This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
can you please explain to me why i cannot create an artical on the hollywood undead? if the fact that so many people keep trying create the artical doesnt mean its notable, i dont know what does. hollywood undead is the archtype of how myspace made it so that a band can truely be an overnight success. JoshDinger 23:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Since you were the user who welcomed me here, I was wondering if you could provide me some assisstance? The trouble is that some users find the content on my userpage "offensive" and have been pressuring me to censor it, despite the fact that I have posted a disclaimer on the page to the effect that my views do not reflect those of Wikipedia. I have no problems with agreeing to their demands, but the problem is that, as I have pointed out, other users are allowed to have much more offensive content (such as "This user is anti-American", "This user believes George Bush is a neo-Fascist", "This user supports the Nazis", "Who are you calling an illegal immigrant pilgrim") on their userpages. My repeated protests againt being singled out in this manner have fallen on deaf ears. Would you please have a look at the AN discussion and share your thoughts with me? Thanks. Cerebral Warrior 10:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
User_talk:Cerebral_Warrior#A_Proposal_by_crazyeddie crazyeddie 15:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
...for your support during my recent RfA. Your vote of confidence is especially meaningful since I have been a fan of your work since joining the project. If you need another admin hand at working with various articles of Nat'l Forest, Parks, etc. or just need a pair of fresh eyes to review an article, do not hesitate to ask. Cheers. youngamerican ( ahoy hoy) 16:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if you'd be kind enough to put Dysgenics on your watchlist, please? I tagged it noncompliant and listed some of my concerns on its talk page. However, other editors have tagged it npov, [1] [2] and that tag has been removed at least twice. [3] [4] -- Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I saw Blazing Saddles for the first time a day or so ago. Anomo 21:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
What's going on here? No discussion in advance? Can you explain your intentions, and let's work together to make it make sense. See Talk:Elk. Gnusmas 08:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply and clarification. But please see my further comments on Talk:Elk and Talk:Red Deer. I'm quite happy to discuss it. I disagree that the clear primary meaning of "elk" is C. canadensis. I also think you have slipped up in not discussing this move with elk people as well as red deer people! I really do think that Elk should be the disambig page, not a page devoted to one interpretation of the word. But don't worry - I'm not going to get involved in an edit war. I believe in discussing things with all interested parties before making such changes. Gnusmas 08:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for being so responsive - and apologies for the tone of some of my earlier contributions to the debate! I am delighted with the end result. Yes, the name of the new article is a bit cumbersome, but it is at least crystal-clear and unambiguous, and I think even the least mammal-literate wikipedia user will now understand what an "elk" is in all its shades of meaning - I think there was a serious danger of confusion the way you were heading. Incidentally, the photo of an Elk (or should I say "Elk"?) at Elk (Cervus canadensis) is so utterly unlike a European Red Deer that it seems "obvious" ;-) that it's a different species! Gnusmas 09:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd love some feedback from you if you can spare the time. If you choose not to participate, thanks too. BusterD 02:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Aside from working on 9/11 articles, I am working on criminology topics which is an area that Wikipedia sorely lacks. Last weekend, I discovered there was no article on "Gun violence", so started one. Most of the research literature pertains to the United States, so the article has become Gun violence in the United States. Obviously, people have strong POV on this topic, and I'm perhaps entering a minefield here. To try and rise above politics, I have only included the highest quality reliable sources (most are from peer reviewed, scholarly journals). Personally, I really don't have a POV on this. The article basically presents the current state of research on this topic, and I think is close to featured status (if POV pushing can be kept out of the article). Nonetheless, someone has already come along and place a neutrality tag on the article. I could really use some peer review on the article, at this point. Do you at all agree with the person who placed the neutrality tag? Do you have any suggestions on improving the article or making it more NPOV? are there aspects of the topic that are missing? Any help would be appreciated. -- Aude ( talk) 01:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
(copied from my talk page) Thanks everyone. Although some of the opposition was dissapointing, I was also really encouraged by the constructive criticism, particularly the very engaged and positive give and take you gave me, MONGO. I can't recall seeing such a constructive or engaged oppose to a RFA in the last year; it gave both of us a chance to revisit some conflict in a much more positive light, and I certainly learned something both about how I was seen and came across, and hopefully it helped clarify in your mind where I'd been coming from. It would have been so easy for you to just oppose and walk away; you didn't, and that was a real class act. I pinged Lar about doing something on enwiki along the lines of the meatball wiki "Defend each other" and I'd like to invite you to discuss it. I am certainly not ultimately discouraged; I got supports from a lot of people I respect a lot, and some I didn't think would support me. I learned a lot from the opposes and they give me some stuff to work on as it were. I'll send out the usual cute thank yous when my bandwidth allows, but I wanted to make sure I did something more personal first for some of the particularly valuable participants in the discussion. Again, thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 09:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello Mongo. I noticed you seem to be on some sort of crusade against dysgenics, both in the eponym article and in others which refer to the term. I also seem to understand it stems from your feeling that dysgenics is more of a pseudoscience than anything else. On this, we totally agree. However, the term is still used here and there, and removing it from every article in the encyclopedia that carries it doesn't seem to me like the best solution. Rephrasing references to it by saying people use this term to describe some sort of revers eugenic effect without implying in any way shape or form that it is a legitimate science would, IMHO be a much better way. The way I look at it, I agree it's a pseudoscience, but as a concept (that somehow, selection conditions favor what is perceived as a weakening of the gene pool) is a legitimate concept, if not legitimate science: who is to tell that proper evolution has to go one way (e.g. humans always increasing in intelligence) rather than the opposite way? I don't think we can be the judges of where evolution should lead. However, this does not change the fact that some people think they can. Well, I'll stop from miring myself any deeper in philosophical considerations, but I'd urge you to reconsider your campaign to remove the word "dysgenics" from the encyclopedia. As I tried to explain, I feel there are better ways to address the problem. Please feel free to drop me a note if you wish. Good day!-- Ramdrake 14:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
(PA removed)... -- Zero g 15:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I opened an RfC regarding
Fairness And Accuracy For All, it is located at
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fairness And Accuracy For All and would appreciate you comments if you have any. This message is being posted to anyone's talk page who it seems has had much contact with the user in question. --
Nuclear
Zer0
22:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
As the blocking admin, I thought you should know about this apparent retraction of his legal threats [5]. There has been a related conversation at WP:AN here. -- ZimZalaBim ( talk) 22:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Please dont save bad edits like this one you altered the picture sizes in and it caused them to clip the text (in the geology section). Oversized picture settings causes photos to cascade. I managed to fix it in my previous edit but for some reason you decided to revert it.
The article is already cluttered enough and it's partially due to over sized pictures. (yeah, I know every wants their prized shot to stand out) If people want a better view they can click to enlarge each photograph.
My RfA done I appreciate Anyway, I just |
Sorry to hear that you had a similar run-in with DreamGuy as I did... on the plus side, I think a lot of wind has been taken out of his sails. Oh well, I've got better things to think about than some jerk. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Started thinking about reliable sources. Here's a few thoughts on academic sources, since it's what I know.
I think the most practical approach is to have a consensus checklist of criteria which satisfy a (rebutable) presumption of reliability. Things not on the checklist are not to be deemed automatically unreliable, but rather subject to debate and consensus. Here are some suggestions for such a checklist.
ISI listed journals. These are all peer-reviewed. If it's not on the ISI list, it's probably not really credible. Australian universities, for example, don't receive credit for production of non-ISI journal articles.
Books by university publishing houses. These are generally carefully reviewed, as the University reputation is on the line. Major universities are fairly obvious reliable sources. Full membership in Association of American University Presses [6] should be a sufficient indicator of scholarly credibility. There are probably similar university press associations internationally.
Books by serious academic publishers, for example: Springer + Kluwer, Blackwell, Academic Press, Elsevier, Prentice Hall, Palgrave + MacMillan, Wiley, Horizon. The unifying theme of such publishers is that they have a focus on scholarly work, and thus a reputation to lose for publishing bunk. These could be given as examples, though an exhaustive list is probably not possible. A test for fringe academic houses would be if their books, as a whole, are widely carried by university libraries.
It would be tempting to allow individual non-fiction works if carried by several major university libraries. However, I think that's unsatisfactory, because universities may carry books because of notability, controversy, or interest rather than reliability. For example "Unfit for Command", absolutely riddled with falsehoods, is undoubtedly in most major libraries. Derex 08:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
btw, [7], [8]. alone, no big deal, but you know as well as i what the context is. you can bet plenty of emails were already enabled. Derex 05:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
At this point...I'm hoping that blogs and private websites that are under the editorial control of only a few or one webmaster can be better regulated. As far as published books, I doubt much can be done to determine what is and what isn't to be used as a reference base...but of course, in articles that deal with science, I think we could be more specific as to what constitutes a reliable source.-- MONGO 08:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Just dropping by to say hello. Sorry I didn't call first. :) – Clockwork Soul 07:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
My RfA passed with a tally of 71/1/0. Thank you very much for your support. I hope that my performance as an admin will not disappoint you. Please let me know if you see me doing anything inappropriate. -- Donald Albury 03:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Two weeks ago I couldn't even spell administratur and now I are one (in no small part thanks to your support). Now that I checked out those new buttons I realize that I can unleash mutant monsters on unsuspecting articles or summon batteries of laser guns in their defense. The move button has now acquired special powers, and there's even a feature to roll back time. With such awesome new powers at my fingertips I will try to tread lightly to avoid causing irreversible damage and getting into any wheel wars. Thanks again and let me know whenever I can be of use. |
I've actually added this page to the CVN watchlist on IRC as it seems its a troll magnet these days. Glen 22:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey Mongo, I was away while you were under attack (and it's apparently still ongoing). I may not wield the correct bits in my profile to help out much, but I just wanted to let you know that if you need anything I'll do what I can. I realize that's probably more moral support than practical, but just wanted you to know. — Doug Bell talk• contrib 02:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! | |
---|---|
Thanks for your input on my (nearly recent) Request for adminship, which regretfully achived no consensus, with votes of 68/28/2. I am grateful for the input received, both positive and in opposition, and I'd like to thank you for your participation. | |
Georgewilliamherbert 05:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC) |
User talk:Glen S#No reason for that - up to you what to do about them. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 07:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Just letting you know. Other issues may have to be dealt with later, and I'm still open to mediation on it. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 14:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Before you remove changes to the article, please discuss the issue as a group and let some time pass so others can comment on the drastic changes you are making to articles. I had put in a little bit of research and you reverted it back to the previous version. Please be more carefull and thoughtfull of the community effort that is going on here. Yellowstone is a public not a MONGO article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by CamperStrike ( talk • contribs) November 17, 2006.
Is it wikistalking when an editor goes around intentionally reverting your edits and only voting against you on AfDs where you have voted? Yes or no? And are admins supposed to put a stop to such things? Yes or no? -- Aaron 18:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I answered the questions. One favor I'd ask is if you could reword your nom so as to avoid any chance of giving the impression that I'm in any way a part of Esperanza. Let me know when you are ready for it to go live. Thanks again, I do truly appreciate your trust, — Doug Bell talk• contrib 20:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Mongo. user:Sparkhead is at it again. Another Editor (not me) put a POV tag on the Richard Dawkins article. Spark has removed it twice, including once while a vote is on. IMHO it should be left on for at least 24hrs to allow people to look at it and vote. But I can't re-instate the tag any more per 3RR. Could you oblige, in the interests of fairness? NBeale 23:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey there. I just shot you an email about an article. Later - JungleCat Shiny!/ Oohhh! 00:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
True, though there are cases where the article(s) is(are) the center of attention. Sometimes an assessment of the article(s) at the center of a dispute is unavoidable. As well, conflicting policies may arise where a stand needs to be made as to which policy overrides. For example, if an article meets WP:V but fails WP:NPOV, and cannot meet it due to a lack of verifiable, reliably sourced balancing information, either for or against the subject, which policy would stand above the other?
Good luck in the election! :) Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 08:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I have opened a request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Seabhcan. Tom Harrison Talk 20:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
You need a campaign manager apparently: see Image:G bumpstick.gif. — Doug Bell talk• contrib 20:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
But you might for this. It's his user page that was vandalized. -- Tbeatty 06:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello. If you get a chance, could you please stop by the Jerky article and help resolve a dispute regarding proper WP:External links. The relevant discussion is at Talk:Jerky (food)#Recipes, and I am seeking third party opinions since another user and I seem to be at an impasse. I am sending this to all editors who have recently edited the article or its talk page. Thanks so much for your time, Satori Son 17:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Does the offer you made a while back still stand? I'm finding myself limited in some of the ways I can help the project, at present... -- nae' blis 23:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
...is it just me, or are there more bone-headed ideas, hypocritical RfC's, and rock-idiotic DRV's going on nowdays? -- Elar a girl Talk| Count 07:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I like your suggestions on the communism talk page. I have to go online now, so I can't add the references and draft and post a reading list at the moment. If you remember, could you do me a little favor? I tend to be pretty forgetful. If I forget to do this in the next day or two, could you post a reminder on my user talk page? Thanks again! 172 | Talk 17:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
You are the third biggest contributor to the article with the most revisions! s d 3 1 4 1 5 talk • contribs 01:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I guess I should be flattered by the attention. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 20:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
MONGO,
Well, barring some unforeseen train wreck, it looks like your RfA nomination of me just might squeak by. With Nae'blis looking like a possible WP:100 unanimous addition, that give you a good batting average in RfA nominations. I'm going to be signing off for the evening soon and probably won't be back online until after it closes, so I just wanted to say thanks for the nomination and to wish you a Happy Thanksgiving!
If I'd known the RfA process was so much fun I probably would have accepted the first time you asked me if I was interested. I really mean that, it's not facetious—I suppose some people might have found this stressful, but for me it was simply stimulating and thought-provoking.
All the best, — Doug Bell talk 09:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
P.S. My RfA almost caught up with your ArbCom Q&A: 79K to 84K as of now. :-)
I noticed your remarks on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Discuss and Vote; I would appreciate it if you could take a look at WP:DDV, and indicate if it accurately represents the way Wikipedia works (and feel free to reword it if it doesn't). Basically it states that AFD (etc) are not decided by vote count, and in general voting is discouraged (but not forbidden). Thanks. ( Radiant) 10:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Somewhere in all of this yammer is, I believe, a thinly veiled reference to you. - Crockspot 13:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
BTW, if you have a sec, and this link hasn't turned red already, please delete this for me:
User:Crockspot/Conservative Underground. I saved the content into the history of my personal sandbox, don't need the article anymore.
Crockspot 18:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Nevermind, another admin caught it.
Crockspot
19:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Happy Thanksgiving Mongo,
I asked the following of Ruthfulbarbarity, as he continually refers to me as 'Neocons':
"Please refer to me by my handle FAAFA. People unfamiliar with my 'history' or my previous FULL user name could think that "Neocons" indicates an endorsement of Neoconservatism - which couldn't be further from the truth. Thanks for your cooperation...."
My previous username here was NBGPWS, it was never anything else. RB insists on using a name that I never used on Wiki, that I consider insulting, and that could cause others to think I embrace Neoconservatives or 'ism'. I have asked him to stop to no avail. He seems to listen to you. Would you be so kind as to ask him to stop? Thanks in advance.
P.S. "galactically inane"??? I'm no Scientologist! - F.A.A.F.A. 22:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Where did he call you a "neocon"...is that his greatest offense? I see on your Rfc that he made some comment about Noeocons, but can't see what he is directing it at. Please provide links to the evidence that he has insulted you. I am NOT a personal dispute solver...if indeed you feel slighted, you can post the evidence to WP:PAIN. You have been accussed of incivility yourself and have been blocked numerous times for multiple violations....please provide me with the evidence I need to act on...this evidence is based on diffs and examples.-- MONGO 17:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I dont understand how "Neocons" can be uncivil if its the first word in your old name. While I prefer people call be Nuclear, I wouldnt be offended if they called me zer0, which many still do. I am not sure where the insult is in reffering to you by your old name that you picked out. If you worried that people would associate you with NeoConservatives, perhaps you shouldnt have made a name with a shortened version of it. --
Nuclear
Zer0
18:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Example one: Ruthfulbarbarity wrote: "Stop the infantile insults NBGPWS, and if you must address me do so by the user name I have chosen. Not by any other user name I might have on another forum or website, nor a juvenile gloss on my handle."Ruthfulbarbarity 19:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC) PW Archive 10 The result? I complied. (eventually;-). I only ask the same, and I have asked it for weeks. - F.A.A.F.A. 21:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Note to Mongo - Re: Request to Ruthfulbarbarity Thank you. - F.A.A.F.A. 00:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for creating this very good article, right now I'm translating it into french but I got a problem with a sentence, I can't figure out what you meant. Here is the expression : "The Beartooth Mountains in the northernmost section of the forest are granitic and metamorphic in origin, and at to 3.96 billion years old, these exposed Precambrian rocks some of the oldest on Earth". Did you mean : granitic and metamorphic rocks, who appeared during the Precambrian, are some of the oldest rocks on earth ? -- Alonso49 08:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, You erased my picture on my profile page... Just wanted to know why you did so... There are no Copyright problems concerning the picture, since I am the one being photographed and the photographer gave me explicit permission to use it. Thanks in advance. -- Zouavman Le Zouave 10:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC) (PS: Happy Thanksgiving!)
Please look at WP:0WW. I pled on Pump for people to come over so it would have wider input but instead I got a certain special fellow who is busy razing it.
I agree that on first blush the shorter policy always looks better. But there are distinct and deep reasons for breaking wheel warring into violations of a bright-line rule and violations of a balancing test. Worse, these late edits demote bright-line policy to some sort of nut. One more edit like this and everything that 20 different thoughtful editors have put together over the last year will be rubble.
If you don't have time to dig through all the history at Wikipedia talk:Wheel war/Archive, I understand. You can start here or take my word for it that the page has gone through a great deal of careful evolution.
Before merge, both pages were guidelines; I tagged the merge as guideline, too; there it stood for a month. Major changes should be discussed on talk. Our friend first tagged it down to proposed, then brought in the bulldozer. Sneaky or not, it's not okay. These rules -- call them whatever you will -- have already been cited in ArbCom decisions; perhaps I should have been bold and tagged the page policy from the merge. I've had a lot of input on this page already and I want you in there now -- if you'll be so kind. Thank you. John Reid ° 10:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
MONGO, I'm new to Wikipedia. Please help me understand why the image was deleted from Forbes Burnham - Thanks Roopster 12:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
This is probably a moot point, since it looks like he's left the project, but could you unprotect Cerebral Warrior's userpage? The issue has been pretty much settled in this discussion. Thanks! crazyeddie 22:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was to leave your version in place (which doesn't have all of the ugly unsightliness), but leave CW free to modify it. If he modifies it outside of the limits we've set, then we'll take the whole page over to MfD to be thrown out. Basically, we're handing him some rope and seeing if he hangs himself with it. Since it looks like he's left the project, that doesn't look likely, but there is still hope... :-)
Since we have a mechanism in place for dealing with CW if he screws up again, and there doesn't seem to be any likelihood of an edit war, there is no real reason to leave the page under protection. If we remove the protection, then there is the slight possibility of watching someone hang themselves. (That should prove amusing.) But that's just a side benefit - I just don't like having a page remaining under protection without sufficient cause. The cause is gone, let's unprotect it. crazyeddie 06:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
While I promised not to send out thank you's following my RfA, I decided to make an exception for my nominator and the people that asked the excellent questions. I appreciate the nomination, and now you'll probably have to put up with me asking for advice as I learn how to navigate my new responsibilities. I appreciate the note you already left on my talk page regarding exercising caution and I'll try to heed it. Thanks again, — Doug Bell talk 19:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Forbes Burnham Guyana.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Please show me the rule that states no galleries in featured articles. Also this page is still .5 beta or in development. Please show me the time and date that this article was featured. I have my doubts. Please use the talk page before delteting. This article seems to be making reverse progress.
Here is One article that was featred and also included a GALLERY. THIS IS BS AND YELLOWSTONE IS NOT YOUR ARTICLE. IT IS OUR ARTICLE.
[15]—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
CamperStrike (
talk •
contribs)
My dearest Mongo,
I have started an AN/I on your idiotic threat to block SalvNaut. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney ( Hows my driving?) 14:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, now I am here, warning you to remain civil...edit summaries and comments such as this are incivil...see WP:CIVIL. You have the right to disagree with me, but do so civily.-- MONGO 16:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
In re [17]: That, in any case, is what I've argued. Given the "part of the problem", "many Americans ..." and "a kind of religious dogma" qualifications, these aren't even especially universal generalizations. In general, I think we should adjust for context, and what Seabhcan means is clearly (in all cases) "the editors working on the article with an apparently American bias". I have never formed a picture in my mind of Seabchan as anti-American or in any way bigotted in that regard. His remarks just display his frustration which he, understanably, traces to certain habits of mind in other editors. Every now and then he generalizes, but few readers would extend these outbursts beyond the contexts in which they were made. Even to take offense at the these remarks (given the sort opposition he's receiving -- from, among others, you) is a bit silly. To take action is, yes, I agree with Abe, a waste of time. Best, as always, -- Thomas Basboll 17:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're doing a series on ArbCom candidates, and your response is requested.
Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 ( talk) 01:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Your language "when asked about the barrage of questions he gets from those who don't believe the known evidence," is POV editorializing. It doesn't reflect the content of the article; its only source is MONGO. Further, you introduce a quote about controlled demolition before the paragraph that notes that some people believe the controlled demolition theory. Overall, it's a sloppy and poorly thought out edit. I moved the quote further down and removed your editorial language to fix the problem. -- Hyperbole 18:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/September 11, 2001 Attacks, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.-- Acebrock 21:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Mongo, could you please add the NPOV template to the September 11 2001 attacks article. Thank you kindly. -- Cplot 09:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
(may as well start a new thread now that the topic has changed.)
The CD article is informative, and largely NPOV (still some work to be done), about a hypothesis pursued by many people. It does not push that hypothesis, it merely explains it (again, a bit of work to be done). All this was settled by two consecutive nominations for deletion. The basis for consensus on the collapse article and the CD article is obviously different, since the two articles are not only about different objects, but about different kinds of objects. One is about a building collapse, the other is about a pastime (to put in a way you might not immediately balk at).-- Thomas Basboll 16:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey. Along the lines of "Defend Each Other", Solidpoint ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a threat of bodily harm to editor SWATJester in an external forum (See ANI thread [19]). It would appear that an indef block on Solidpoint for the threat is called for. I'm dropping this on a few admins talk's to try and resolve quickly, though it's on ANI now. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 21:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Also added here: [20] Tom Harrison Talk 21:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Mongo, Did I say something to insult you again? I really never meant to. Please tell what I said that made you feel bad. I really want to know. -- Cplot 23:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cowman109 Talk 23:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_timeline article is in serious need of attention. It presents numerous Conspiracy Theories regarding alleged ties between Saddam/Iraq and al Qaeda as fact, when these theories have been refuted, rejected, denied and discounted by the U.S. Government, various U.S. Governmental hearings and commissions, and almost all the respected experts, many of whom are retired U.S. Intelligence. This is a clear case of misusing Wiki to advance fallacious and discredited Conspiracy Theories. Perhaps you could help there. Thanks in advance. - F.A.A.F.A. 00:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks like a good admin candidate. 14000 edits with 6000 in mainspace. No blocks. Good eye for BS and lots of article cleanup. -- Tbeatty 07:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Nope. Tbeatty 23:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
These things are the latest fashion: ArbCom bumper stickers
— Doug Bell talk 08:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
67.37.179.61 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log) - Chicago, Sprint
70.8.49.7 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log) - Chicago, Sprint
70.8.151.103 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log) - Chicago, Sprint
68.30.26.171 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log) - Chicago, Sprint
68.30.87.114 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log) - Chicago, Sprint
70.8.91.12 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log) - Chicago, Sprint
70.8.132.79 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log) - Chicago, Sprint
-- Tbeatty 19:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I've opened Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cplot but not sure what can be done for anon IP's.-- Tbeatty 04:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
As part of the first step of advocating the wiki rights of cplot I am begining the steps towards dispute resolution WP:DR. User cplot has attempted to contact you on numerous occasions regarding alleged hostility on your behalf. [21] [22] You then blatantly obfuscate and escalate the situation by being rude [23] You appear to be ignoring the first steps of WP:DR. That is you are failling the "talking to the other parties" via removing communications attempts from cplot on your user page [24] and then by blocking him, according to WP:Block, in a contreversial block. It appears that you and cplot are involved in a content dispute. According to WP:Block "Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. Sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute. If in doubt, report the problem to other admins to act on. (You may be wrong!)" Your aggressive actions (rubing in the face that he has been blocked) and even betting in a gamely fashion on when he'll be back to "disrupt" [25] go against the wikipedia spirit and I would take this as a personal attack! To me it appears as though you blocked him because he added the category [usebaca] on a talk page... which is allegedly by accident. You then, instead of just changing it, asked him to remove it in a rude manner. [26]
You have even gone to the point of stalking the edits he does on his own user page! [27] You may have had grounds to push a 3RR block in the past for against cplot but the prejucial effect of using this statement in your current 1 week block outweighted the wiki-rules judicial effect. Essentially your blocking him on this latest count is highly prejucial and I put it to you that you did it in anger! Seriously, blocking someone for "ADDING A CATEGORY TO A TALK PAGE! Come ON!" You blocked him because of the escalating uncivility which was occuring inbetween each other. According to WP:Block your actions are not the encouraged. This biased bloking, as suggested cplot, [28] was simply based on my clients past rapport with you and your lack of good faith (as I've demonstrated above) to properly communicate.
This constant bikering is not only childish but totally disruptive for new commers in this article. I want to relax and read the issues concerning this article not read bikering on secondary... no not even... third degree issues. Though you have both played escalating roles in this revenge, trully Mongo has attempted to give the last hit with a revengeful BLOCK!
Now go figure, right at the point when cplot appears to receive support and begin a good debate you go and block him from representing his point... not on the article... but in the discussion page so you can resolve the underlining problem.
Cplot has placed a request for POV template addition to the article. (Which has been added). nevertheless he has been gang up on: with rude comments essentially telling him to fuck off. "...you want to add YOUR POV to the article. Please stop trying that. It is pointless and takes uses time and energy that could be used to improve the article and improve wikipedia. --Regebro 12:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)" Instead of concentrating on trying to suppress cplot perhaps wild conspiracies perhaps you should be a little friendlier in helping him (or in your case disprove) prove how he can add properly cited WP:CITE material for building an article which is evenly balanced in POVs. Remember, this goes for you too cplot, WP:POV has a lovely quote, which I added at the start, that indicated every article has POVs! Now lets work on having a well balanced POV article... that would hence be WP:NPOV according to wiki rules. It is for these reasons I believe we should begin mediation WP:RFM if not for the lack of civility then at least for the POV issues within the article (which appear to me to be the route of the problem). -- CyclePat 21:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
See this. He was posting it all over the place. I've left two warnings and if he does it again, he'll get blocked, but expect more Cplot sock puppets. I love Cplot's protestations of innocence on his Talk page. :) User:Zoe| (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
How come no one ever bothers me for being a paid mole of KKKarl Rove's? Crockspot 17:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
can you please explain to me why i cannot create an artical on the hollywood undead? if the fact that so many people keep trying create the artical doesnt mean its notable, i dont know what does. hollywood undead is the archtype of how myspace made it so that a band can truely be an overnight success. JoshDinger 23:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Since you were the user who welcomed me here, I was wondering if you could provide me some assisstance? The trouble is that some users find the content on my userpage "offensive" and have been pressuring me to censor it, despite the fact that I have posted a disclaimer on the page to the effect that my views do not reflect those of Wikipedia. I have no problems with agreeing to their demands, but the problem is that, as I have pointed out, other users are allowed to have much more offensive content (such as "This user is anti-American", "This user believes George Bush is a neo-Fascist", "This user supports the Nazis", "Who are you calling an illegal immigrant pilgrim") on their userpages. My repeated protests againt being singled out in this manner have fallen on deaf ears. Would you please have a look at the AN discussion and share your thoughts with me? Thanks. Cerebral Warrior 10:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
User_talk:Cerebral_Warrior#A_Proposal_by_crazyeddie crazyeddie 15:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
...for your support during my recent RfA. Your vote of confidence is especially meaningful since I have been a fan of your work since joining the project. If you need another admin hand at working with various articles of Nat'l Forest, Parks, etc. or just need a pair of fresh eyes to review an article, do not hesitate to ask. Cheers. youngamerican ( ahoy hoy) 16:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if you'd be kind enough to put Dysgenics on your watchlist, please? I tagged it noncompliant and listed some of my concerns on its talk page. However, other editors have tagged it npov, [1] [2] and that tag has been removed at least twice. [3] [4] -- Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I saw Blazing Saddles for the first time a day or so ago. Anomo 21:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
What's going on here? No discussion in advance? Can you explain your intentions, and let's work together to make it make sense. See Talk:Elk. Gnusmas 08:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply and clarification. But please see my further comments on Talk:Elk and Talk:Red Deer. I'm quite happy to discuss it. I disagree that the clear primary meaning of "elk" is C. canadensis. I also think you have slipped up in not discussing this move with elk people as well as red deer people! I really do think that Elk should be the disambig page, not a page devoted to one interpretation of the word. But don't worry - I'm not going to get involved in an edit war. I believe in discussing things with all interested parties before making such changes. Gnusmas 08:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for being so responsive - and apologies for the tone of some of my earlier contributions to the debate! I am delighted with the end result. Yes, the name of the new article is a bit cumbersome, but it is at least crystal-clear and unambiguous, and I think even the least mammal-literate wikipedia user will now understand what an "elk" is in all its shades of meaning - I think there was a serious danger of confusion the way you were heading. Incidentally, the photo of an Elk (or should I say "Elk"?) at Elk (Cervus canadensis) is so utterly unlike a European Red Deer that it seems "obvious" ;-) that it's a different species! Gnusmas 09:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd love some feedback from you if you can spare the time. If you choose not to participate, thanks too. BusterD 02:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Aside from working on 9/11 articles, I am working on criminology topics which is an area that Wikipedia sorely lacks. Last weekend, I discovered there was no article on "Gun violence", so started one. Most of the research literature pertains to the United States, so the article has become Gun violence in the United States. Obviously, people have strong POV on this topic, and I'm perhaps entering a minefield here. To try and rise above politics, I have only included the highest quality reliable sources (most are from peer reviewed, scholarly journals). Personally, I really don't have a POV on this. The article basically presents the current state of research on this topic, and I think is close to featured status (if POV pushing can be kept out of the article). Nonetheless, someone has already come along and place a neutrality tag on the article. I could really use some peer review on the article, at this point. Do you at all agree with the person who placed the neutrality tag? Do you have any suggestions on improving the article or making it more NPOV? are there aspects of the topic that are missing? Any help would be appreciated. -- Aude ( talk) 01:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
(copied from my talk page) Thanks everyone. Although some of the opposition was dissapointing, I was also really encouraged by the constructive criticism, particularly the very engaged and positive give and take you gave me, MONGO. I can't recall seeing such a constructive or engaged oppose to a RFA in the last year; it gave both of us a chance to revisit some conflict in a much more positive light, and I certainly learned something both about how I was seen and came across, and hopefully it helped clarify in your mind where I'd been coming from. It would have been so easy for you to just oppose and walk away; you didn't, and that was a real class act. I pinged Lar about doing something on enwiki along the lines of the meatball wiki "Defend each other" and I'd like to invite you to discuss it. I am certainly not ultimately discouraged; I got supports from a lot of people I respect a lot, and some I didn't think would support me. I learned a lot from the opposes and they give me some stuff to work on as it were. I'll send out the usual cute thank yous when my bandwidth allows, but I wanted to make sure I did something more personal first for some of the particularly valuable participants in the discussion. Again, thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 09:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello Mongo. I noticed you seem to be on some sort of crusade against dysgenics, both in the eponym article and in others which refer to the term. I also seem to understand it stems from your feeling that dysgenics is more of a pseudoscience than anything else. On this, we totally agree. However, the term is still used here and there, and removing it from every article in the encyclopedia that carries it doesn't seem to me like the best solution. Rephrasing references to it by saying people use this term to describe some sort of revers eugenic effect without implying in any way shape or form that it is a legitimate science would, IMHO be a much better way. The way I look at it, I agree it's a pseudoscience, but as a concept (that somehow, selection conditions favor what is perceived as a weakening of the gene pool) is a legitimate concept, if not legitimate science: who is to tell that proper evolution has to go one way (e.g. humans always increasing in intelligence) rather than the opposite way? I don't think we can be the judges of where evolution should lead. However, this does not change the fact that some people think they can. Well, I'll stop from miring myself any deeper in philosophical considerations, but I'd urge you to reconsider your campaign to remove the word "dysgenics" from the encyclopedia. As I tried to explain, I feel there are better ways to address the problem. Please feel free to drop me a note if you wish. Good day!-- Ramdrake 14:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
(PA removed)... -- Zero g 15:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I opened an RfC regarding
Fairness And Accuracy For All, it is located at
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fairness And Accuracy For All and would appreciate you comments if you have any. This message is being posted to anyone's talk page who it seems has had much contact with the user in question. --
Nuclear
Zer0
22:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
As the blocking admin, I thought you should know about this apparent retraction of his legal threats [5]. There has been a related conversation at WP:AN here. -- ZimZalaBim ( talk) 22:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Please dont save bad edits like this one you altered the picture sizes in and it caused them to clip the text (in the geology section). Oversized picture settings causes photos to cascade. I managed to fix it in my previous edit but for some reason you decided to revert it.
The article is already cluttered enough and it's partially due to over sized pictures. (yeah, I know every wants their prized shot to stand out) If people want a better view they can click to enlarge each photograph.
My RfA done I appreciate Anyway, I just |
Sorry to hear that you had a similar run-in with DreamGuy as I did... on the plus side, I think a lot of wind has been taken out of his sails. Oh well, I've got better things to think about than some jerk. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Started thinking about reliable sources. Here's a few thoughts on academic sources, since it's what I know.
I think the most practical approach is to have a consensus checklist of criteria which satisfy a (rebutable) presumption of reliability. Things not on the checklist are not to be deemed automatically unreliable, but rather subject to debate and consensus. Here are some suggestions for such a checklist.
ISI listed journals. These are all peer-reviewed. If it's not on the ISI list, it's probably not really credible. Australian universities, for example, don't receive credit for production of non-ISI journal articles.
Books by university publishing houses. These are generally carefully reviewed, as the University reputation is on the line. Major universities are fairly obvious reliable sources. Full membership in Association of American University Presses [6] should be a sufficient indicator of scholarly credibility. There are probably similar university press associations internationally.
Books by serious academic publishers, for example: Springer + Kluwer, Blackwell, Academic Press, Elsevier, Prentice Hall, Palgrave + MacMillan, Wiley, Horizon. The unifying theme of such publishers is that they have a focus on scholarly work, and thus a reputation to lose for publishing bunk. These could be given as examples, though an exhaustive list is probably not possible. A test for fringe academic houses would be if their books, as a whole, are widely carried by university libraries.
It would be tempting to allow individual non-fiction works if carried by several major university libraries. However, I think that's unsatisfactory, because universities may carry books because of notability, controversy, or interest rather than reliability. For example "Unfit for Command", absolutely riddled with falsehoods, is undoubtedly in most major libraries. Derex 08:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
btw, [7], [8]. alone, no big deal, but you know as well as i what the context is. you can bet plenty of emails were already enabled. Derex 05:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
At this point...I'm hoping that blogs and private websites that are under the editorial control of only a few or one webmaster can be better regulated. As far as published books, I doubt much can be done to determine what is and what isn't to be used as a reference base...but of course, in articles that deal with science, I think we could be more specific as to what constitutes a reliable source.-- MONGO 08:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Just dropping by to say hello. Sorry I didn't call first. :) – Clockwork Soul 07:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
My RfA passed with a tally of 71/1/0. Thank you very much for your support. I hope that my performance as an admin will not disappoint you. Please let me know if you see me doing anything inappropriate. -- Donald Albury 03:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Two weeks ago I couldn't even spell administratur and now I are one (in no small part thanks to your support). Now that I checked out those new buttons I realize that I can unleash mutant monsters on unsuspecting articles or summon batteries of laser guns in their defense. The move button has now acquired special powers, and there's even a feature to roll back time. With such awesome new powers at my fingertips I will try to tread lightly to avoid causing irreversible damage and getting into any wheel wars. Thanks again and let me know whenever I can be of use. |
I've actually added this page to the CVN watchlist on IRC as it seems its a troll magnet these days. Glen 22:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey Mongo, I was away while you were under attack (and it's apparently still ongoing). I may not wield the correct bits in my profile to help out much, but I just wanted to let you know that if you need anything I'll do what I can. I realize that's probably more moral support than practical, but just wanted you to know. — Doug Bell talk• contrib 02:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! | |
---|---|
Thanks for your input on my (nearly recent) Request for adminship, which regretfully achived no consensus, with votes of 68/28/2. I am grateful for the input received, both positive and in opposition, and I'd like to thank you for your participation. | |
Georgewilliamherbert 05:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC) |
User talk:Glen S#No reason for that - up to you what to do about them. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 07:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Just letting you know. Other issues may have to be dealt with later, and I'm still open to mediation on it. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 14:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Before you remove changes to the article, please discuss the issue as a group and let some time pass so others can comment on the drastic changes you are making to articles. I had put in a little bit of research and you reverted it back to the previous version. Please be more carefull and thoughtfull of the community effort that is going on here. Yellowstone is a public not a MONGO article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by CamperStrike ( talk • contribs) November 17, 2006.
Is it wikistalking when an editor goes around intentionally reverting your edits and only voting against you on AfDs where you have voted? Yes or no? And are admins supposed to put a stop to such things? Yes or no? -- Aaron 18:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I answered the questions. One favor I'd ask is if you could reword your nom so as to avoid any chance of giving the impression that I'm in any way a part of Esperanza. Let me know when you are ready for it to go live. Thanks again, I do truly appreciate your trust, — Doug Bell talk• contrib 20:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Mongo. user:Sparkhead is at it again. Another Editor (not me) put a POV tag on the Richard Dawkins article. Spark has removed it twice, including once while a vote is on. IMHO it should be left on for at least 24hrs to allow people to look at it and vote. But I can't re-instate the tag any more per 3RR. Could you oblige, in the interests of fairness? NBeale 23:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey there. I just shot you an email about an article. Later - JungleCat Shiny!/ Oohhh! 00:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
True, though there are cases where the article(s) is(are) the center of attention. Sometimes an assessment of the article(s) at the center of a dispute is unavoidable. As well, conflicting policies may arise where a stand needs to be made as to which policy overrides. For example, if an article meets WP:V but fails WP:NPOV, and cannot meet it due to a lack of verifiable, reliably sourced balancing information, either for or against the subject, which policy would stand above the other?
Good luck in the election! :) Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 08:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I have opened a request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Seabhcan. Tom Harrison Talk 20:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
You need a campaign manager apparently: see Image:G bumpstick.gif. — Doug Bell talk• contrib 20:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
But you might for this. It's his user page that was vandalized. -- Tbeatty 06:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello. If you get a chance, could you please stop by the Jerky article and help resolve a dispute regarding proper WP:External links. The relevant discussion is at Talk:Jerky (food)#Recipes, and I am seeking third party opinions since another user and I seem to be at an impasse. I am sending this to all editors who have recently edited the article or its talk page. Thanks so much for your time, Satori Son 17:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Does the offer you made a while back still stand? I'm finding myself limited in some of the ways I can help the project, at present... -- nae' blis 23:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
...is it just me, or are there more bone-headed ideas, hypocritical RfC's, and rock-idiotic DRV's going on nowdays? -- Elar a girl Talk| Count 07:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I like your suggestions on the communism talk page. I have to go online now, so I can't add the references and draft and post a reading list at the moment. If you remember, could you do me a little favor? I tend to be pretty forgetful. If I forget to do this in the next day or two, could you post a reminder on my user talk page? Thanks again! 172 | Talk 17:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
You are the third biggest contributor to the article with the most revisions! s d 3 1 4 1 5 talk • contribs 01:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I guess I should be flattered by the attention. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 20:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
MONGO,
Well, barring some unforeseen train wreck, it looks like your RfA nomination of me just might squeak by. With Nae'blis looking like a possible WP:100 unanimous addition, that give you a good batting average in RfA nominations. I'm going to be signing off for the evening soon and probably won't be back online until after it closes, so I just wanted to say thanks for the nomination and to wish you a Happy Thanksgiving!
If I'd known the RfA process was so much fun I probably would have accepted the first time you asked me if I was interested. I really mean that, it's not facetious—I suppose some people might have found this stressful, but for me it was simply stimulating and thought-provoking.
All the best, — Doug Bell talk 09:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
P.S. My RfA almost caught up with your ArbCom Q&A: 79K to 84K as of now. :-)
I noticed your remarks on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Discuss and Vote; I would appreciate it if you could take a look at WP:DDV, and indicate if it accurately represents the way Wikipedia works (and feel free to reword it if it doesn't). Basically it states that AFD (etc) are not decided by vote count, and in general voting is discouraged (but not forbidden). Thanks. ( Radiant) 10:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Somewhere in all of this yammer is, I believe, a thinly veiled reference to you. - Crockspot 13:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
BTW, if you have a sec, and this link hasn't turned red already, please delete this for me:
User:Crockspot/Conservative Underground. I saved the content into the history of my personal sandbox, don't need the article anymore.
Crockspot 18:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Nevermind, another admin caught it.
Crockspot
19:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Happy Thanksgiving Mongo,
I asked the following of Ruthfulbarbarity, as he continually refers to me as 'Neocons':
"Please refer to me by my handle FAAFA. People unfamiliar with my 'history' or my previous FULL user name could think that "Neocons" indicates an endorsement of Neoconservatism - which couldn't be further from the truth. Thanks for your cooperation...."
My previous username here was NBGPWS, it was never anything else. RB insists on using a name that I never used on Wiki, that I consider insulting, and that could cause others to think I embrace Neoconservatives or 'ism'. I have asked him to stop to no avail. He seems to listen to you. Would you be so kind as to ask him to stop? Thanks in advance.
P.S. "galactically inane"??? I'm no Scientologist! - F.A.A.F.A. 22:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Where did he call you a "neocon"...is that his greatest offense? I see on your Rfc that he made some comment about Noeocons, but can't see what he is directing it at. Please provide links to the evidence that he has insulted you. I am NOT a personal dispute solver...if indeed you feel slighted, you can post the evidence to WP:PAIN. You have been accussed of incivility yourself and have been blocked numerous times for multiple violations....please provide me with the evidence I need to act on...this evidence is based on diffs and examples.-- MONGO 17:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I dont understand how "Neocons" can be uncivil if its the first word in your old name. While I prefer people call be Nuclear, I wouldnt be offended if they called me zer0, which many still do. I am not sure where the insult is in reffering to you by your old name that you picked out. If you worried that people would associate you with NeoConservatives, perhaps you shouldnt have made a name with a shortened version of it. --
Nuclear
Zer0
18:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Example one: Ruthfulbarbarity wrote: "Stop the infantile insults NBGPWS, and if you must address me do so by the user name I have chosen. Not by any other user name I might have on another forum or website, nor a juvenile gloss on my handle."Ruthfulbarbarity 19:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC) PW Archive 10 The result? I complied. (eventually;-). I only ask the same, and I have asked it for weeks. - F.A.A.F.A. 21:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Note to Mongo - Re: Request to Ruthfulbarbarity Thank you. - F.A.A.F.A. 00:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for creating this very good article, right now I'm translating it into french but I got a problem with a sentence, I can't figure out what you meant. Here is the expression : "The Beartooth Mountains in the northernmost section of the forest are granitic and metamorphic in origin, and at to 3.96 billion years old, these exposed Precambrian rocks some of the oldest on Earth". Did you mean : granitic and metamorphic rocks, who appeared during the Precambrian, are some of the oldest rocks on earth ? -- Alonso49 08:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, You erased my picture on my profile page... Just wanted to know why you did so... There are no Copyright problems concerning the picture, since I am the one being photographed and the photographer gave me explicit permission to use it. Thanks in advance. -- Zouavman Le Zouave 10:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC) (PS: Happy Thanksgiving!)
Please look at WP:0WW. I pled on Pump for people to come over so it would have wider input but instead I got a certain special fellow who is busy razing it.
I agree that on first blush the shorter policy always looks better. But there are distinct and deep reasons for breaking wheel warring into violations of a bright-line rule and violations of a balancing test. Worse, these late edits demote bright-line policy to some sort of nut. One more edit like this and everything that 20 different thoughtful editors have put together over the last year will be rubble.
If you don't have time to dig through all the history at Wikipedia talk:Wheel war/Archive, I understand. You can start here or take my word for it that the page has gone through a great deal of careful evolution.
Before merge, both pages were guidelines; I tagged the merge as guideline, too; there it stood for a month. Major changes should be discussed on talk. Our friend first tagged it down to proposed, then brought in the bulldozer. Sneaky or not, it's not okay. These rules -- call them whatever you will -- have already been cited in ArbCom decisions; perhaps I should have been bold and tagged the page policy from the merge. I've had a lot of input on this page already and I want you in there now -- if you'll be so kind. Thank you. John Reid ° 10:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
MONGO, I'm new to Wikipedia. Please help me understand why the image was deleted from Forbes Burnham - Thanks Roopster 12:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
This is probably a moot point, since it looks like he's left the project, but could you unprotect Cerebral Warrior's userpage? The issue has been pretty much settled in this discussion. Thanks! crazyeddie 22:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was to leave your version in place (which doesn't have all of the ugly unsightliness), but leave CW free to modify it. If he modifies it outside of the limits we've set, then we'll take the whole page over to MfD to be thrown out. Basically, we're handing him some rope and seeing if he hangs himself with it. Since it looks like he's left the project, that doesn't look likely, but there is still hope... :-)
Since we have a mechanism in place for dealing with CW if he screws up again, and there doesn't seem to be any likelihood of an edit war, there is no real reason to leave the page under protection. If we remove the protection, then there is the slight possibility of watching someone hang themselves. (That should prove amusing.) But that's just a side benefit - I just don't like having a page remaining under protection without sufficient cause. The cause is gone, let's unprotect it. crazyeddie 06:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
While I promised not to send out thank you's following my RfA, I decided to make an exception for my nominator and the people that asked the excellent questions. I appreciate the nomination, and now you'll probably have to put up with me asking for advice as I learn how to navigate my new responsibilities. I appreciate the note you already left on my talk page regarding exercising caution and I'll try to heed it. Thanks again, — Doug Bell talk 19:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Forbes Burnham Guyana.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Please show me the rule that states no galleries in featured articles. Also this page is still .5 beta or in development. Please show me the time and date that this article was featured. I have my doubts. Please use the talk page before delteting. This article seems to be making reverse progress.
Here is One article that was featred and also included a GALLERY. THIS IS BS AND YELLOWSTONE IS NOT YOUR ARTICLE. IT IS OUR ARTICLE.
[15]—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
CamperStrike (
talk •
contribs)
My dearest Mongo,
I have started an AN/I on your idiotic threat to block SalvNaut. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney ( Hows my driving?) 14:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, now I am here, warning you to remain civil...edit summaries and comments such as this are incivil...see WP:CIVIL. You have the right to disagree with me, but do so civily.-- MONGO 16:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
In re [17]: That, in any case, is what I've argued. Given the "part of the problem", "many Americans ..." and "a kind of religious dogma" qualifications, these aren't even especially universal generalizations. In general, I think we should adjust for context, and what Seabhcan means is clearly (in all cases) "the editors working on the article with an apparently American bias". I have never formed a picture in my mind of Seabchan as anti-American or in any way bigotted in that regard. His remarks just display his frustration which he, understanably, traces to certain habits of mind in other editors. Every now and then he generalizes, but few readers would extend these outbursts beyond the contexts in which they were made. Even to take offense at the these remarks (given the sort opposition he's receiving -- from, among others, you) is a bit silly. To take action is, yes, I agree with Abe, a waste of time. Best, as always, -- Thomas Basboll 17:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're doing a series on ArbCom candidates, and your response is requested.
Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 ( talk) 01:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Your language "when asked about the barrage of questions he gets from those who don't believe the known evidence," is POV editorializing. It doesn't reflect the content of the article; its only source is MONGO. Further, you introduce a quote about controlled demolition before the paragraph that notes that some people believe the controlled demolition theory. Overall, it's a sloppy and poorly thought out edit. I moved the quote further down and removed your editorial language to fix the problem. -- Hyperbole 18:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/September 11, 2001 Attacks, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.-- Acebrock 21:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Mongo, could you please add the NPOV template to the September 11 2001 attacks article. Thank you kindly. -- Cplot 09:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
(may as well start a new thread now that the topic has changed.)
The CD article is informative, and largely NPOV (still some work to be done), about a hypothesis pursued by many people. It does not push that hypothesis, it merely explains it (again, a bit of work to be done). All this was settled by two consecutive nominations for deletion. The basis for consensus on the collapse article and the CD article is obviously different, since the two articles are not only about different objects, but about different kinds of objects. One is about a building collapse, the other is about a pastime (to put in a way you might not immediately balk at).-- Thomas Basboll 16:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey. Along the lines of "Defend Each Other", Solidpoint ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a threat of bodily harm to editor SWATJester in an external forum (See ANI thread [19]). It would appear that an indef block on Solidpoint for the threat is called for. I'm dropping this on a few admins talk's to try and resolve quickly, though it's on ANI now. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 21:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Also added here: [20] Tom Harrison Talk 21:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Mongo, Did I say something to insult you again? I really never meant to. Please tell what I said that made you feel bad. I really want to know. -- Cplot 23:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cowman109 Talk 23:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_timeline article is in serious need of attention. It presents numerous Conspiracy Theories regarding alleged ties between Saddam/Iraq and al Qaeda as fact, when these theories have been refuted, rejected, denied and discounted by the U.S. Government, various U.S. Governmental hearings and commissions, and almost all the respected experts, many of whom are retired U.S. Intelligence. This is a clear case of misusing Wiki to advance fallacious and discredited Conspiracy Theories. Perhaps you could help there. Thanks in advance. - F.A.A.F.A. 00:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks like a good admin candidate. 14000 edits with 6000 in mainspace. No blocks. Good eye for BS and lots of article cleanup. -- Tbeatty 07:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Nope. Tbeatty 23:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
These things are the latest fashion: ArbCom bumper stickers
— Doug Bell talk 08:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
67.37.179.61 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log) - Chicago, Sprint
70.8.49.7 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log) - Chicago, Sprint
70.8.151.103 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log) - Chicago, Sprint
68.30.26.171 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log) - Chicago, Sprint
68.30.87.114 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log) - Chicago, Sprint
70.8.91.12 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log) - Chicago, Sprint
70.8.132.79 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log) - Chicago, Sprint
-- Tbeatty 19:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I've opened Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cplot but not sure what can be done for anon IP's.-- Tbeatty 04:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
As part of the first step of advocating the wiki rights of cplot I am begining the steps towards dispute resolution WP:DR. User cplot has attempted to contact you on numerous occasions regarding alleged hostility on your behalf. [21] [22] You then blatantly obfuscate and escalate the situation by being rude [23] You appear to be ignoring the first steps of WP:DR. That is you are failling the "talking to the other parties" via removing communications attempts from cplot on your user page [24] and then by blocking him, according to WP:Block, in a contreversial block. It appears that you and cplot are involved in a content dispute. According to WP:Block "Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. Sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute. If in doubt, report the problem to other admins to act on. (You may be wrong!)" Your aggressive actions (rubing in the face that he has been blocked) and even betting in a gamely fashion on when he'll be back to "disrupt" [25] go against the wikipedia spirit and I would take this as a personal attack! To me it appears as though you blocked him because he added the category [usebaca] on a talk page... which is allegedly by accident. You then, instead of just changing it, asked him to remove it in a rude manner. [26]
You have even gone to the point of stalking the edits he does on his own user page! [27] You may have had grounds to push a 3RR block in the past for against cplot but the prejucial effect of using this statement in your current 1 week block outweighted the wiki-rules judicial effect. Essentially your blocking him on this latest count is highly prejucial and I put it to you that you did it in anger! Seriously, blocking someone for "ADDING A CATEGORY TO A TALK PAGE! Come ON!" You blocked him because of the escalating uncivility which was occuring inbetween each other. According to WP:Block your actions are not the encouraged. This biased bloking, as suggested cplot, [28] was simply based on my clients past rapport with you and your lack of good faith (as I've demonstrated above) to properly communicate.
This constant bikering is not only childish but totally disruptive for new commers in this article. I want to relax and read the issues concerning this article not read bikering on secondary... no not even... third degree issues. Though you have both played escalating roles in this revenge, trully Mongo has attempted to give the last hit with a revengeful BLOCK!
Now go figure, right at the point when cplot appears to receive support and begin a good debate you go and block him from representing his point... not on the article... but in the discussion page so you can resolve the underlining problem.
Cplot has placed a request for POV template addition to the article. (Which has been added). nevertheless he has been gang up on: with rude comments essentially telling him to fuck off. "...you want to add YOUR POV to the article. Please stop trying that. It is pointless and takes uses time and energy that could be used to improve the article and improve wikipedia. --Regebro 12:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)" Instead of concentrating on trying to suppress cplot perhaps wild conspiracies perhaps you should be a little friendlier in helping him (or in your case disprove) prove how he can add properly cited WP:CITE material for building an article which is evenly balanced in POVs. Remember, this goes for you too cplot, WP:POV has a lovely quote, which I added at the start, that indicated every article has POVs! Now lets work on having a well balanced POV article... that would hence be WP:NPOV according to wiki rules. It is for these reasons I believe we should begin mediation WP:RFM if not for the lack of civility then at least for the POV issues within the article (which appear to me to be the route of the problem). -- CyclePat 21:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
See this. He was posting it all over the place. I've left two warnings and if he does it again, he'll get blocked, but expect more Cplot sock puppets. I love Cplot's protestations of innocence on his Talk page. :) User:Zoe| (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
How come no one ever bothers me for being a paid mole of KKKarl Rove's? Crockspot 17:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)