Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:27, 19 May 2006

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)

Walmarting

Mongo, the Walmarting article we corresponded about in March attracted contributions today from Alan Aycock, the University of Milwaukee anthropology prof whose course I cited as an example of the term. Pretty neat, huh?

He just wrote a note on my talk page and I've responded, asking if he can add references, since I'm sure he has loads. Hope you're well.--Beth Wellington 02:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Your concern in my absence and your get-well wishes really mean a lot to me. Sometimes, well - life can be tough on us, but as long as good friends like you are there, I'll always have a reason to cheer up. Thank you, my sweet, dear Dave!!

A landslide victory for The JPS (aka RFA thanks)

Hey, MONGO, thank you so much for your vote and comments in my RfA, which passed with an overwhelming consensus of 95/2/2. I was very surprised and flattered that the community has entrusted me with these lovely new toys. I ripped open the box and started playing with them as soon as I got them, and I've already had the pleasure of deleting random nonsense/attacks/copyvios tonight. If I ever do anything wrong, or can help in some way, please feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will do my best to correct my mistake, or whatever... Now, to that bottle of wine waiting for me... The JPS 22:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Possible reference approach

Tell me what you think about User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Hidden refs. It has a certain fugliness to it; but it might be plausible to try on some article to avoid the "cluttered edit window" issue that bothers you. LotLE×talk 17:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried this at User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Shoshone National Forest. What do you think? Better or worse than the prior version? LotLE×talk 21:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I found another way of tagging the "hidden refs" idea, and I think it looks much better, and easier for non-coders to deal with. Wanna take a new look at the "Hidden refs" and "Shoshone" pages I mention. Actually, I think it might be good enough to actual do on Shoshone (I'd be happy to re-do it for the latest version of that page, if you think it's desirable).

Along the same lines, do you have any idea how to contact actual Wikimedia developers. I looked through the code for m:Cite.php, and actually provided a specific change at Misplaced Pages talk:Footnotes and cite.php metawiki. But it fell on utterly deaf ears... which makes me think I'm talking in the wrong place. The idea is, if this code was (first tested then) implemented, we could put the hidden reference block wherever we wanted, including in a friendly "References" section near the bottom. LotLE×talk 17:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Cyde

You seem to be pretty upset over this guys appeal to authoirty on the part of one arbitor speaking casualy. Personally I hate vote stacking; such votes may be discounted, and an RfC may be needed for the spammer. In a "Splash" sort of way, I do agree that no clear policy over this has been laid out, and blocks, especially by those involved in the vote may be a bit out of line. Nevertheless, try not get angry over this kind of Wikidrama...it will all play out sooner or later.Voice-of-All 05:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Rationales for not voting for Hillary Clinton in 2008

Blame my laziness on this one, but I only saw you had restored it after I deleted it. Am I missing any reason to keep the text in the history? After the Brian Chase thing I'm just thinking Misplaced Pages would like to avoid this sort of thing. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

References font-size

The references font-size proposal was resurrected , and I notice it has actually been implemented. Not entirely sure it will last, though. Either way, you can go into your monobook.css (e.g. User:MONGO/monobook.css) and set your preference for font-size, by adding:

ol.references { font-size: 100%; }

and setting font-size percentage to whatever you want (if you don't like the default). This overrides the sitewide default. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 18:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support on my RfA!

thanks

Thanks for unblocking me. thewolfstar 11:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Impeachment article imbroglio

I wonder if I could get your opinion at: Talk:Rationales provided by advocates of the impeachment of George W. Bush#What to do post-AfD?. LotLE×talk 17:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #3

Cuba

Hi,

I am sending this message to editors I know who have done work on articles related to communism.

Adam Carr recently started bringing the Cuba article up to standard, gradually rewriting each section. In the meantime, his work has been resisted for several weeks by a group of Castro supporters who dispute, among other things, that the fact that Cuba is not a democracy. Adam Carr is now at a conference for a couple of weeks, meaning his work will likely be undone. If you have the time and the interest, please take a look.

Best regards. 172 | Talk 05:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:7 World Trade Center

You said: "That's not a POV..that's a mission statement. I don't edit war on the article. As you evolve as a Wikipedian, maybe you'll understand that we don't link to self promoting websites that exist to promote nonsense and make a buck. I really cannot explain it any better than that, so bye."

I find that rather patronising, and just a little arrogant. If there is really no more to debate about, as you imply with your 'bye', I find it rather sad as it means we will have to ask for help to sort out the dispute and I had hoped we could do that ourselves. I thought I'd drop you a note here and see if you want to reconsider. By the way, I also do not appreciate language like "That is a bunch of crap."; I would be grateful if we could keep this civil. Even though we may disagree (and I'm not even sure we don't have a similar POV but different ways of expressing it), I think we should leave the language of the schoolyard behind. Thanks for your consideration. Guinnog 18:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, I was interested in this which you wrote:

"Looks like it's time to do something more about the articles related to 9/11...POV pushers of nonsense are determined to have their link, even though it vilates a number of wikipedia policies. I am inclined to have a zero tolerance now even in the conspiracy theory pages that relate to this junk science. I am also about ready to start blocking folks for disruption of the talk pages.--MONGO 07:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)"

and then

"By all means, do what matters the most to you...just encourage you to keep tabs on what's going on and glad to see you participating...don't let it take over one more minute than you feel is necessary, for in my opinion, we are arguing with trolls mostly...sorry for the bluntness...just my style at times. Happy editing.--MONGO 01:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)"

On reading this, which seems to seriously violate WP:NPA and WP:AGF, I was quite insulted. Is anyone arguing against your exclusion of all but the single official link in this article regarded by you as "POV pushers of nonsense" and trolls? When you rebuffed my attempt to engage you in civil dialogue, and to gently remind you to stay civil with the curt message that "I don't compromise if it means policy is to be violated", taken in conjunction with the above, I began to wonder if you were letting your POV rule your editing behaviour. The only reason I bring it up here is because I think it affects your credibility in this debate. Is it really about photo copyright and commercialism? I think I need you to reassure me that you are not letting your passionate POV rule you here.

Specifically, could you also please withdraw your threat above to "block folks for disruption of the talk page", as I don't think anyone is doing so. Even if they were, in your opinion, it would obviously be inappropriate for you to take admin action like this regarding a page you have been editing. Thanks in advance, Guinnog 22:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You replied: If adding a link to a website violates policy, then we don't add it. If people are disruptive on talk pages, then a block is justified. My POV, as you wish to call it, is based on the proven evidence, not on nonsense that is based on opinions or junk science that misinformed individuals have gathered from unscientific websites, whose sole or certainly secondary purpose is to make a profit. I don't think I can clarify it more clearly than that. There isn't much room for dialogue if folks keep trying to force policy violating websites into the articles.--MONGO 00:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Your reply worries me deeply. I find your use of "if" here very disingenuous. The question of whether any particular link "violates policy" was what we were discussing in the talk page. In what sense did you consider that was "disruptive"?

Howver, my most serious worry is that as an admin you would make this threat. Do you or do you not know that to carry out the threat would have been a flat-out breach of policy? If you accept it was a mistake, it would show courage and integrity to admit it. Guinnog 06:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

In response to your edit summary "read the policy", I obviously had already read the policy, which is how I knew your threat to be wrong. There was no 'if' in your comment that you were "just about ready to start blocking folks", as you well know. Such a threat, in a public place where participants in the discussion were likely to read it as I did, seems to me to be potentially disruptive in its own right. There is nothing in the blocking policy about blocking editors whose arguments or opinions you don't like, as you also must know. Perhaps a quick review of the contents of WP:HAR might be in order? As I believe I've mentioned before, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL are paramount Wiki policies. Please respect them as I have tried to do. Thank you. Guinnog 07:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I will not assume any good faith when POV pushers try to add nonsense to the articles. makes your position clear all right. If you are not prepared to edit in good faith and accept others' right to do so, I don't know what else to say! With the greatest respect, can't you see that your edits can be seen as POV-pushing too?! Guinnog 14:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

9/11

I don't disagree, but a widespread, across the board action would take a lot of time to sort through. I think it would have to be done on a case by case basis. That'd be a full time job considering the debating styles of some of the proponets and their tireless devotion to conspiracy. If I had time I'd love to root that crap out, a large pertcentage of it doesn't belong here. But I find 7wtc taking up what little time I have these days...I don't mind because it's important but I'm not sure how much more personally I can devote to it. But, I'd support you as far as I could if you did want to open up a wide front on junk 911 conspiracy theories. There would be some that are probably notable enough to include in conspiracy pages, but almost none of them belong on the main topic pages. Rx StrangeLove 21:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You being blunt is no secret ;) I just put a long response in at 7wtc....40 minutes I'll never get back and it won't make a bit of difference. Let me know if you do open up a larger front on junk 9/11 theories, I'll help out as much as I can. Rx StrangeLove 04:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thanks for the note. I'm Bett and really new here. With regards to the Wilderness stuff that I'm doing I was trying to help get rid of the red links and give a bit of info. Still nosing around and learning alot. I'm from Ontario, Canada. LdyDragonfly 04:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

External links - You've helped me alot but am a bit confused. On the links you've put date link was accessed. Is this necessary because I haven't seen that done anywhere else or is that to help me? Showing me some templates is a really big help as well. I really like the fact I can preview before submitting. Thanks! LdyDragonfly 07:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I stepped on someone's toes with regards to the Wilderness template. I didn't mean to offend anyone working on the project. Is it alright to fill in a red lined subject with a couple of lines of info and an external link or two...for starters? I'm still new and you did kind of blow me away with all the template stuff. LdyDragonfly 01:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What I meant by messing up anything was a setup that you wanted as a style(?) for your pages. They seem to differ in different sections. Ya I'm getting the knowhow of the embedded links but seem to worry when things in one section don't seem to be following the lead. What drives me nuts is the titles like....External links. I almost want to change them all to External Links. I'm learning though. I also edit on Netscape's Dining Directory and have edited on ODP for Netscape This is the first HTML based one that I've done so it's interesting and gives me a kick in the butt to make my own page. :) LdyDragonfly 01:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Just one question - How was I vandalizing Misplaced Pages?

Actually, I didn't realize my changes weren't encyclopedic. According to Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, encyclopedic is defined as:

of, relating to, or suggestive of an encyclopedia or its methods of treating or covering a subject

And encyclopedia is defined as:

a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject

How was that not being encyclopedic?

So, I also gather that you're an Administrator. May I therefore assume you have read the Vandalism and Resolving disputes articles? If I may say, and I quote:

Bullying or Stubbornness

Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them on an article's talk page, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is a matter of regret - you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. However, it is not vandalism.

Again I quote:

Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Uweretheone (talk • contribs) Uweretheone (talk · contribs)

Changing "God's wonderful hand" to "70 million years of volcanism, migration, and evolution—processes" is not encyclopedic. It's your opinion, and if you do it again, I'll simply find a way to block you. Uweretheone 11:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

No response, I see....cat got your tongue, eh? Uweretheone 01:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa- back up there...scientific information? So you think evolution is scientific? Ha! Sorry to break it to you, but evolution is false. Give me good, genuine, solid proof that evolution is true, and good, genuine, solid proof that Christianity is false, and then I'll stop bothering you. Uweretheone 02:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Check this out

I promise you will love it. --Jersey Devil 06:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Also see my comment here.--Jersey Devil 07:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Reliable Sources talk discussion

I've started a topic on WP:RS on the claims that Seabchan makes about the validity of the 9/11 commision report and the FEMA and NIST reports.

As you have been dealing it with him longer, I think you might be able to give more insight.--DCAnderson 10:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

rfa

I've replied on my talkpage. -Zero 11:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for the e-mail. I've responded with one and on my talkpage again, and despite it being unsuccessful, thank you for nominating me. -Zero 13:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for voting in my RfA!

Thanks for the vote in my RfA! It did not gain consensus, but I'm happy with having accepted it. Good learning experience. - Amgine 17:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

A tribute

I've written an article in your honor! Check out the Mingo National Wildlife Refuge. Mingo/Mongo, Mongo/Mingo... It was close enough! ClarkBHM 19:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Laura Chapman

MONGO, today you speedied this article as a non notable character. Surely you know the non notable speedy criteria is for real people, not characters? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ollanta Humala

Careful on the delete, the AOL anon vandal tricked you. -- Curps 04:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Ollanta Humala can you undelete the talk page? God, these vandals really piss me off.--Jersey Devil 04:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, please semi-protect again. These people aren't going to stop. Another incident amongst the countless others showing why IPs shouldn't be allowed to edit.--Jersey Devil 04:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Lastly, please block these IPs for vandalism. User talk:64.12.116.70 and User talk:205.188.117.74.--Jersey Devil 04:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I hereby award MONGO the rouge admin award for his deletion of Misplaced Pages's article on a current Presidential candidate. Keep up the good work! :P --TantalumTelluride 05:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

:P--Jersey Devil 05:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

And for my next act...yes, that's right folks! I'm gonna speedy George W Bush!!!--MONGO 05:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Do you do children's parties too? Bishonen | talk 02:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC).

User talk:213.228.0.12

Why did you delete this page? It had a significant history of warnings, etc. greater than a simple redirect. Snoutwood (talk) 06:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No, that's cool. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. O.K. if I undelete it? Snoutwood (talk) 07:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

RFC Against You

User talk:EyesAllMine#Mongo's behaviour and User_talk:Seabhcan#rfc, They were apparently plotting an RFC against you, didn't know if you realized it.--Jersey Devil 02:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

NP article

Hi, I was admiring the new pictures last night. I think the gallery is great, but it'd look better if you could connect the pics, see Flag of Australia where we ended up putting the images we wanted to display together in a table rather than using the gallery markup. You might need to mess around with the number of pixels to get them all the same size. One other thing, why is climate a subsection of ecology - it seems more like a geography subsection to me.--Peta 02:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

MOGO (talk · contribs)

typo or impersonator?--J-edgar 16:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hum...I'll watchlist and see where he goes, thanks for the heads up.--MONGO 16:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for Editor / User Page Review

Hey MONGO –

You opposed my last RfA in March on rationale I believe may have been related to my user page. In the time since then, I have changed my page to be more universalist (which still conforms with my personal beliefs) and removed the majority of information regarding my conversion to Islam in favor of a section on my philosophy (as well as yours if you desire). Now, I'm looking for your feedback on what you think of the redesign of the page and whether it is sufficient in quelling the March controversy over the page as well as solving the issue about possible inability to maintain a neutral point of view, especially in religion-related articles. For what it's worth, the reason I kept a condensed version of the timeline was because there were, and still are, many people who find it interesting instead of a form of proselytization. Many people have also given me positive feedback on my talk page regarding the look of the page. I personally believe that it is okay to insert individuality onto user pages, especially if it still promotes a sense of community. That is what I was going for with this current version of my user page.

Please make comments regarding the user page on my editor review page. Thanks in advance. joturner 15:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

request

can you please block User talk:69.253.150.96, he keeps vandalizing my userpage. Karrmann 12:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

He vandalized my talk page again. Karrmann 10:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Howdy

I got one of these things on my talk page. I suppose I should pass it on since I'm an Esperanzan.

TantalumTelluride has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing! --TantalumTelluride 00:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Hey, nice job there of trying to talk with me first before undoing my admin actions. It's not as if I haven't been online all night. --Cyde Weys 04:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, Cuba is still protected; I'm not certain whether you were attempting to revert Cyde's protection or simply to return the {{citation style}} tag, which Cyde removed in protecting (ostensibly inadvertently, but perhaps purposefully, in view of his views apropos of citation style, with which views I generally agree). In any case, thought I'd let you know; it's probably best that you return the protected tag, in order that some editor who happens upon the article and finds no "edit this page" link knows what's going on. Joe 05:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

As Joe says, Cuba is protected but you removed the protected tag. This doesn't seem right. -- Beardo 07:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Lulu of the Lotus Eaters' block

I've restored it as an uninvolved admin. Despite Cyde's involvement, Lulu did violate 3RR, and was deserving of a block. I'm opening a thread up at WP:AN; I'll link it here when I'm done writing it. Regards, Ral315 (talk) 06:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Request for block review of Lulu of the Lotus Eaters. Ral315 (talk) 06:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Signatures

Hey, no problem. Don't worry about it, this whole thing has brought up a lot more than just one person's sig and one person's block and it's become too heated (which is why I removed myself from the RFC in fact). No hard feelings, and thanks for the comment, Chuck 12:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

RfC 19

Thanks for making me giggle. As I think you suggested, having read your message I've removed it so as to minimise potential for further offence. --Tony Sidaway 14:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

A lost "national monument" and an administrative request

FYI, I thought you might be interested in a non-"National Monument" national monument I came across. I just started the article: National Monument to the Forefathers.

I also have a request for help from an administrator. As you know, last week I made the Template:Part-of. It occured to me that the few templates that put content in title space should somehow be grouped as a class, so I made the Category:Title templates. My problem is that two of the more prominent title templates, Template:featured article and Template:Coor title d, are locked to non-administrators. I left messages on the template talk pages to add the category within NOINCLUDE tags, but no one seems to be checking the talk pages. Can/would you do this? — Eoghanacht 14:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

okay...I have to check this out...I added the category to the featured article template and it showed up on every featured article, so I guess I need to put it inbetween the noinclude brackerts?--MONGO 19:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, see the code for {{part-of}} for an example. The <noinclude> </noinclude> tags are already be there. Just place the new code above the interwikis for "featured" and below the other category for "coor title d".

For "featured article" add:

]

]

For "coor title d", just add

]

Thanks. — Eoghanacht 19:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Noticed you were having trouble. See full code for templates at User:Eoghanacht/sandbox.

Yes, what you just did seems to work. For some reason many featured articles are now appearing in Category:Title templates, but I think they will go away as the database refreshes. Thanks again. — Eoghanacht 19:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Wiki's SVG Image Handling

Why do some SVG images display thumbnails, and others simply refuse to display thumbnails? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbaker6953 (talk • contribs)

Notice that it works fine at Interstate 210. The identical tag does not work for my SVG image. That's what I can't figure out.

I figured it out. It's bug 5463 in the wiki bugzilla. You have to do an action=purge on the image page first. Works fine now. - Jbaker6953 20:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Interested in so many things that I could spend 16 hours a day writing in Misplaced Pages and not cover everything. I do have a strong interest in public lands issues and environmental causes. - Jbaker6953 20:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Successful Request!

Thank you! Hello, MONGO — and from the bottom of my heart, Thank you for your support on my recent Request for Adminship. We succeeded with a final tally of 85/11/6 and I am now an administrator. Don't forget to let me know what I can do for you. Bastique▼voir 11:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

User Page Changes

Per the numerous comments regarding potential proselytization on my user page, I have decided to remove entirely the section regarding the steps in my conversion to Islam. I welcome additional comments on what you believe may be construed as proselytization. Thanks in advance. joturner 23:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Glacier

Sorry it took me so long to get back to the Glacier national park article--I've been busy as all heck the past couple of days. Good job on the article, too. --Robth 15:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You bastard

I filled my dacks when I saw the octagon of doom. I mean, I wasn't fooled for five second, I'm talking at least twenty seconds before the "Awww... no way" kicked in. You bastard. ^_^
brenneman 10:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha!--MONGO 11:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That thing again

I was totally not going to bother you anymore with the ever annoying Churchill stuff. But then I saw you did some edits yourself, without my even prompting... so I felt less guilty about mentioning something :-).

Anyway, over at Ward Churchill misconduct allegations, there is an anonymous editor who repeatedly blanks all the parts where Churchill (or Churchill's defenders) make any comments in his own defense. Inasmuch as some "grounds" were stated in the edit summaries (and eventually on the talk page), they amounted to: "I don't like Churchill's tone". Well, actually, the blanking has narrowed over the course of several edits. It started out with about a dozen different paragraphs, then it went down to fewer. One of the blankings was a comment by Churchill on Thomas Brown, which I left deleted, since it's relevance was not pressing (and Churchill's tone was indeed particularly intemperate... though that should not automatically disqualify a direct quote). This editor has the IP addresses 70.114.205.215 and 72.177.223.95 (I assume the different IP addresses are innocent enough; either different locations or reassignment by his/her ISP... but the edit comments refer to each other in first person).

Now it's mostly narrowed to some comments by Churchill that aren't at all intemperate, that simply observe that Churchill is widely listed in the Citation index, and a critic named LaVelle is hardly listed at all. The IP editor rants hysterically about how Churchill's claims are libel/slander and nonesense like that, which hardly helps discussion. FWIW, I actually think Churchill's argument here is slightly ad hominem, or at least a not-completely-compelling, argument from authority. But as editors, it's not our job to present only "good" arguements made by directly involved parties to some issue. However Churchill himself decides to make his case is prima facie germane, just not necessarily convincing. And actually, I don't think an "argument from citation-index" is completely off base; relative prestige of scholars is sort of what we use to decide encyclopedic value, after all.

Anyway, I'm thinking maybe you can give a little nudge to the IP editor about the fact mass blanking at least borders on vandalism. I mean, it's not quite like the editors who replace an article with the word "gay" repeated a thousand times (have you seen Raul's Law about this?). But it is deletion of rather large swatches of material added by a number of editors (not just me), that have been in there for a while. I'm not sure if the fact the deletions obviously follow a political agenda make them more or less like vandalism. LotLE×talk 20:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Revert

Hi, I'm not sure why you reverted my text adds to the Felix Rodriguez page but I've re-added it. Your edit was marked "anonymous" contribution but that is hardly true. I am a longtime prolific contributor to Misplaced Pages. If you would like to discuss why you think the material from the Miami Herald is not relevant or why you don't think my edit is best, I welcome hearing from you. Skywriter 21:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm

I am pretty sure stuff like this is not aloud on Misplaced Pages, think you can do something about it... some people may take offense to this. --GorillazFan Adam 21:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

I have filed a request for arbitration regarding TruthSeeker1234. --DCAnderson 21:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)