Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MONGO (talk | contribs) at 04:33, 20 September 2006 (→Thanks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

Well I told you it would be only a matter of time before an admin threatened me

Well I told you it would be only a matter of time before an admin threatened me. I will address all of your allegations on the ANI. I was done with the arbitration, the message I sent was ending it, but you couldn't let it go could you? I guess calling me a troll is being "excessively zealous" whereas my actions are bootable. Why is there one standard for yourself, and another standard for everyone else? I asked you pointed questions on the arbitration, and you called me names, alleged that I was a "buddy" of the person, brought up irrelevant edit histories, and you did not follow: WP:AGF WP:Civil WP:Consensus. Travb (talk) 05:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments

Thank you for your comments, I am going to archive your comments as per Talk page: etiquette.

Please WP:AGF and refrain from calling me a troll. I would appreciate an apology.

In addition, you state that I meant you when I said: "season POV warrior". The talk page has no evidence of this. I included absolutly no names to avoid a ANI and anymore hard feelings, I wanted to let it go, but now because of your ANI I have been dragged back in. Although you assume that I stated you were a "season POV warrior", you have repeatedly explicity called me a troll, or used the adjective calling my actions "trolling".

"In the last 24 hours, not less than 40 comments and edits have been made to my arbcom case by you, and I think you are harassing me." How many comments have you had on the arbcom case? I notice that each section has a "Comment by others:" subsection. Do I qualify as an "other". Are only people who support you postion supposed to comment on the Arbcom? "my personal opinion" is that I have the right to comment as an "other", "that is my opinion and I am entitled to it." But unlike your lack of evidence on the Arbcom page, my personal opinion is supported by evidence: in this case wikipedia policy. "other" means that "other" people, not involved in the ArbCom are welcome to comment on the ArbCom, even if those comments do not support your position.

Now that we are scutinizing each others edits again, in regards to the "40 comments" you have probably noticed go through my edits to build your ANI case against me, that I often change my words, and rewrite my words. I never use the "show preview" button. Further:

1. What is the official number of edits before an editor is harrasing another editor?
2. Could your ANI be considered harassment, especially when I had clearly indicated I no longer was going to be involved in the arbcom?
3. If I make 40 edits on your ArbCom in response to your 40 edits, which was the case, is this harrassment?

I am sorry, but your argument simply has no merit.

But this "40 comments" is really another side note, yet another diversion you have created from the main point:

• I have every right to comment on the ArbCom, as an "other".

"If this doesn't end, I will be forced to write up an Rfc on your actions."

It already had, before you called your ANI.

I have made my point on your ArbCom page, and I was willing to move on. I am still willing to move on, and put this disagreement behind us, unless rootology requests my assistance.

Best wishes, Travb (talk) 07:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry you had to deal with this user MONGO, I have had to deal with them before, you can see they dont understand brevity, many times when someone writes such long books they arent actually writing anything important. I have never seen a user apologize as much as some that have commented on your talk page. Dont get pulled into any drama, passive agressive. --zero faults 08:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah...thanks...I've never seen such a long winded response at AN/I.--MONGO 09:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

My mea culpa

As you suggested, I apologized to Fred today:

• User_talk:Fred_Bauder#I_apologize_again.

You were 100% right about Fred, and I was 100% wrong.

I will repeat again what I have said many times before: it is wrong for Encyclopedicadramatica to post private information about you. No one should go through such harrassment.

On a completly unrelated note:

RE: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Bob_Mcilvaine FYI, I think the 99% of the 9/11 conspiracy theories are total bullshit too. I am holding out on the Flight-93-being-shot-down-theory. If you have any good wikilinks on the Flight-93-being-shot-down-theory, which cover both pro and con, please let me know. Travb (talk) 10:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your comments on my talk page, I am archiving them. Thanks for the link, I am looking at it now.

Lets both put this unfortunate misunderstanding behind us. We see things differently, but more importantly, we share some fundamental common beliefs:

• We both believe in and love the idea of Misplaced Pages.

Rootology is gone forever. He will never be able to harrass you again using that handle. I am happy about this. In the end, once again, Misplaced Pages consensus, and the Wisdom of Crowds worked incredibly well. Travb (talk) 11:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Lightning picture

Congratulations on Image:Picture 006.JPG, it is excellent. I've tried many times to photograph lightning strikes without success and am rather envious of you for your success.--Guinnog 20:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism (always)

Hmmm... Ultramarine seems to have headed off to mess with something else. But we have a new editor, Economizer, who has become intent on putting a bunch of POV stuff into the lead (and never touching anything outside the lead). I wonder if it mightn't be a good time for another quick article protection on Capitalism. LotLE×talk 20:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Do you know if there is something weird going on with protection and edit history. I just noticed the article itself no longer shows up in my watchlist's recent changes (the talk page does though). I can view the history and all, just not from my watchlist.

Btw. Is this pushing it to ask about the {sectOR} tag that Economizer stuck at the top right before your protection. That just seems like the wrong tag to have there. I'm happy to chat about OR issues on the talk page, of course, but I'm not sure about that template at top. Oh well, maybe it's just best to leave locked as locked. LotLE×talk 21:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It's Over for "Truth Professor" Jones

BYU has placed the good professor on paid administrative leave. See . Morton devonshire 21:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Whoa....it must absolutely be because of the U.S. Government trying to cover up the truth....NOT.--MONGO 21:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit request for Jones article

Hi Mongo. That was quick. Thanks. But the idea was also to delte the criticism section, which is where most of the material really came from, and is now redundant and messy. I'm going to mention it also on the talk page to see if there is consensus.--Thomas Basboll 22:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that.

I didn't know. Maybe some troll was disguising himself as you? Sir Crazyswordsman 08:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe you, but I doubt the admins there will perform a CheckUser, since those with that power are almost never around anymore. And even if they were around, they don't like their buttons pushed. (read How to get banned for some more information). Sir Crazyswordsman 08:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Full disclosure

Letting you know that I lengthened your block of DaffyDuck619 to indefinite, only to compel him to discuss; I'm letting you know since you put in your 31 hour *seconds* before I put in my indefinite. :) --Golbez 08:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem...I checked his block log after I blocked and I saw he has been a big time repeat offender--MONGO 08:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Complete(?) list of 9/11 Conspiracy AfDs

Given the sheer number of recent 9/11 conspiracy AfDs, I thought it would be useful to create a list. See User:GabrielF/911TMCruft. Thought you might be interested. Please feel free to add anything I might have missed.

GabrielF 01:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you do this?

Hi. Regarding a grand scheme of mine, I was wondering if it was possible for an admin to edit an IP's monobook.js, since it says it is protected. If not, do you know if the IP can edit it? Thanks. Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 01:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

MONGO is the best

Thanks for all your help MONGO you are definitely a counter weight to the insanity. God Bless you. LoveMonkey 01:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem--MONGO 05:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sock

This is no good. You don't need to protect us from input. Almost all of us have checkuser. Fred Bauder 18:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

spam blacklist

I noticed you being harassed by ED trolls. That site needs to get on the spam blacklist at the meta. I'd like to help get it on somehow. Anomo 01:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong

All things being equal I'd probably still smack ya around. Toodles! :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat/Sep11/Yeah I agree...

... --Cat out 09:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't think of anything to say that would be appropriate, so I just have some dates. Best wishes.--MONGO 09:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to use that template btw. --Cat out 09:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

9/11

"locks everyone out of wiki" What do you mean? --Golbez 09:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's user error on my part, but when I clicked the link, the page froze and I had to close my browser...I tried it again and the same thing happened, so I reverted him...guess I should mention this on his page?--MONGO 09:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

On commons, I have uploaded a category of photos: commons:Category:Fifth_anniversary_of_the_September_11,_2001_attacks. Do have higher resolution ones, but not the time to prepare them now for upload. Nor the time, to see if/where they might be useful. Anyway, they are there and will add more later. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 10:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.--MONGO 10:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Pictures are currently at Flickr. We ran into Dylan and Alex here, and were less than civil. Alex's behavior was particularly outrageous, as were some of the regular ny911truthers. We didn't come here to argue today, but things got quite heated at times. Well, all these pics on Flickr are tagged with "loosechange" and other such terms, with links to debunking sites that dispell the myths and lies. Will see about uploading some here. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 04:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice, thank you.--MONGO 05:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:vandalism

Well, crap.

I was trying to get this out of the article, but Laurenjf had already edited over it by the time I got to the page, meaning that her good edit was over the jibberish and I'd have to go dig it out manually. (It's been insane for the past 8 hrs on RC patrol. How insane? AOL had to be blocked for an hour.) For some reason I couldn't select just a section of the article to edit (the problem was in the 'Government response') so I had to use my browser 'find' command to find 'abcdefghi...'. It took me a couple of minutes, but I found the jibberish, removed it, put in the edit summary you saw, and saved. I honestly thought I'd get an 'edit conflict' message telling me I'd have to go dig through the article again - but I didn't, so I took a big sigh of relief and moved on, and a few minutes later I got your message. All I was trying to do was get 'abcdefg..'-something out of the thing.

Forgive me if that doesn't make sense, but Omi8 and I are pretty tired. I didn't have time to get up to go to the bathroom for a couple of hours. BaseballBaby 12:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry I kinda ranted (eek!) - no good deed goes unpunished, does it? ;-) I just knew that fix wasn't going as smoothly as it seemed. I hope the page doesn't have to be protected or semi-protected and that everyone plays nice today.

I wasn't by myself all night; I had plenty of partners who had nothing better to do but sit here and clean up after vandals who had even less to do than we did - did that make sense? ...LunaSantin, Omi8, Ryulong, AmiDaniel and I all played "guess the name of the next AOL sockpuppet pretending to be Randy Moss/try to be the first one to ID him in IRC", which was pretty fun until he stopped bothering to create user accounts... LunaSantin got to do his first AOL range block, so watching him squirm over that thought was a group exercise (that's when we sent out for the six pizzas and charged them to Jimbo)... I got my 37th and 38th user page vandalisms... and for the longest time I couldn't figure out why Rudolf Vrba was being hit over and over all night long, so after about 3 hours I finally had to ask and felt pretty silly after I did. (Tells you how often I look at the main page, doesn't it? Gotta make a note to do that more than once a week.) The September 11 articles weren't really being hit that hard last night, but I can already tell it's going to be a wacky Wikiday. I'm about ready for bed – Omi8 has been at it almost as long as I have and he may be seeing spots or something.

BTW, before I go off – my husband said that NPR aired an unflattering story or item or something about Misplaced Pages on Morning Edition this morning, so maybe somebody should see what that was about. Not me, 'cause I'm going to be asleep. :-D Have a good day - BaseballBaby 12:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Doing what I can to think of other things today

Here in nyc you can't get away from the 5-year memorializing. I'm trying not to remember. in any case, here's a photo I took a few weeks back, from Long Island. The sea misses you! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

9-11 image

Sorry, but the picture as cutlined made no sense. How about foreground and background? The smoking building is to the viewers "left." Otherwise it needs to state that the smoking tower is to the right of the foreground tower in real estate terms. The cutline needs work.--Cberlet 22:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the south tower was the 2nd hit, it is on the left side of the picture. The north tower is on the right. This picture was from the north. You can tell the north tower is in the foreground b/c it was from the north, and because the north tower and it's smoke overlaps the south tower. --KCMODevin 17:51, 11 September 2006

Hi, thanks, I know.--MONGO 03:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

POV Fork?

You, on the VfD for Controlled-Demolition Theory (9/11 Conspiracy Theory) stated as your reason for deleting it as it was a POV fork. POV forking is when you fork off an article in order to avoid the NPOV policy; this is not my intent in making the article. I didn't write the majority of the content in it; it was split off from the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory page because it was too large and this was 32kB on its own. It contains criticism and is well sourced; it has 40-odd sources. The reason this material hasn't been taken off the main page is because one person complained when I acted bodly and tried to split it off, so I didn't delete it from that page and summarize it. Once that is resolved, it will be summarized on and linked to by the main page.

You claim the original article is too big; it is. This is my way of fixing it. It isn't poorly sourced, and the fact that most of it is silly is not relevant - what is relevant is that it is sourced and a lot of people believe it. Creationism is silly, but there's dozens of pages related to it. According to recent polls, more people disbelieve the official 9/11 report than disbelieve evolution. Please reevaluate your position and vote for keeping the split; the articles are well sourced and are relevant to society. Even though they're about crazy theories, when a huge number of people believe it, it is noteworthy and this is worthy of several pages on Misplaced Pages as much as Creationism is. Titanium Dragon 06:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I voted the way I want...don't hassle me about it. If I had my way, the main article on that nonsense would be only a few paragraphs and I don't care what a few polls have to say..it's not my fault some people wish to believe the ridiculous.--MONGO 06:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Thanks for watching the main 9/11 article yesterday.--Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 15:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Question I received about the backcountry

This may seem like a strange question, but at least it isn't an admin matter. I figure you might be able to help because you're knowledgeable about wilderness and backcountry stuff.

I received an e-mail from someone who's working on the French Misplaced Pages. He thought that since I worked on the Backcountry article that I'd know the answer. (Actually, I just gave it categories, but now I'm curious about the answer.) He was asking if a remote island, isolated and rarely visited, could be classified as backcountry. My first thought was that it wouldn't really be backcountry, since backcountry is usually accessed from more populated places. On the other hand, a place like Isle Royale National Park would qualify as backcountry, because it's roadless, has no permanent population, and is only accessible by hiking. As another example, would some islands of the Florida Keys, not accessible by roads and having no permanent population, count as backcountry?

Also, could you use terms such as "backcountry sailing" if you're exploring the islands by sailboat?

I might be starting to answer my own question, but I'd be interested to hear your opinion. Thanks. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 13:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as National Parks in the United States, backcountry refers to areas that cannot be accessed by a road vehicle, or, to be more precise, areas that the public is not permitted to access by road vehicle. Therefore, all visitor centers, lodges and campgrounds that one can drive to are in the front-country. When Congress decided in 1964 to start creating Wilderness areas on already federally protected lands, the objective was to set aside areas that were remote from the front-country and to preserve them so that further modifications and improvements would not happen, thereby ensuring that no vehicles of a motorized nature (including bicycles), oil, gas, mineral extraction and logging would not happen, and no buildings or other modifications would be permitted...so Wilderness is the ultimate backcountry. The term backcountry is best applied in the United States as all areas that the public may not drive their vehicle to to access. I would consider that an island one must sail to to get to is backcountry, unless that island is so built up, that it is too tame to quaify otherwise.--MONGO 20:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Feedback

The following comment by me was brought over from the admin noticeboard

Who are the contributors that are leaving for fear of being blocked for speaking their minds?--MONGO 22:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I am. Here's my views of the matter. --Ghirla 07:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I am a friend to Tony Sidaway, and I do not know all that has happened to you. I am well aware of your contributions and I deeply appreciate them all. Feel free to explain to me what troubles you as I am not aware of the entire situation, but feel free to speak openly here or via email if you prefer.--MONGO 07:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The following comment by me was brought over from the admin noticeboard

What, like 40,000 edits and you want to propose a community block? I find this to be an effort to "out" another Wikipedian pretty disgusting.--MONGO 22:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

And how many of these to main space? OK, I will send you a letter to discuss the situation. --Ghirla 07:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand. There is a definite divide between article writers and those who are focused on policy and procedures.--MONGO 07:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Not that much of a divide. I have about 8000 edits in article space, which probably puts me comfortably into the top 5 percentiles of article editors, but even saying that is just falling into the silly pissing game. We're all here to produce an encyclopedia, and nobody who has shown a commitment to Misplaced Pages deserves to be attacked as routinely and in such open and unashamed bad faith as Ghirlandajo attacks anyone who doesn't edit articles as much as he does. --Tony Sidaway 08:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

My point is mainly that we all have our strengths and weaknesses. Some simply are better writers and some are simply better at the policy and procedures. I feel that when I try to do both, I get spread too thin, so I asked Ghirlandajo to explain so I can understand. As someone who really would like to see all these parties find a resolution that doens't mean arbcom or something else, I'll be more than happy to mediate. I have a fondness for all the major players in this ongoing issue, so I am completely neutral.--MONGO 08:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Please don't forget to check your mail. --Ghirla 14:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiLove!

Here's a plate of mangoes for you! Mangoes somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others using Template:smile! Happy editing! --TBCTaLk?!? 22:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Get it? A mango for MONGO? Anyhow, you've contributed a lot of great edits to Misplaced Pages, so keep up the good work! :D (another ackward attempt at comedy by TBCTaLk?!?)

Crossing the Line

Peephole and I could use your help with an Admin who is editing one of the conspiracy cruft articles. I could be mistaken, but I suspect that he is somehow invested in the outcome (I am choosing my words carefully here). He has now threatened both of us with "further action", including blocking in Peephole's case, for edits that fall well within the bounds of proper editing. See and . Rather than get into an AN/I, I think a few gentle words from you could help calm the situation, as he won't seem to let the issue go. Thanks. Morton devonshire 01:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's be civil

Hi Mongo, if your comments were mainly directed at me you should have taken them to my talk page, where you are always welcome. It is unclear what the citation issue has to do with my suggestion that we trim the construction section, so its a new topic. Unless, of course, you're simply trying to get some sort of jab in. That's not like you. Your citation issue is substantial, and interesting, but there is (explicitly) no policy on it, so you will need to win consensus. To be honest, I still don't know enough about the various templates to be sure that I will be of much help in standardizing that aspect of the article. I don't mind you making changes in that direction. That said, I can understand what the policy means when it mentions that people find the templates "annoying"; it makes it more difficult to edit the prose. Perhaps you know of some way to get around that problem?--Thomas Basboll 09:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh? I don't have to "win" consensus to ask editors to keep the article standardized...it's really quite simple.--MONGO 12:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's what the policy you cite states. But, no, of course you don't have to win consensus to ask people to do something. In focusing (and then refocusing) the remark in my direction it just looked a bit like a reproach for something I had failed already to see was my duty. I think I understand your intention now.--Thomas Basboll 13:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Useless link?

You've just removed a "useless link" which contained a page reference to the NIST report that identifies the exact source of the quote. Was that intentional?--Thomas Basboll 12:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Where? What report...? All I saw was a word and a page number...that's not a reference. Find the reference, use the cite template and fix it accordingly.--MONGO 12:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

NCSTAR1 is the formal designation of (the main volume of) the final NIST report (a familiar reference in the article.) Surely you are not proposing to delete all the sourcing that you can't immediately decode, or, worse, that the (optional) template. The reference is incomplete, but not (to my knowledge) wrong. It is more informative than nothing. The quotation is now not just somewhat obscurely sourced; it is unsourced. That's an improvement?--Thomas Basboll 13:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Notability (books)

Hi, you were recently involved in a debate where Misplaced Pages:Notability (books) was cited. This proposal is under development and would benefit from being assessed by more editors. Perhaps you would be interested in expressing an opinion at the project talk page. NB This does not have any bearing on the previous debate in which you were involved. JackyR | Talk 19:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for deleting the File:Vcbcvbhchvb.jpg page. I was wondering what the rules are for fraudulently tagged images. Incidentally, I have blocked the uploader for it, and for creating vandalistic attack pages. Hope I was not too harsh. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If the image is less than 48 hours old (since uploaded), and especially if it is deliberately tagged wrong (in this case a U.S. Government tag on a standard photograph), it is a speedy delete...I think!? Oh well...no problem. Best wishes.--MONGO 11:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

At any rate, a valid speedy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the week long block to that IP. It's appreciated :-) --HappyCamper 04:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure...the next time he gets like that, hopefully whoever catches it will make it for a month.--MONGO 04:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I looked at all of the edits from that IP, and simply put, most of them don't help to make Misplaced Pages a better encyclopedia. --HappyCamper 04:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, multiple warnings and two previous blocks, so a week is being too kind I think. Oh well.--MONGO 04:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)