Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MONGO (talk | contribs) at 19:39, 7 September 2006 (→Re: Curious: remove trolling). 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)

SoftPaleColors

Since Grafikm brought SoftPale to the noticeboard, I started a discussion of your indef block, WP:ANI#A plausible sockpuppet / Request for community block review. As I said on the arb talk page, the case is not a reason to start a Mongo pile-on, and the block was unrelated to ED, so I thought it should be reviewed at ANI. I was going to wait for SoftPale to let me know his intentions, but since Grafikm started the ball rolling, I posted the unblock request there. I see your logic, but it's probably better to review at ANI than in the Arb case. Hope this is not too much of a problem. Thatcher131 (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you very much for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully today with a result of (62/18/3). I will go very carefully at first, trying to make sure I don't mess up too badly using the tools, and will begin by re-reading all the high-quality feedback I received during the process, not least from those who opposed me. Any further advice/guidance will be gratefully accepted. I hope I will live up to your trust! Guinnog 14:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)}

Signature

How can I personalize my user signature so it looks nice and bright? Is there a guideline that explains this? Regards, Ya ya ya ya ya ya 20:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You'll notice I have made zero alterations to my username signature, so best to ask someone that has a signature that you like the looks of to see how they did it...but also read this.--MONGO 20:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Ultramarine at it again on Capitalism

I thought unprotection was premature. Her first action, as I would have thought, was inserting the same chart that at least a half dozen other editors have opposed both as not being relevant to the article and as violating WP:NOR (and that no one else supports). I'm pretty sure that as long as it is unprotected, she'll make the same change 3 times (but not 4 times) in every 24 hour period. LotLE×talk 20:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Mirror Vax vandalism

At Template:AfdAnons. I would appreciate it if you would take a look at his entries on that template, and consider a block. Thanks. Morton devonshire 18:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Banff

I have restored the FAC nomination, as I'll be around to address any concerns. --Aude (talk contribs) 03:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Please userfy Kelsey Jarrell

At 05:28, 3 September 2006 MONGO (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) deleted "Kelsey Jarrell" (CSD A7). This was perfectly reasonable, but I would have been tempted to usefy the article, since it seems like a harmless autobiography. You might want to restore it to the user's user page. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Looked like a vanity page, but I have moved it to the editor's talkpage.--MONGO 05:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, please point out to me...

Hi, we haven't met yet so let me take this opportunity to thank you for your contributions and efforts to improve wikipedia. I'm puzzled by your recent reversions of each edit I have made to the collapse of the WTC article. Please help ? Starting with: "The combined effects of the airplane impacts and subsequent fires caused the buildings to collapse. The impacts severed load bearing columns and dislodged fireproofing from the structural steel. Heat from the fires then gradually weakened the structures, causing the floors to sag and the perimeter columns to bow inwards. The towers collapsed abruptly when the perimeter walls finally buckled. Once the collapse was initiated, the enormous weight of the portion of the towers above the impact areas overwhelmed the load bearing capacity of the structures beneath them. Total collapse was then inevitable."

Since you removed the citation tags from this and several other passages, could you please point out to me where the references are for the following being factual assertions rather than opinions?

1. effects of the airplane impacts and subsequent fires caused the buildings to collapse
2. Heat ...weakened the structures, causing the floors to sag and the perimeter columns to bow inwards.
3. the enormous weight...overwhelmed the load bearing capacity
4. Total collapse was then inevitable.

thanks... (My point is this, that all of the sources I see referenced regarding these details cite these as opinions rather than facts. If there is no source stating these are facts, I would like to introduce text to the effect that these are opinions, or conclusions or whatever would be the appropriate way of describing them.) Also, could you explain to me why it is 'unneeded' to include that the woman standing in the hole is alive? And why it is unnecessary to point out that this is not a mere gash, but the hole in the building through which the aircraft passed? Plainly we can see she is alive, but remember that captions and alt text are expected to make sense to the blind as well as those who can see.

Thanks, I appreciate the time you've already devoted to this, and I apologise for using more of it. User:Pedant 10:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason you can't contribute more constructively than by just adding fact tags all over the place and you've been around long enough to know this. Much of the information is in other places in the article. I think adding to the image in question the fact that she is "alive" is self explanatory.--MONGO 19:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Boundary Waters Canoe Area

Hello Mongo. I’m suggesting a reorganization of sections within Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Given your interest in wilderness areas and your past contributions to this article I thought you might be interested in expressing your views at Talk:Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Thanks. Kablammo 18:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your immediate response and contributions. Kablammo 19:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Didn't mean to sound insulting

I suppose I am as familiar with Masssiveegos' editing as anyone, so perhaps I expect that others will be aware of his patterns to the level I am. Hope you don't misinterpret my comments as anything other than suggestions that explain why many have zero patience for him anymore...but that is why I didn't block him myself.--MONGO 08:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your nice note, Mongo. I share your concerns about this user, and I appreciate that you took the time to leave me a note on my talk page. It seems we disagree on some things, but rest assured I know you are a fine user and a good admin, as are all who have been involved in this debate. I have been at the "zero patience" limit myself, so I can sympathize. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 08:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the rvv!

Jones

Hi Mongo. I'm sure you are aware of the "edit war" that has been going on at the S.J. article. Well, before you unprotected, Tom B. asked for the consensus of editors re: changes he wanted to make. No matter how the votes are counted, the majority of editors (even some on "his" side of the issue), opined that the status quo was preferable to the edits he was suggesting. He then went on and spent the entire day attempting to edit the article to fit his POV. I have, after comparing the edits made, reverted the article back to the incarnation which was favored by the majority of editors. I am concerned, with 9/11 approaching, that this article is going to continue to be a "war-ground". I see that Peephole has requested protection and, since you are an admin, I was wondering if you think the article should be re-protected? It seems this may be preferable to the article continually going through huge shifts. Thanks for your time, Levi P. 02:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Categories

Thanks for your note about categories. I think I've got it now. --Droll 08:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Locator Dot problems

There are a couple locator dots out there. Image:Locator Dot.gif (see Bryce Canyon National Park) seems to be working okay -- but Image:Locator Dot.svg (see Green Cay National Wildlife Refuge) has a problem. The background is supposed to be transparent, but for some reason no longer is. It does not seem to be a problem with the image itself, as it has not been modified in some time, and worked a couple weeks ago. My guess is it is some kind of browser or wikipedia-wide issue -- but that is as far as my expertise goes. You will have to ask elsewhere.

As far as my presence on Misplaced Pages, I have changed my habits drastically based on available time -- just don't have much of it. I will use it as a reference, and occasionally write a brief entry, but I am not contributing as much as I used to, nor keeping track of articles I have started/contributed to. — Eoghanacht 13:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

CSD I9 deletions

Hi, I noticed that you have been deleting images tagged with {{NowCommons}}. However, can I just ask that you check usage on en.wiki before you delete the image. For example Image:Hurricane Bonnie.gif was still used in 2 articles, before deletion; CSD I9 states it may only be speedied if "If the image is available on Commons under a different name than locally, it must not be used on any local page whatsoever." If you are deleting dupes like that can you please first orphan the en.wp image? At the very least, ensure that in the deletion reason you give the filename of the commons version, or else other editors will have a painful time tracking it down. Thanks.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Must have missed that one, as I generally do include the new file name and or orphan the image and replace it with the newer one from commons.--MONGO 18:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica

Hi MONGO, obviously I can't discuss the deletion of Encyclopedia Dramatica, so I wanted to understand why it was deleted by talking with you (or somone else if you want). You said it was an "attack site". Even if it is an "attack site", how does a notable "attack site" violate Misplaced Pages's inclusion policy? Thanks! -AlexJohnc3 My Talk Page 19:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The article did not pass our policies of Verifiablity because it couldn't be reliably referenced to a point in which inclusion of the article was notable. It therefore was nonnotable.--MONGO 19:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you answer the rest of my previous question too? And how does WP:V allow for deletion of an article? I thought that applied to the information presented in an article, couldn't the unsourced information just be removed? As for being nonnotable, I already addressed Encyclopedia Dramatica's notablility, and so did many others (if you want me to repeat myself and look through the old discussion, that's fine too). -AlexJohnc3 My Talk Page 21:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to see anyone demonstrate, by following our policies and guideleines, that ED was notable enough to remain on Misplaced Pages as an article. As an attack website, I strongly support removing any links to the website here immediately. Each deletion nomination is a discussion, and if the discussion fails to demonstrate that an article is notable, then it is deleted. The closing admin on the deletion nomination stated that the arguments that the article was notable were weak. The world isn't just black and white...there are grey areas, and what matters most is what makes Misplaced Pages a better place...I think a large majority of folks believed that having an article about ED was more harmful to our project than it was beneficial.--MONGO 21:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, although I disagree with a "large majority of folks" believing that the article should be removed, regardless of that, I know of no rules that require articles to be deleted without any reason based solely on a majority. If you'd explain why it's more harmful than beneficial, that would be nice. A great example of an attack site is the GNAA. Why do they have an article and what Misplaced Pages policies support "attack websites" from being excluded in the project? As for your first sentence, does that mean you want me to give examples of why Encyclopedia Dramatica is notable enough to have its own article? It would be nice if you were to more directly address my questions too, thanks. AlexJohnc3 22:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if a notable attack site violates Wiki policies for inclusion...that would depend on the situation on a case by case examination...can the GNAA be verified...yes, they can. The ED article had a few external links, and not one of them was substantive enough to demonstrate verifiablity. All I can do is point you to policy pages, which I imagine you are aware of already. I do not know of a policy which ensures that websites that attack wikipedia or it's editors is to not have an article here. There are a few examples such as wikipediareview and Brandt's hivemind site that do not have articles on wiki, maybe mainly due to their focus of wikipedia editor harassment, but I would say neither should have an article for the same reasons that ED shouldn't, and that is because they fail to be verifiable.--MONGO 22:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand exactly, an article needs to have verifiable facts, but the site an article is about does not have to follow WP:V. All information regarding Encyclopedia Dramatica that did not conform to Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy in the article should have been removed. I don't know what was in the article, of course, but the information that shouldn't have been on Misplaced Pages could have just been removed. Right now I'm not sure if you are saying an article that relates to attacking Misplaced Pages or other websites is allowed to have an article. I've never heard of the websites you mentioned, but wikipediareview seems fairly notable and I've heard of Daniel Brandt before (who is notable enough to have a Misplaced Pages article apparently). I doubt they don't have articles on the grounds that they are against Misplaced Pages, and if they do that's not a good reason unless Misplaced Pages has a policy that states otherwise. --AlexJohnc3 23:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with MONGO. We are open to criticism, but to give publicity to a website that exists solely to disparage the volunteer workers on our own project would seem to be taking it too far. --Guinnog 23:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the point I've been trying to make for ages--look at the content on ED. The WP stuff is like a fraction of it. 30 articles tops? Out of almost 4000. How does that mean that the site exists solely to trash WP? rootology (T) 23:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica appears to be about Internet memes more than anything. If it has some articles you don't agree with, point me to where I can find any policy that allows one to delete an article based on its subject's content. Misplaced Pages is not censored for websites that have been created to be anti-Misplaced Pages, even though that's not why Encyclopedia Dramatica was created. I just want to know why Encyclopedia Dramatica had to be deleted, there's no policies it violated that couldn't be fixed, a rewrite could have always been done if the sourcing problem was that bad. --AlexJohnc3 23:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There’s one really big reason that ED should not have an article on Misplaced Pages: It sucks. Big time, as Dick Cheney would say. Oh, and did I mention it isn’t funny? Not even remotely. Uncyclopedia, now that’s funny. Encyclopedia Dramatica – just pathetic and sad. Smoke that, dude. Morton devonshire 21:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Good job providing yet another example of why I think Encyclopedia Dramatica was wrongly deleted. You're not even in this discussion, but I'll respond to your comment anyways. It doesn't matter if it's funny, it exists and it's notable. Funniness or "suckiness" isn't related to Misplaced Pages's inclusion policies I believe, but correct me if I'm wrong. AlexJohnc3 22:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong, and its still pathetic and sad. See WP:BALLS. Morton devonshire 00:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Until their site gets more press, it's a non issue. Of course, when/if they do, I have to admit I will look forward on principle to it's immediate recreation should they gain notability/noteriety in the press to merit inclusion. rootology (T) 00:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Rootology, there are many website (even Wiki) related articles on Misplaced Pages that are much less notable than Encyclopedia Dramatica. I see no reason for not having an article on it now. Example: Yellowikis. Morton devonshire, how much you like a website has nothing to do with WP:BALLS nor it's inclusion on Misplaced Pages. An article about Encyclopedia Dramatica could easily conform to NPOV and WP:V. Of course, Encyclopedia Dramatica will grow even larger to provide even less doubt that it's definately notable as Rootology said, but notability doesn't appear to be the problem here. --AlexJohnc3 01:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me be serious for a moment, and say this. ED is not referenced in mainstream reliable sources, and as such, doesn't meet WP:WEB and WP:NOT reqs. That's why it was deleted. And it still isn't funny. Morton devonshire 01:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Response from User:Tom harrison's talk page

He was being disruptive. He was responding to every single comment and numerous admins made it clear he was being disruptive.--MONGO 21:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"He was being disruptive because numerous admins said he was being disruptive," is a nonsense argument. Note the preceding was a paraphrasing, not a direct quote, of MONGO's comments. --Nscheffey 21:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Then if they are all wrong, I suppose the block was a bad idea...especially since there must be some admin cabal that refused to overturn Tom harrison's block?--MONGO 21:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Multiple people being wrong about something, even admins, is not unheard of. --Nscheffey 21:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I admit I am wrong often...I never claim infallibility, and admit possible bias as far as Badlydrawnjeff is concerned, however, looking at the discussion on Jeff's usertalk and on AN/I...I think he was arguing with just about everyone, so my perception is that he was an army of one, was acting in a knee-jerk fashion and being disruptive.--MONGO 21:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I also wanted to state that you put in quotes above, a comment I did not make...I stated that, "He was being disruptive. He was responding to every single comment and numerous admins made it clear he was being disruptive."...I did not state that, "He was being disruptive because numerous admins said he was being disruptive"...if you're going to quote me, please don't misrepresent the words I type.--MONGO 21:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I thouroughly apologize for appearing to misquote you. I thought reprinting your comment above my own would show I was paraphrasing, but regardless you are correct, and I have stricken the quotes and added a note. I do understand people's frustration with Jeff's continued arguments, but I think the solutions that have been attempted are counter-productive and not in the spirit of Misplaced Pages. I appreciate your reply, and perhaps you would be interested in commenting on a discussion I have started at WP:BLOCK. Thanks again. --Nscheffey 22:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

RNP

Hey! I was just looking through the article on Redwood N. Park and saw that you seem to be heavily involved in it. Well, I work for a hydrology/geomorphology company and we work all throughout RNP (I especially work on Lost Man Creek). I guess there is no real reason for telling you this, except I saw your name in an unexpected place and thought it a coincidence worth mentioning. Anyway, if there is ever anything that "a man on the ground" could help clear up, let me know. Cheers Levi P. 03:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Apology

You may never see this edit, but I mentioned your name in a recent AfD you voted on. I removed the offensive comment. My apologies sir, happy editing. Travb (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)