User talk:MONGO: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 04:54, 17 November 2007 editJunglecat (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers6,570 edits →Proposal: reply← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:59, 17 November 2007 edit undoMONGO (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers76,644 edits archiveNext edit →
Line 27:		Line 27:
	]<br>		]<br>
	]		]
			]
	\|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->		\|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->
	<div style="margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 0px; padding-top: 10px; padding-bottom: 10px; padding-left: 10px; padding-right: 10px; width: 230px; background: #f9f9f7; border:1px solid #8888aa; border-right-width:2px; border-bottom-width:2px; float: right;">]<br><div style="padding: 1px; background: lightsteelblue; border: width: 100px; float: center; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; font-size: 8pt; text-align: center; font-color: #EEEEFF;">My other car</div></div>		<div style="margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 0px; padding-top: 10px; padding-bottom: 10px; padding-left: 10px; padding-right: 10px; width: 230px; background: #f9f9f7; border:1px solid #8888aa; border-right-width:2px; border-bottom-width:2px; float: right;">]<br><div style="padding: 1px; background: lightsteelblue; border: width: 100px; float: center; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; font-size: 8pt; text-align: center; font-color: #EEEEFF;">My other car</div></div>
Line 33:		Line 34:
	]		]
	]		]

	== Cowstar ==

	Thanks for that, first decent chuckle I've had out of Misplaced Pages all week. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
	:My pleasure.--] 23:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

	==Your recent edits==
	Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to ] and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should ] by typing four ]s ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the ], and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button ] located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!<!-- Template:Tilde --> --] 16:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
	:Funny to see a bot warn you for not signing the adminship question :-) ] 01:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

	==Thanks!==
	{\| style="border: 1px solid {{{border\|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color\|lightblue}}};"
	\|rowspan="2" valign="middle" \| ]
	\|rowspan="2" \|
	\|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" \| '''My RFA'''
	\|-
	\|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" \| Thanks for participating in ], which ended with 56 supports, one oppose, and one neutral. I hope to accomplish beyond what is expected of me and work to help those that lent me their trust. ]
	\|}

	== GlassCobra's RfA ==

	{\| style="border: 1px solid {{{border\|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color\|lightblue}}};"
	\|rowspan="2" valign="middle" \| ]
	\|rowspan="2" \|
	\|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" \| '''My RFA'''
	\|-
	\|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" \|Hey MONGO! Thanks for your support in ], which ended with '''61 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral'''. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified, and please feel free to call on me if you ever need any backup or second opinions! ]''']''' 02:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
	\|}

	== Thanks ==
	<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:white; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">]
	Thank you for supporting me in my recent ] which unfortunately did not pass at (47/23/5). I will be sure to improve my editing skills and wait till someone nominates me next time. Have a great day(or night)! --] ] 05:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
	</div>

	== ]'s RfA thanks! ==

	Thanks for supporting my ], it closed today with a final tally of 39 supports, 1 oppose and 1 neutral. As always, if you ever see me doing anything which would cause you to regret giving me your support, let me know. <strong>]<small>•]</small></strong> 19:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
	==Thank you bunches!==
	{\| width="95%" background=none align=center
	\|width=117px align="center"\|]
	\|align=center\|<font face="Eras bold ITC"><big>Thank you so much for suppporting my RfA. I was promoted with a total of (44/1/0) - a vote of confidence from the community that I find humbling and motivating. I will not abuse your trust. Look forward to working with you!</big></font> (] 21:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC))
	\|}

	== Thank you for your support. ==

	I've seen you around, and I think you're definitely a "takes a lickin', keeps on tickin'" type. I appreciate your support a lot in light of the weirdness.

	{\| class="messagebox {{#ifeq:{{{small\|}}}\|yes\|small\|standard}}-talk"
	\|-
	\|]
	\|'''Remember, remember, the fifth of November?'''<br>Thank you to everyone who participated in my ], which was successful at '''50/5/0''' on November 5th, 2007.<br>It became, as you may know, rather contentious toward the end (though fortunately no ] was involved), and I appreciate the work of other Wikipedians to keep it focused. --] 03:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
	\|}

	==RE: "troll elsewhere"==
	I guess our help is not needed! This place is not getting less strange... ] 09:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
	:There have been numerous accusations, so perhaps she felt it is better to ignore that dribble and not feed it by "covering it up" with a revert. I hadn't noticed at first when I removed it that she had previously restored it.--] 15:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

	== Inclusion of conspiracy theory info ==

	Hello. I was wondering if you could mosey on by ] and offer some of your thoughts on ]. Thanks, ] (]) 21:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

	==Interesting situation on my talk page==
	Hi there, could you take a look at this? This - ] in reply to a civility warning for edit summary. Do you think I should just let this go as resolved, or is this guy's attitude too much of a problem? ] 03:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
	:Nevermind, dealt with. I only have so much patience with people like that. ] 04:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

	== OhanaUnited's RfA ==

	<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:lightgreen; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">]
	Thanks for voting at ]. Unfortunately, the result stands at '''51 support, 21 oppose and 7 neutral''' which means that I did not succeed. As many expressed their appreciation of my works in ] during my RfA, I will fill up the vacuum position of director in ] to maintain the standards of featured contents in addition to my active role in ]. Have a great day. ]] 04:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
	</div>

	== ] ==

	Hello, are you aware you voted twice? Was it a mistake or something? <span style="font-family:Arial;color:blue"> '''''Cheers,]]] (])'''''</span> 04:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
	:Oops.--] 08:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	{\| style="border: 1px solid {{{border\|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color\|lightblue}}};"
	\|rowspan="2" valign="middle" \| ]
	\|rowspan="2" \|
	\|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" \| '''Wallowing in my RfA: This time it's personal...'''
	\|-
	\|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" \|My sincere thanks for your support in ], which ended with '''51''' supports, '''0''' opposes, and '''0''' neutral. Doubtless it was an error to put one of the ] in any position of authority, but I hope your confidence in me proves justified. ]. Fortunately, I'm neither a were-pig nor pure of heart so this doesn't appear to be an imminent danger to Misplaced Pages for the moment. Fortunate as well because were-pig hooves are hell on keyboards and none too dexterous with computer mice. If ever I should offend, act uncivil, misstep, overstep, annoy, violate policy, or attempt to topple the fascist leadership of Misplaced Pages, please let me know so I can improve my behaviour and/or my aim. ]. And, of course, if there is any way in which I can help you on Misplaced Pages, please do not hesitate to ask me. Despite my japes, I am indeed dedicated to protecting and serving Misplaced Pages to the best of my foppish and impudent abilities. I will strive to be an admirable admin, shiny and cool, reasonable and beatific. ]]/] 05:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
	:<small>'''Post Scriptum:''' I believe my ]d graphic at left, which incorporates the WP globe and mop image, falls under the rubric of ] for my purposes here. Or is it ]? Regardless, it's a legitimate and legally protected First Amendment usage under US law. Complaints and allegations that this is an improper "fair use" image will be entertained on ], probably with fruit juice, finger food and exotic coffees.</small>
	\|}

	== ] ==

	*A draft userspace article has been created. Please see ]. ] 21:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

	== Your RFA edits ==

	Can I ask why you arbitrarily post the same question on all the RFAs? It seems a lot like badgering esp what happened with the whole Jimbo/Zscount370 incident. Just curious. --{{User:Charitwo/Sig}} 00:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
	:That is why I post those questions..there is nothing badgering about asking people if they understand the policy...it also helps me determine the potential they have for wheel warring.--] 02:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

	== Some thankyou spam ==

	Thankyou for supporting my ] which closed with 58 supports. If i am honest i am rather humbled by the unanimous support and i hope to live up to everyones expectations. If you ever need any help, don't hesitate to ask. Thanks again. ] 14:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

	== Re: ] question ==

	Thanks for the question! I just wanted to let you know that I responded to it. Cheers! ] <sub>(] ] ])</sub> 15:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

	==its your fault, dude==
	I'm going to admit , least it comes back to haunt me at arb. ] 08:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
	:Huh?--] 11:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

	== Thank you ==

	<div style="padding: 5px; background: #FFDCF8; border-style: solid; border-width: 10px; border-color: #000000; font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 100%; ">
	<center>
	<div style="margin-top: 3px; padding-top: 9px; padding-bottom: 9px; padding-left: 9px; padding-right: 9px; width: 200px; float: center;">]</div>
	</center>
	<div class="NavFrame" style="padding: 0px; border-style: none; font-size: 100%;">
	<div class="NavFrame" style="padding: 0px; border-style: none;">
	<div class="NavHead" style="background: white; text-align: center;"><small>Click there to open your card!</small> → → →</div>
	<div class="NavContent" style="display: none; text-align: center;">
	Dearest MONGO,<br>
	Thank you for your participation in ], which closed successfully with 137 supports, 22 opposes, and 5 neutrals. Your consideration and support are very much appreciated and I look forward to proving you right. I would like to give special thanks to ] and ] for their co-nominations. Thank you again and best regards.<br>
	<center>''']''']''']''' 19:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)<center>

	'''Credits:''' <small>This RFA thanks was inspired by ''']'s RFA thanks''' which was inspired by ]'s RFA thanks.</small></div></div></div></div>

	== Belated thanks. ==

	Happy editing.--] 13:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

	== my RFA ==

	<div style="padding: 5px; background: #8AA5DB; border-style: solid; border-width: 2px; border-color: #FF4F00; font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 100%; ">
	<center>
	<div style="margin-top: 3px; padding-top: 9px; padding-bottom: 9px; padding-left: 9px; padding-right: 9px; width: 400px; float: center;">]</div>
	</center>
	<div class="NavFrame" style="padding: 0px; border-style: none; font-size: 100%;">
	<div class="NavFrame" style="padding: 0px; border-style: none;">
	<div class="NavHead" style="background: #8AA5DB; text-align: center;"><font color="#002FA7">If you voted in my ]...</font></div>
	<div class="NavContent" style="display: none; text-align: center;">
	<font color="#002FA7">...thank you for your participation. I withdrew with 83 supports, 42 opposes, and 8 neutrals. Your kind words and constructive criticism are very much appreciated. I look forward to using the knowledge I have accrued through the process to better the project. I would like to give special thanks to ] and ] for their co-nominations.
	<br><center><font color="#002FA7">Thank you again and, best regards.</font> ] <sup>]</sup><center>
	<br>
	<font color="#002FA7"><small>'''This RFA thanks was inspired by ]''']''']'''</small></font></font></div></div></div></div>

	==More RfA shout outs==
	Hey Mongo, thank you so much for voicing your support in my ]. I'm humbled to have the community's trust. As I master the ways of the mop and bucket, please don't hesitate to message me for any advice or corrections. Cheers! ] 23:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

	== Thankspam ==

	<div style="padding: 5px; background:#FFCC99; border-style: solid; border-width: 2px; border-color:#FF7F50; font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 100%; ">
	<center>
	<div style="margin-top: 3px; padding-top: 9px; padding-bottom: 9px; padding-left: 9px; padding-right: 9px; width: 400px; float: center;">]</div>
	</center>
	<div class="NavFrame" style="padding: 0px; border-style: none; font-size: 100%;">
	<div class="NavFrame" style="padding: 0px; border-style: none;">
	<div class="NavHead" style="background: #FF7518; text-align: center;"><font color="#000000">Thank you...</font></div>
	<div class="NavContent" style="display: none; text-align: center;">
	<font color="#000000">...for your participation, criticism, and support in my recent RfA, which succeeded with a final count of 90/1/1. I appreciate all of your kind words, criticism, and suggestions. I extend a special thanks to Acalamari for his nomination, and Dihydrogen Monoxide and Husond for their coaching and nominations. If you need help in any administrative matters, please contact me.
	<br><center><font color="#000000">Thank you again and, best regards,</font> <br>Neranei
	<br><font color="#000000"><small>'''This RfA thanks inspired by VanTucky's which was in turn inspired by LaraLove's which was inspired by The Random Editor's, which was inspired by Phaedriel's original thanks.'''</small></font></font></div></div></div></div>

	== Sorry ==

	Your note on my talk page has merit, and I'm sorry for any upset those posts caused. I edited them yesterday, but having been encouraged by an editor I respect to reflect, I feel a further apology is necessary. It should be extended to all parties, who I hope will be aware of it here, without dragging it back out onto any more pages.

	Sorry. ] 00:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

	==Just a hello==
	Well, hey there, Mongo; but how does that song go? "The Wild Women of Wongo"? Do you play the ]? Catch up with you sometime. PS- Cool user page. --''']''' (] - ]) 00:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
	:Not heard that one.--] 00:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

	== Proposal ==

	MONGO, I have a proposal, regarding the harassment links. If you see anybody adding a link to any "attack site", tell me about it, and I will personally remove the link, and block the person if they restore it. I will do it without appealing to any kind of misguided "BADSITES" policy, and I will demonstrate that our current policies are perfectly adequate to dealing with harassment, when they're applied with professionalism.

	What do you thihk? The worst I can do is fail to live up to my word, and then we'll be right back where we are now. On the other hand, you might find out how effective we can be when we handle these situations right, and not wrong. Why not give it a try? -]<sup>(])</sup> 03:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
	:Is there a reason you guys are so opposed to having that in policy? This isn't about badsites...it is about websites that make it a habit of attack our contributors...we all know what these websites are and I know who are the participants in those sites....so it certainly is a disgusting COI when partiticipants in those websites try and argue against not being able to link to them...I think arbcom would agree with that.--] 03:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
	:::Yes, there is a reason, and I've told it to you dozens of times. I oppose advertising the existence of these sites. I oppose BEANS. I oppose the policy that you're trying to shoehorn into ] because I think it's misguided, and every time I've told you this, you've responded with the equivalent of "LA, LA, LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" When will you stop mischaracterizing my arguments? When? I have NEVER, no will I EVER, argue against not being able to link to attack sites. NEVER, get it? <p> Now, is there a reason that you think other policies are not adequate to handling the situation? Is there a reason you didn't respond to my proposal? Is there a reason you ignore most of what I say? -]<sup>(])</sup> 04:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

	::In which case its disgusting COI for you to try and argue for its inclusion when you claim to have been harrased by members of those websites. It goes both ways MONGO. All in all this latest edit war and the resulting talk page participation (which should have happened before you added something you knew did not have consensus) has simply reaffirmed that there is no consensus to include that section in that policy. It also reaffirmed that you cannot participate in discussions about that subject without continually attacking other editors. ]] 04:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
	:::It's getting hard to tell the pots from the kettles here. - ] 04:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
	::::Crockspot can you please restrict yourself to helpful comments. I would like to see which part of that was a personal attack? Calling someone out on attacking other people is not a personal attack when it can be substantiated (and already has been by someone else who has warned mongo about it already). ]] 04:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
	::::::(edit conflict) I was referring more to the COI aspect. Being the victim of a nine-page bash fest on a site that you frequent makes me feel oh so warm and fuzzy. - ] 04:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
	:::::You just did, above. Anyway...point is...you are a contributor to WR, correct? Yet you argue against baning linking to that website...correct? Yet you think that I also have a COI because I argue against linking to the kind of harassment that I had to endure? I fight to protect our contributors and you are fighting for the right to be able to lin to harassment...please correct me if I am mistaken.--] 04:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
	::::::I contribute to WR. I do not support attacks and I am not disagreeing with your insertion on the basis that I want to link to WR (no matter how many times you claim that about dan, and I it won't change it) I disagree with that section because it has been used to 1. suppress valid criticism 2. remove perfectly valid links. It may also be used to justify blocking a contributor who is not making an attack but is simply linking to a site regarded as an attack site for another reason. I do not agree that I have a COI, because I am not fighting to link to WR, I dislike this policy addition for a different reason. However, if you are going to dismiss my opinions on the basis that you think I have a COI when I do not, you had better stop editing the subject yourself, because although you assert without proof that I have a COI, there is proof of yours. ]] 04:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::OH...hahahahaha! I don't participant in a website that is a capricious pile of shit like WR...you do! Yet you oppose banning links to it...okay...well, shucks golly gee...surely that's not a COI...surely.--] 04:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
	:: (after three edit conflicts and a database lock) Hang on, first let's calm down and remember that we're all on the same side here, trying to do what is best for Misplaced Pages. Second, let's not generalize COI to the point where it has no meaning. Almost every Misplaced Pages admin had been attacked by at least one of the sites in question, ] is about editing article space. Now, to address Mongo's question about why people don't want the text in NPA, the concern by those who don't want it in is that there may be circumstances where a link to something like Misplaced Pages Review might be ok or useful. And no one wants a repeat of something like the Making Lights fiasco. Since current policies are enough to deal with the cases when the links are being added to harass people, people are worried that the only thing gained by adding the section is a backdoor to more BADSITES type approaches. ] 04:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
	::::Um...well, I disagree with that. Since WR is full of shit...yes, full of shit...then we shovel that shit out the door. IF a link was ever needed, then it could be emailed to arbcom...simple.--] 04:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
	::::: You disagree with which part? Note that there were a number of points above (I assume that you didn't disagree with for example my assertion that we're all on the same side). Now, assuming from your comment that you are referring solely to the comment about Misplaced Pages Review, I agree that the set of circumstances where a link would be useful is narrow. But they can occur, and the ArbCom deals with arbitration cases, it is not the ArbCom's job to look at every single link and then decide how and whether to disseminate it in a discussion. And if you want examples of where it might be legitimate to link to WR I can easily supply them- say for example, a thread there discusses a plan to disrupt Misplaced Pages, or someone wishes to point out that a closing admin made a comment on WR that indicated they had strong bias in the outcome of a deletion discussion (something like this did actually happen before, I don't unfortunately remember all the details. And WR isn't the only site, would for example Making Lights be unacceptable with this? What about Rob Balder's blog where he said nasty stuff about us? You see, it is hard to see where this stops. And of course, none of this deals with the other point, that the genuine harassment can be dealt with anyways. ] 04:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
	:::There's also the BEANS argument, as the current (protected) text of NPA is an advertisement for attack sites. If that provision stays in policy, it will be a small victory for the trolls, and it will set a terrible precedent for other mistakes like it. -]<sup>(])</sup> 04:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

	In your haste to assume bad faith..I expect any of you to show me where I mentioned a "website" in my new wordng about external links.....look at my contribution to the NPA policy again...

	''Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians is not to be tolerated. Attacking, harassing, or violating the privacy of any Wikipedian through the posting of external links is not permitted. Harassment in this context refers to cyber-stalking, offline stalking, outing people without their consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening them with physical violence. This is not to be confused with legitimate criticism. As with personal attacks, extreme cases of deliberate harassment by way of external links are grounds for banning.''

	--] 04:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
	: Ah, so are you saying that under this proposal it wouldn't apply to websites as a whole but only the specific pages that have the problematic material? ] 04:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
	::Yup....--] 04:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
	::: Ok, so we are getting somewhere. At some level this is a good sign, but at another level, it leaves me even more confused. Since we can remove links that are clear attempts to harass and insult anyways, what does this add? It maybe had some policy result when it made the website as a whole forbidden, but if it is just the page itself, what is this adding beyond what we would already do? ] 04:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
	::::For one thing, it adds an exclusion for ''legitimate criticism'', which is not covered earlier in the policy. - ] 04:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

	::::: Um again, but we wouldn't have removed the links if they legitimate criticism earlier. If this merely means that we remove links that are placed as an attempt to harass then we do that anyways. If it means something more, then what other links are going to get removed? ] 04:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
	:::::: Wouldn't we have? Without some sort of qualification that ''legitimate criticism'' is acceptable, any criticism off wiki could be construed as an attack, and removable, by the letter of the policy. - ] 05:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
	::::::: Is there something in current policy that makes you think that we would remove links to criticism we thought was legitimate? ] 05:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::JoshuaZ, I'm not sure MONGO's looking to remove any links that we wouldn't already remove. I don't think that's what this is about for him. I think this dispute has come to represent, for some people, whether or not Misplaced Pages is willing to make a statement of solidarity and support for people who have been harassed by certain individuals on certain websites. For others, I suspect it's a quixotic exercise in trying to lawyer against the inevitable. <p> MONGO, you're right that I assumed you were advocating a site-ban. I apologize for my assumption of bad judgment; I've always been pretty certain of your good faith. -]<sup>(])</sup> 05:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::Lawyer against the inevitable? ]] 05:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::Yeah, I may be wrong about that, and I'm not suspecting any particular individual. I hope I'm wrong. However, ''if'' anybody in the discussion thinks that the exclusion of the paragraph in question creates a loophole for them to engage in anything shady, then they're mistaken, that's all. -]<sup>(])</sup> 05:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::::I honestly think that none of those people who are supporting its removal are doing so because they want to use links to attack people (something they wouldnt get away with anyway). ]] 05:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::::::There are those who would disagree with you, perhaps on both of those points. Doesn't the truth usually lie somewhere in between? -]<sup>(])</sup> 05:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

	(outdent) Sorry to point this out, MONGO, but it was pretty clear that someone who fervently agreed with this addition, Crum375, thought it would ban links to "attack sites." You are usually a good enough writer that such a misunderstanding would be extremely unlikely. If someone has to read a policy section several times over to understand it, then it needs to be rewritten. How about adding "Linking to external attacks or harassment for the purpose of attacking another editor" to the list of things that are never acceptable? Oh wait.... ] 05:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
	::As far as I can see, Crum375 and I agree that we need never link to such sites...however, my wording was a compromise solution...perhaps it can be reworded better, maybe to make it less threatening, but again, I think it is important, especially as time goes by, that when someone later on, a newbie perhaps, comes along and inserts a link to a page that is harassing our contributors, that we can have this small detail emphasized so that we can point to it and tell them..."no...that is against our policies...for more information, "--] 05:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
	:::"sites" and "pages" are not interchangeable terms. Question: If http://www.example.com/?thread=1234 contains legitimate criticism (and, to keep it simple, suppose it is not disputed that the content of that specific page is legitimate criticism) and http://www.example.com/?thread=4321 contains harassment, is it permissible to link http://www.example.com/?thread=1234 ? That is the key difference between "sites" and "pages", yet you appear to be using the two terms interchangeably in your comments. ?thread=1234 is a '''page''' that is legitimate criticism, but it is on a '''site''' that contains harassment. Could you clarify what you mean? —] 16:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
	::::No links to harassment--] (]) 04:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
	:::::After reading through this thread, I am thinking - "OK, what is so hard to understand here?" Seriously, protecting our editors is first priority, and needs to be the main focus. Is Misplaced Pages so desperate for information that we need questionable links?? I haven't followed the whole story behind this other than what I have spotted on some pages, so forgive me if I seem somewhat ignorant on this (my schedule in real life is tough enough). You can always go back and revert something back in from the edit history on Misplaced Pages. However, you cannot go back and retrieve a good editor who left the project forever because of unabated harassment. ] <small>]/]</small> 04:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
	::::::Are the editors our first priority, or is the encyclopedia our first priority? The answer can't change depending on the context, and in other cases, it seems to be pretty clear that people think it's the encyclopedia. -] <small>]</small> 04:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::Without good editors, you don't have an encyclopedia. Yep - That's it. It's all about who is building and maintaining it. Without good editors, it will fall apart. It will become a soapbox, a place of original research, etc. In other words, unworthy of the title "encyclopedia". ] <small>]/]</small> 04:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

	== Spebi's RfA question ==

	I have responded to your question on ] – hope I have satisfied you in my answer :) ] 04:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

	==Thanks!==
	] Howdy MONGO, thanks for participating in my ]. I am happy to say it was successful, 55/0/0, and I am looking forward to getting to work. Thanks for your vote of confidence. By all means, feel free to check in on my work to come. Suggestions and advice are always appreciated.

	--] 05:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

	== RfA ==

	I considered not spamming talk pages but not saying "thanks" just isn't me. The support was remarkable and appreciated. I only hope that I am able to help a little on here. Please let me know if I can help you or equally if you find any of my actions questionable. Thanks & regards --] <b><sup><small><span style="color:#90F">]</span></small></sup></b> 11:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:59, 17 November 2007