Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:56, 30 October 2006

R.J. Grey

you betcha alex john

haha wow thats quite the thing, youd think for sure hed get expelled huh. those crazy preteens, always starting fires! boy, i'm old. i guess its been like 6-7 years since i went to rj grey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhwilliams (talk • contribs)

Request for feedback on Acton, MA article

I have done some extensive work on this article over the last month and would appreciate feedback on it. I would like this article to be a 'recommended article' for Wikiproject Massachusetts. Please put feedback on the Acton talk page so others can comment, too. Thank-you.

--LWV Roadrunner 12:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

atheism wikiproject

HI Alexjohnc3, I nabbed this nifty info box from the Digimon wikiproject, we could turn it into a good tool. Right now it has digimon stuff on it, but that can give us ideas, and help us out. Heres the template: ]. If you could tell as many people as possible, that would be great. Perhaps we could replace the existing one at some point. Somerset219 08:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Grigori Perelman

Someone keeps removing the link I added a the BBC news story, but this and other recent stories state quite clearly that Perelman has indeed declined the award, so I am trying to remove the fact flag. ---CH 23:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica

Hi, I've noticed your dissatisfaction with the way the Encyclopedia Dramatica article was deleted, so I thought I'd let you know something I recently discovered. I was surprised to see that of the four AfDs and two DRVs concerning ED, there is never any mention of this article which was published in the British Sunday Magazine The Observer or this posting at the well known blog Kotaku. Both of these sources are generally considered reliable, and both are indexed by Google News and LexisNexis. That neither of these was ever mentioned by anyone in any of the reams of discussion generated by this controversy, I find amazing. Although I personally have not made up my mind as to whether the article merits inclusion, I thought it only fair to notify you of what appears to be a major oversight in the deletion process. Thank you, and please feel free to contact me here or on my talk page. --Nscheffey 03:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Curious

Can you explain why you edited the userpage of User:Ronin.shinta, , , , , , , and his talkpage? , ...I suppose he is your friend as you calim in that last diff. But it seem odd to say the least..., . and after the kind of personal attacks I see coming from him , , I am hoping he is just your friend, and not simply another account of yours. It also seems odd that you showed up on my talkpage and then he did. Misplaced Pages is not a playground so be careful. Also, I'm done talking about Encyclopedia Dramatica...so I don't want to hear another word about it on my talk page, thanks.--MONGO 04:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, friends or not, remember that Misplaced Pages isn't a playground. I doubt that I could make you understand why the ED article was deleted, though I think I made myself clear. Have a good day at school.--MONGO 10:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The article wasn't verifiable, and that is policy. I told you I didn't want to hear about that website again on my talk page.--MONGO 19:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Last warning...you mention that website again on my talk page and I will block you.--MONGO 19:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you unable to read? The article wasn't verifiable...move on.--MONGO 19:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Ask User:Nandesuka, who closed out the deletion on the article...maybe he will provided the evidence you claim I can't. There isn't anything else I can add so, best to ask elsewhere.--MONGO 19:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Stop bullying Alexjohnc3. He is my friend, and I will defend him whenever it is needed. Misplaced Pages regulations are not tools for you to harass people with opinions different from yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronin.shinta (talk • contribs)

This was a discussion between MONGO and I. You don't have to do anything, but thanks I guess. --AlexJohnc3 21:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed conversation

In case anyone wanted to find my messesages, they can be located here. MONGO removed it as "trolling" right before he archived his talk page. --AlexJohnc3 23:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

re: Encyclopedia Dramatica question

Hi.

I'm not sure how you found me, in your quest to determine the truth about the ED article, but I hope I can tell you what you need to know. It does, indeed, come down to those two policies: WP:V and WP:NOR. The basic problem is that there's no secondary source saying anything substantive about Encyclopedia Dramatica. The site simply hasn't been documented by independent writers. If we're going to apply the same standards to websites that we apply to other organizations, companies, individuals, etc, then we can only report information that's been reported already by some reliable source. That's the basic argument for deletion. If some media coverage arises, or if someone doing a scholarly work on Internet culture or something decides to document ED, then we can use that source to write an article, until then, we've got nothing to work with.

Does that answer your question? -GTBacchus 08:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much. Anything we write down based on our own knowledge or experience is, by definition, original research. -GTBacchus 15:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI: . In the normal course of events the amount of coverage ED has received from your analysis would, in my opinion, merit an article. However, ED is not the normal course of events from a wiki point of view. I would advise you to approach the subject with caution, work with established editors to gain consensus before taking any action, and, particularly, to pay close attention to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MONGO/Proposed decision, where ED is a central topic. The ArbCom decisions may have a significant bearing on this subject. Tyrenius 17:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

MONGO threatened to block you for what he perceived as trolling, which I take to mean pushing a contentious conversation (on a subject which he is particularly sensitive about) to a point of provocation. He did clearly warn you, which is rather better than finding yourself blocked out of the blue without knowing why. And he didn't block you anyway.

ED is different because it attacks wikipedia and its editors, which tends to make them somewhat aggrieved towards it and therefore not want to include it in wikipedia. This doesn't mean it will never get included. It just means people aren't going to be falling over themselves to do so, and, if possible, will exclude it. The situation is made worse by the fact that ED, like some other sites critical of wikipedia, exposes private and personal details of wiki editors/admins, when it can find them out. This can be embarrassing or even dangerous, as admins have received death threats on occasion, and the transition from online to RL harrassment can occur. Jeopardy to a person's job is another possible outcome.

P.S. If an admin threatens to block you if you continue to post about a certain subject on their talk page, it is prudent not to continue to post on their talk page about that subject. And who ever said it was going to be easy?

Tyrenius 23:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

AGF doesn't mean you can't use common sense. If someone is clearly irritated, back off and let things calm down. MONGO is probably the worst person to talk to about ED out of thousands of editors, so choose someone else. I can't tell you exactly what ED said/revealed about MONGO. It might have been address and phone number amongst other things. It's probably on ED still. There's a similar site Misplaced Pages Review (see the non-article talk page); as regards them, check out User:Katefan0. Somehow or another another similar site Wikitruth does have an article.

As MONGO said, the result of the AfD was that ED didn't have sufficient verifiable notability to justify an article, and this is the bottom line. However, it does seem to be getting it now, and when there is enough, then doubtless there will be an article about ED.

Rules have a certain elasticity and also they have to be interpreted. Besides which, wiki doesn't exactly have rules. It has policies, guidelines, consensus and established practice etc. The amazing thing is that it manages to create an encyclopedia.

Tyrenius 00:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Some ED info if you're curious

Yeah, it's notable enough for an article now.

June 2005:

• The Guardian, a major United Kingdom newsmagazine, reported on ED's political commentary about the George W. Bush role in the TL;DR article on ED.

January 2006:

• Bantown claimed responsibility on ED for discovery of a critical Livejournal hack, as reported by the Washington Post.

September 2006:

TV news coverage

• MSNBC TV - MSNBC, the major and leading cable news network, reported on ED and its role in the RFJason Craigslist Experiment, including screen shots of the website and the URL, and specifically talking ABOUT the site by name repeatedly. Google Video mirror, and YouTube mirror.

International news coverage

• The Ottawa Sun referenced ED, quoting our take on the evolution of the Emo scene.
• The Toronto Sun also reported on our coverage of that music scene, in a much more expanded article.
• Spiegal, a major German news source, reported on ED and Jason Fortuny.
• La Press Affairs, a leading Francophone news source, also covered ED and Fortuny.

Major blogosphere

• Boing Boing - http://www.boingboing.net/2006/09/10/the_seattle_craigsli.htm
• Broowaha - http://losangeles.broowaha.com/article.php?id=88
• Good Morning Silicon Valley - http://blogs.siliconvalley.com/gmsv/2006/09/perhaps_youd_be.html
• Waxy - http://www.waxy.org/archive/2006/09/08/sex_bait.shtml
• Wired Blogs - http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/?entry_id=1553329
• Wired Blogs - http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/index.blog? entry_id=1553813

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.13.236.244 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the information, I'm already aware of this. One of my friends sent me it who told me about ED (Ninja). ED killed Uncyclopedia in hits even. You probably won't see this because you were using an open proxy, but thanks for trying to make Misplaced Pages a better place! --AlexJohnc3 16:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Divine command theroy

Hi Alexjohnc3. I'm sorry but I don't believe that your changes were an improvement to the Justice article. Please feel free to discuss this on the article's talk page. Ben 22:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Please see the talk page. Cheers, Sam Clark 09:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Third world

I don't disagree with your edit in Protestantism, but I did want to point out that historically speaking, China probably would qualify as Third World. The First World used to mean Europe, the US and its allies; the Second World was the USSR and its allies, and the "Third World" was pretty much everyone else. More recently though, Third World has come to mean struggling countries with little GDP and a lot of poor. Peyna 21:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

China apparently is sometimes considered part of the Second World. Peyna 21:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Firefox TOC

Hi. I see you've put back the Firefox TOC. Please could you checkout the discussion page for it to see why it's been removed. This is a legal issue, so I will remove the Swiftfox box, but leave the others for you to do, or to justify on that page. Widefox 17:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know it was an issue. --AlexJohnc3 17:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

no problem. You're not the only one to add it in the last 24hrs! ;( I've added some hidden comment. Widefox 18:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:MONGO

With regards to your comments on User_talk:MONGO: Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Tbeatty 00:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Misplaced Pages has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --Guinnog 00:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be idiots. He's already had personal attacks towards me with no one but myself commenting on them, so I'd thank you to mind your own business. If MONGO gets to be an ass and do whatever his heart desires, can I at least have a short rant about it? --AlexJohnc3 00:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not being an idiot. Two wrongs do not make a right, as you should know already. If you have a problem with something MONGO has said or done, please raise it in the proper way. Escalating problems is not the way forward. Please leave me a message if you think I can help you, but please do not accuse other editors of being "idiots" or an "ass". Thanks. --Guinnog 10:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

One wrong doesn't make a right either and I was wrong to insult him. However, people who troll MONGO's talk page just annoy me sometimes. --AlexJohnc3 11:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I don't think anything useful is going to come from your continuing to leave messages for MONGO on the subject of Encyclopedia Dramatica. There may be other ways to take your view forwards but I really don't see this way working. Best wishes --Guinnog 11:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)