, I'll deliberately avoid responding to anything you have to say in an effort to create space.--MONGO 21:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Okay then. What about the rest of it? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- The rest of what?--MONGO 21:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Part of the problem that persists is some of the frankly untrue things you've said about me. If I've done the same to you, I'd like to know about it, but to "create distance" is meaningless with the amount of stuff that's been tossed about here. Part of the reason GTB brought up the idea and that I'm for it is based around that - that obviously, things have been said, and it doesn't appear there's an obvious resolution. Is there? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment made by me are based on my opinions, some evidence and the finding by arbcom that you critcized my efforts to defeat harassment. So what are you up to now? I'm telling you to create space, I am trying to create space, yet you don't think that is viable...so what's your plan? You can file an Rfc or do whatever you want, but my advice is that we create space and you move your way and let me go mine.--MONGO 21:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand what your comments are based on. I don't know what evidence your basing it on, though, and I'm not sure what your constant citing of the finding is supposed to do here. What am I up to now? i'm trying to clear this up is what I'm trying to do, and the implication that i'm somehow up to something or worse doesn't clear anything up and doesn't create space. I'm perfectly fine if I never have to encounter you again, but it would actually accomplish something if this whole thing got cleared up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- I have an opinion on you Jeff, and I am entitled to it...so rather than do anything about it, I would prefer to create space.--MONGO 21:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Very well. We'll see what happens, then. I'm actually a much mroe reaosnable person than you're giving me credit for, so perhaps keep that in mind if you decide to come around at some point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- I have an opinion on you Jeff, and I am entitled to it...so rather than do anything about it, I would prefer to create space.--MONGO 21:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand what your comments are based on. I don't know what evidence your basing it on, though, and I'm not sure what your constant citing of the finding is supposed to do here. What am I up to now? i'm trying to clear this up is what I'm trying to do, and the implication that i'm somehow up to something or worse doesn't clear anything up and doesn't create space. I'm perfectly fine if I never have to encounter you again, but it would actually accomplish something if this whole thing got cleared up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment made by me are based on my opinions, some evidence and the finding by arbcom that you critcized my efforts to defeat harassment. So what are you up to now? I'm telling you to create space, I am trying to create space, yet you don't think that is viable...so what's your plan? You can file an Rfc or do whatever you want, but my advice is that we create space and you move your way and let me go mine.--MONGO 21:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Part of the problem that persists is some of the frankly untrue things you've said about me. If I've done the same to you, I'd like to know about it, but to "create distance" is meaningless with the amount of stuff that's been tossed about here. Part of the reason GTB brought up the idea and that I'm for it is based around that - that obviously, things have been said, and it doesn't appear there's an obvious resolution. Is there? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- The rest of what?--MONGO 21:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Okay then. What about the rest of it? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, I repeat my comment bascially...go do your thing and let me do mine. You edit a lot of the policy related pages and I don't, so that makes it easier. If we bump into each other somewhere, I'll deliberately avoid responding to anything you have to say in an effort to create space.--MONGO 21:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, that might not work, especially since you seem to be holding something back now, which you haven't hesitated to in other areas where the implications were much more damaging. It's why I think some sort of neutral party might be a good thing --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Much to say, but in an effort to be civil, I'll refrain and inform you that I think you and I should create distance.--MONGO 21:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Considering how things went down, if I thought "try to avoid each other" was a viable option, I wouldn't have brought this up. I'm frankly concerned about a lot of the implication that have been levied on me, and I'd like to think that, in the future, we'd be able to work together on something if need be without some cloud hanging over the past situations. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Re: Edit summary and other issues
moved to User talk:Georgewilliamherbert for continuity
Please restore article: crackwhore
I noticed that you speedy deleted the vocabulary stub crackwhore. Though I am not the creator of that page, I feel it is a relatively famous slang terminology whose notablilty is at least equal to that of crackhead. This is was a serious page and should not fall into the category of speedy deletion. If you feel this page should be deleted I think it should be AfD. Thanks Valoem 00:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- I think you want Wiktionary, not wikipedia. Alternatively, you could add crackwhore to crackhead and fill out the stub. But see WP:NOT for why it doesn't beling. crackhead is marginal as well. See also crack whore. --Tbeatty 01:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- That's understandable, I would assume that crackhead should be moved to wiktionary as well. It was just that his reason for deleting was confusing because he wrote: "nonsense article with no references and no purpose", which was not the case for that article. Valoem 01:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yep...nonsense article with no references and no purpose sounds about right.--MONGO 03:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)\
- That's understandable, I would assume that crackhead should be moved to wiktionary as well. It was just that his reason for deleting was confusing because he wrote: "nonsense article with no references and no purpose", which was not the case for that article. Valoem 01:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Explain, what did the article say? You need to view an older version you are possibly viewing a vandalized version of the article. Valoem 04:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- There were two edits after your last one to the article and I viewed the history. There were no references at all and the article is just a slang term. If you can find references from reliable sources then the article perhaps can be replaced, but as mentioned above, it's better off in wiktionary but then again, it's justa slang term. I'm not going to undelete it.--MONGO 04:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- There are several sources, however because it is a slang term I am going to assume Urbandictionary is an appropriate source Google definition, Urbandictionary definition, A short humor film that references crack whore as a slang term. However, now that Tbeatty has shown me the article drugs and prostitution, the crackwhore article is not needed. I was just pointing out that it was not a nonsense article. Cheers :) Valoem 04:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- There were two edits after your last one to the article and I viewed the history. There were no references at all and the article is just a slang term. If you can find references from reliable sources then the article perhaps can be replaced, but as mentioned above, it's better off in wiktionary but then again, it's justa slang term. I'm not going to undelete it.--MONGO 04:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Explain, what did the article say? You need to view an older version you are possibly viewing a vandalized version of the article. Valoem 04:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
For you
Someone needs PIE
|
Administrative Pie Slice | |
| Pie for your recent popularity.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC) |
Post on Ar.wiki
Hi .. some anonymous user has sent this in ar.wiki :
On english wikipedia the administrator mongo is a muslim hater "How about getting al-Zarqawi's Momma, stripping her, and throwing her in a pig pen with starved boars (ala Hannibal Lecter 2nd movie)? Film, of course, sent to Al Jazzera. We need to get medieval on these scum." http://mongomutter.blogspot.com/2004/09/one-down.html
"Everything I ever needed to know about Islam I learned on 9/11." http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5650/571/320/lesson_learned.jpg
followers-of-islam-can-you-see-blood
picture of the koran with a swastika on it: http://mongomutter.blogspot.com/2005/07/calling-londonistan-its-time-to-wake.html
Is this the kind of anti-islamic BIGOT you want representing wikipedia? someone who advocates stripping an old woman of her clothes and throwing her to pigs?
the kind of vitriolic hate mongo dishes out is disgusting and you people defend him and stand up for him.
I removed it from there .. please don't let such things afect your jop in wikipedia . --Chaos 11:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, we had the same stuff posted here by some little mama's boy yesterday...for the record, I have no blog and whoever that person is that has that blog apparently lives in St. Louis, while I am 500 miles from there in Omaha, Nebraska.--MONGO 12:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- I've felt that something is wrong with it .. don't worry --Chaos 14:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jeff Rense (2nd nomination)
Hi Mongo, sparkhead (talk · contribs) has placed a note on the top of this afd, above the nom, which i believe is an attempt to stack the vote. The afd title clearly points out that it is a 2nd nomination, but the Sparkhead has put the note abv my nom to point out that i was the person who nominated it last time and for the same reasons. Is this neccesary or appropriate? Shouldn't the comment be made below the nom? I don't feel like reverting it again and getting into an edit war over an afd nom, so let me know what you think. I feel that the attempt is completely malicious and not neccesary. Thanks --Strothra 14:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- It is not at all abnormal to mention previous afd debates, though it is unnecessary to mention who has nominated it previously in most cases, unless there is obvious evidence of someone renominating articles for deletion just to violate WP:POINT of some other malicious reason.--MONGO 19:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- If you read Strothra's talk page here, you'll see we came to a mutual agreement regarding my addition as worded before you decided to edit it. Also note that Strothra himself is now using the fact that he was the previous nominator as a reason for a reevaluation. While it may be unnecessary to mention the previous nominator, I don't believe that warrants removal of the information after the two parties involved stated agreement on the text as it was. *Sparkhead 19:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Regradless, it was mentioned in your rationale for deletion and it definitely appears to be a violation of WP:CIVIL to insinuate that the Afd nomination is done maliciously by mentioning who nominated it previously. I am an administrator and that is how I see it. Don't disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a WP:POINT.--MONGO 19:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- There was no disruption, and the only party who might have felt slighted by possible incivility was fine with the text after he and I talked a bit. There was no insinuation of maliciousness. *Sparkhead 23:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Regradless, it was mentioned in your rationale for deletion and it definitely appears to be a violation of WP:CIVIL to insinuate that the Afd nomination is done maliciously by mentioning who nominated it previously. I am an administrator and that is how I see it. Don't disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a WP:POINT.--MONGO 19:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- If you read Strothra's talk page here, you'll see we came to a mutual agreement regarding my addition as worded before you decided to edit it. Also note that Strothra himself is now using the fact that he was the previous nominator as a reason for a reevaluation. While it may be unnecessary to mention the previous nominator, I don't believe that warrants removal of the information after the two parties involved stated agreement on the text as it was. *Sparkhead 19:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Some unsolicited advice
Hello MONGO, I know we've had a rocky relationship during my short stay, but I hope you'll read and consider this. I understand you've been under attack while you've been here. I completely understand and have experienced first hand how awful Wikipedians can be. Personally I'm choosing to leave the project after my short stay, having delved through the archives extensively and seen what goes on here. I'm quite convinced this is neither a positive place nor a serious project. You seem to think otherwise.
My advice to you is to not get caught up in the little things. It might be rough, frustrating and antagonizing to deal with what is thrown at you, but you can make a difference, you just have to show a positive attitude. Looking through your contributions I know you used to do this. I would encourage you to try again. If anyone can make this place better, it is people like you.
My best wishes. Good luck. Urek 15:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Joegoodfriend
I'm not sure if he somehow got through your block, or if it is just some wigginess with the timestamps, but he reverted Larry Craig a sixth time. But thanks, I was just compiling a 3RR complaint, you saved me some time. Crockspot 20:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- The block log shows he is blocked, I didn't revert him after his last edit or after i had blocked him.--MONGO 20:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
User talk:Smeelgova
You were right, I should not have granted the user request to delete their own talk page. I went back one edit and it looked pretty innocuous. I should have gone back two edits, which showed a long and contentious talk page including an 8 hr block. My mistake, sorry. I've restored the history. NawlinWiki 22:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
User:NBGPWS
Hello, in response to your recent block, Luna-San and I were wondering if you used IRC. I am not fully aware of what the hell's going on here, but I think there's plenty more to this than just a user violating 3RR and being uncivil. I would like to discuss this further, but not on Misplaced Pages. Regards, Tuxide 05:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- I never use IRC. If another admin overturns my block, which is the seventh time this editor has been blocked by seven different admins in the last 2 months, then they have shouldn't be an administrator.--MONGO 05:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- I can't imagine any admin contesting your block; however, I am convinced that the actions of all involved parties should be considered. Enough that this should've been brought up on WP:RFC instead of WP:PAIN. Tuxide 05:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- No RFC is needed...I imagine a post to AN/I would suffice...how come you are interested might be an interesting thing to know as well. Again, 7 blocks by 7 different admins in two months=problem editor.--MONGO 05:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Concerning yesterday's block, GabrielF asked on IRC if 3RR applied to user subpages. My IRC log has such a line from yesterday:
- No RFC is needed...I imagine a post to AN/I would suffice...how come you are interested might be an interesting thing to know as well. Again, 7 blocks by 7 different admins in two months=problem editor.--MONGO 05:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- I can't imagine any admin contesting your block; however, I am convinced that the actions of all involved parties should be considered. Enough that this should've been brought up on WP:RFC instead of WP:PAIN. Tuxide 05:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
GabrielF: Luna - its not a huge deal, he's brushing up against 3RR anyway but I wanted to get a sense of policy
- It is obvious that there are two parties here that just don't like getting along with each other. Although I don't know absolutely everything, I am concerned that there are users here who are just using AN/3RR, etc. as a way to make themselves feel superior, and to get away with violating WP:DICK in general. Luna-San probably knows more about this than I do, and I might just watch this a while longer. Tuxide 05:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Forgot to mention the 3RR rationale. Tuxide 05:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, and no sooner did that 3RR block expire and he went right back to being incivil, which is the reason he was blocked previously as well. 3RR always applies ubnless reverting vandalism or removing unsourced negative commentary on biographies. My block is based on incivility and on the fact that this editor has been repeatedly blocked...what more is there to say.--MONGO 05:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't intend on gainsaying that decision in your capacity as an admin, but that user has already experienced several day and two day-long blocks-as well as one block that ran a week-and returned to his behavior immediately upon their expiration.
- A month long ban is harsh, but considering that user's history-especially in light of the repeated attempts he's been given to moderate his behavior-it does seem fair and equitable. Ruthfulbarbarity 19:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- I reduced his block and he should be unblocked in a day and a half from now. There is a method to my madness.--MONGO 20:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- A month long ban is harsh, but considering that user's history-especially in light of the repeated attempts he's been given to moderate his behavior-it does seem fair and equitable. Ruthfulbarbarity 19:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Blu Aardvark sockpuppets caught
You may want to look at this Raul654 17:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Wow....unbelieveable. Good job!--MONGO 19:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I just read your factual article at that site
Dude. Glock 22. And for those Park Ranger functions, Casull .454 --Tbeatty 06:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Nah...I'll just get this thing running again...
What a joke...factual...that blog isn't even mine. I live in Omaha, not St Louis as the owner of that blog claims as his residence. Sure are a lot of jealous little mamas boys out there.--MONGO 07:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- FWIW, I see your denial here of that blog. I don't go near your article there but I will raise the issue on the ED admins list. Any "facts" gleened from the blog are obviously bogus - assuming the maintainers trust you denial. SchmuckyTheCat 22:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Could you also ask them not to solicit for MONGO's 'Power Word - RL' real name? That would go a long way. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- No, because in a previous edit war over the ED page (maybe before Mongo was an admin, even) Misplaced Pages protected the ED page while it linked to several attack pages on ED people - including names, names of work superiors, real life phone numbers, and work e-mail addresses. Those that tried to remove that information (me) were blocked. Misplaced Pages set the rules on that one by stating (by action) that attacking ED admins and revealing their info was fair game. So on ED, which does have a "No Real Names" policy for sites like LiveJournal, Misplaced Pages admins (any of them) are open to real life exposure.
- I don't set or make the policy. That's what it is, and that's the story behind it. Don't kill the messenger. SchmuckyTheCat 23:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Could you also ask them not to solicit for MONGO's 'Power Word - RL' real name? That would go a long way. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Protected area
The transclusion argument isn't really relevant as the change doesn't impose additional server load (if so you'd have just doubled that load with your revert). Coordinates at the top of articles are useful, the provide a unified location and people won't have to look all over the place for them. Plus it makes the article ready for User:Dschwen/WikiMiniAtlas... --Dschwen 12:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but that infobox was created for use with the Protected areas articles and the coordinates are already in the infobox...we had this discussion over at the project level and it was unanimous to not add them to the links...maybe created a new infobox for the thing you're dealing with might help?--MONGO 12:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Revert wars on Dawkins
hi Mongo. A little clique of Richard Dawkins acolytes have been rapidly deleting the references I have added to the page about Bertrand Russell, Ernst Haekel, Bob May and Dennis Noble. I don't muck like facts being surpessed so I have re-added them. I then got a message apparently from an Administrator threatening me with being blocked, but it was in fact from Sparkhead. Can you advise/help? Many thanks NBeale 19:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)