Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:53, 4 October 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) Archive 9 (May 2006) Archive 10 (June 2006) Archive 11 (July/August 2006) Archive 12 (September 2006)

FYI redux

-- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Morton devonshire

Thanks for doing the sensible thing there, MONGO. I take in all that you say in your message in his user talk too. Best, as always, --Guinnog 21:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Transparent svg and IE

Just wanted to bring to your atention that transparent svgs are not displayed properly in Internet Explorer (6 at least), so there are white corners surrounding the locator dot in {{Infobox protected area}}. Cheers. --Qyd 23:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that before and it seems to come and go...last time I looked it was fine. The old loc dot was in png format, and was altered to an svg format sometime later. I'm not sure why it has a white box around it sometimes.--MONGO 17:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It's because Internet Explorer 6 has no built-in support for transparent svg. This isn't much of a problem for most articles using {{Infobox protected area}}, as the underlaying maps generally have pale colors; it becomes more evident when the dot is superimposed on darker colors, such as Caribou Mountains Wildland Park or even Isle Royale National Park, Statue of Liberty, Fundy National Park, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, USS Arizona Memorial, etc. I've resorted to transparent gif locator dots when using {{superimpose}} or zindex style, due to this IE limitation (which extends to transparent png as well). It's hard to even notice this inconvinience, as most editors are using browsers better then IE ;) --Qyd 11:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey there

Mongo, I just shot you an email. Later. JungleCat talk/contrib 17:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I owe you one... JungleCat talk/contrib 17:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem.--MONGO 17:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

September 11 Fatalities

Regarding your question about why the line from fatalities was moved to the attacks section.

The part about the pilot being killed used to be up in the attacks section then I moved it to fatalities. Since the attacks section was referring to pilots and crew being killed as part of the hijacking it did seem to better belong in the attacks section. Also, there is a lot of information regarding the WTC in the fatalities section but was only that one line at the end about the airliners.

Your call, just letting you know why. --PTR 20:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Userpage

Could you unprotect my userpage? Since that whole Edsel thing has blown over. Karrmann 00:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Done.--MONGO 03:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Electronic health record

Mongo, can you please speedy delete Electronic health record since you are an admin. I was annoyed to see you'd removed the speedy notice. We need to move Electronic Health Record there as per an agreed name change. We can't do it until Electronic health record is deleted because that article has an edit history of more than one edit. I've done this many times with other admins -- it is the way it's done. — Donama 07:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with the redirect?--MONGO 07:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'll take care of it.--MONGO 07:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Another Frogsprog sock

See Special:Contributions/KFA_UK. This is getting tiresome. Raymond Arritt 12:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I've gone around and tagged every account created by Frogsprog with a sock tag...let me know if any others pop up...surely there will be more.--MONGO 19:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Deborah Frisch

From the "Only on Misplaced Pages" Department: Deborah Frisch herself, using the username Warriordumot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), started blanking the article about her and using it to attack others. I ask for an admin to check it out on AN/I . Seems rational enough, eh? So what happens? Editor (as in nonadmin) User:JBKramer starts reblanking it for her, accusing me of WP:BLP violations in an extremely patronizing, "I'll pretend I'm an admin" fashion. I try to restore some of the article using better cites, he starts revert warring with me, and admins start giving him high-fives on AN/I? Could you please tell me what is happening to this place? --Aaron 19:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Aaron...we have been tightening up all biography (especially those of living persons) in accordance with WP:BLP. I don't take a stand on naything on that article, except that is must be reliably referenced and we must not, at any time, use article space to impunge anyone. I don't say you have done this, and all I ask is that any reference must be either directly quoted or be summarized in a NPOV manner.--MONGO 19:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not the article that's bothering me (though I am somewhat offended that my attempts to find proper cites to rebuild the article are being reverted so quickly that no fixing of the article is even possible any more; any Google search of the subject's name offers immense proof that she's a notable Internet presence and is guilty of everything she's been accused of in the original article). What's bothering me is that this started as my good faith request for assistance regarding Warriordumot, and instead of anyone doing anything about her, it turns into an attack on me. (Warriordumot has just revandalized her page again a few moments ago, by the way, since no admin has bothered to block her. I can't even touch the page now to fix the vandalism, because if I do, JBKramer can set me up for a 3RR violation (and yes, I know reverting vandalism doesn't count, but I also know that the one time I've ever gotten a block, it was for a 3RR that wasn't one; I was actually reverting vandalism, and the admin hadn't bothered to examine the edits)). And what really is riling me is that no admin is not only not calling out JBKramer on his patronization, but they're actually thanking him for it. That's not about WP:BLP, that's about "some editors are more equal than others." And it's the sort of thing that drives editors away from Misplaced Pages. --Aaron 19:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

As I just posted on AN/I, I believe that Aaron was making a good faith attempt to revert vandalism and blanking. If BLP violations were reinserted, it was inadvertant. - Crockspot 19:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I don't question that...I don't take a stand at all...the issue is conformity with WP:BLP and all I am asking is that EVERYONE follows this to the letter.--MONGO 19:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

And now he's getting away with WP:NPA-violating edit summaries . --Aaron 00:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Buh?

Your user page is protected? Buh? Doesn't this seem to go counter to the Wikispirit and purpose of talk pages? Urek

User talk:130.126.138.6

I'm a bit curious to talk to you about this IP, I ran across his NPOV edits, and it looks like you may have just abused a newbie. Urek