Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:57, 21 February 2007

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) Archive 13 (October 2006) Archive 14 (November 2006) Archive 15 (December 2006) Archive 16 (January 2007)

Posting

Just for your information, consensus and majority doesn't rule on Wiki. -Signaleer 19:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the circumstances. I don't disagree with you at all about majority or consensus as they aren't the only things that decide content, but the important thing for you is do what you can to work with others as well as possible. Three seperate complaints on the noticeboard on your editing patterns doesn't indicate you are trying to work well with others. I know you can do better than that and encourage you to do so.--MONGO 21:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The niggle

MONGO, you endorsed the indefblock of Cindery with reference to the four recent blocks. I'm the first to admit I haven't researched the case—no time—but I have a niggle of doubt. This is a little unusual, isn't it? I have an e-mail from the user also. If you have information which puts this indefblock out of doubt, would you mind sharing it? Best, Bishonen | talk 01:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Amusing...

(scroll to bottom, see "Look This Is Our Viewpoint") and Sounds like a Cplot strawman. --Aude (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

A very bored individual is all that person is. At least there are enough sane folks on Wiki to recognize nonsense when they see it...so he seems to be quickly reverted now whenever he posts his stuff.--MONGO 20:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Talk:FrontPageMag.com#I_strongly_object_to_this_deletion up for deletion. Travb (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like its now unprodded.--MONGO 06:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

... for the userpage revert. Appreciated! :) riana_dzasta 04:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. Best wishes.--MONGO 04:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Note of apology

I know this is probably going to do squat for my reputation now (Not that I ever really had one), but I thought I'd leave a note of apology to everyone involved in my recent actions. An explaination is in order too. First off, I had a bad real life situation, that I really don't want to talk about, on the day this all started. I shouldn't have edited on Misplaced Pages afterwards, but I did. When I saw the situation with Riana's RfA, it kind of set off a build up of unvented anger at my situation & it was un needed. My whole tyraid had very little to do with the RfA, but I guess I took it out on that angle anyway. The way I was handled could have been better, but I wont go there in threat of making this sound like a back handed apology. My apologies go to Riana, who was also having a real life crisis at the time too. Basically the whole thing was a misunderstanding & venting process which I involved you all in. In regard to the whole sock puppetry thing, I had told my brother about my problems in due trust & he went & did something stupid on here. I don't really know what else to say but sorry. If that & a little bit of hard work repairing relationships on here doesn't change your current view point of me, then I don't think anything will. So again, sorry if I've inconvenienced you guys in any way & I hope that over time you'll think better of me. I'd love if you guys could forgive & hopefully forget & I wasn't really in control of myself these past few days. Hopefully things can get back to normal. :) Spawn Man 06:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC) P.S. Although I didn't feel happy with the way others treated me at this time, I thought that despite my behaviour, were very civil & I respect you excessively...

Like I said, I would simply move on. Doug and everyone here knows you have done good work and can do more, and none that I have seen are interested in seeing you leave Misplaced Pages. Try to not take things personally and since we already know you can write great articles, make that your emphasis for now...I look forward to reading them. You don't have to apologize to me at al...I'm just trying to keep the peace and reminding you that your article writing is your forte.--MONGO 06:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Federal Clowns Editing?

Cplot would go wild with this one: Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2007-02-12/More government editing.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 22:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I always make sure my Q clearance badge is in my pocket at photo sessions for just this very reason. --Tbeatty 23:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that editor was more interested in disrution than in actually believing any of the nonsense he was posting. If I had a dollar for every corporatation that had an employee or former employee post good or bad news about their employer, I could retire. I'm not sure if the signpost article is even news worthy as it's not like this should be a surprise.--MONGO 06:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your inflamatory edit summaries don't help

Dear Mongo, here we go again? It is one thing to oppose an edit, but it is another to characterize it as an "extreme POV push". What you removed here is certainly no such thing. Consider the lead of the main article (to which a link remains): "The background history of the September 11, 2001 attacks includes US foreign policy with regard to predominantly Muslim countries and Israel in the latter part of the Cold War, the growth of radical Islamism, and prior terrorist attacks on the United States." Most of the summary I added came from this lead (again, this is standard practice). Moreover, it is also a pretty good summary of the material in the rest of the section in the 9/11 article. Though it could be improved in this regard. In the future, please explain what you think is wrong with edit, not the editor. Just out of politeness. Thanks.--Thomas Basboll 14:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I find your edit to be an extreme POV push. I think it is obvious what you goals are. Nothing you added in the above is sourced, is germaine or helpful to the article. I have repeatedly told everyone that the article needs to be more specific about the exact events of the day, not go into summaries about peripheral events that are not specific to that article. Your edits in totality are inflammatory. Do not bring another content dispute to my page again.--MONGO 14:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This (as always) is not a content dispute. It's about your completely unnecessary and counter-productive attack on my motives (now amplified). It's the sort of personal thing that has no place on the discussion pages. Policy is pretty clear on this, even where you suspect POV-pushing, it is not cool to use that as an argument for an edit. Have a nice day.--Thomas Basboll 15:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Your POV edits have no place in article content. If you want to tell me to fuck myself, then don't beat around the bush, pal....surely you know when you say "have a nice day" in the context of the disagreements we generally have, that is the slang way of saying, "Fuck you"...surely you know this. Interestingly, no one ever seems to say anything like that when confronted with my physical presence...something about my persona generally makes that a risky choice to make. I now encourage you to never post to my talk page again. I have the articles watchlisted, so I can always respond there. Thank you.--MONGO 15:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As you can see from this post, Thomas Basboll has found your above message to be very threatening and it seems like that to me too. I'm sure you appreciate that intimidation of other editors is not tolerated, so your immediate withdrawal of these remarks and assurance that you have no intention of physically or in any other way intimidating him will clear the matter up. Failing this, I will have to act on the assumption that you do unfortunately wish to cause intimidation. Thanks in advance for sorting this matter out. Tyrenius 23:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you and I have had a severe disagreement in the past, so I'll kindly ask you to go away as well. Your email to Jimbo and lies and misrepresentations made to him about me and several other editors was as cheap a shot as any done by anyone I have encountered here on Misplaced Pages.--MONGO 00:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the proper forum for discussion such matters. I see no reason for anyone to go away. Please be civil, I am sure you did not mean the give that person the impression that you were physically threatening him, but that is what happened. InBC 02:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) MONGO's remarks to me are yet another personal attack. FYI there is a report on AN/I. Tyrenius 02:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see Mongo's comment as implying a physical threat. I think it's probably best just to drop the issue before it escalates further. SlimVirgin 02:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd go with that too. Don't make a drama out of a crisis, or something. -- Heligoland 02:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with that too. If MONGO asks people to discuss these things on the article talk page, why not oblige? I see nothing that implies an intent to cause bodily harm. And I think that someone who has had a serious disagreement with MONGO in the past really ought not to be the one to "take on" this matter. Musical Linguist 02:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you're talking about me. I was rather surprised at MONGO's antagonism, because it was not my perception that whatever had happened in the past still had such a charge for him. When I realised that, I withdrew and posted on AN/I, so I don't think there is anything to worry about. Tyrenius 02:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Misplaced Pages for making threats to other users; I'm specifically referring to this remark and the subsequent hostile responses to good-faith users approaching you to solve the dispute amicably. You will be able to edit again in 24 hours; I suggest you take this time to cool off and perhaps reflect upon the fact that Misplaced Pages is just a website and certainly nothing to threaten someone over. gaillimh 02:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

While certainly out of line, that bit of innunedo was not an actual threat. El_C 02:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I intend to unblock after discussing it with the blocking admin, if no one beats me to it. SlimVirgin 02:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I fully support unblocking. You can't go around blocking people for writing that "have a nice day" at the end of a post of criticism is not generally seen as a good wish, and that it is cowardly do do it if you wouldn't do it to someone's face. And for heaven's sake, why do people have to keep posting on user talk pages when it's clear they're not welcome? MONGO watches the articles. Musical Linguist 02:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"something about my persona generally makes that a risky choice to make." may not have been meant as a threat, but is certainly looks like an attempt to intimidate to me. InBC 02:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

MONGO took the "Have a Nice Day" as "Fuck You", and while that might be considered a threat, it is most likely just a colloquial expression meant to express displeasure. They are both the same. Let it go and unblock. --Tbeatty 02:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm female, and I can't imagine being intimidated by that. I wish people would give a little bit more consideration before they go putting permanent records in someone's block log. Musical Linguist 02:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The blocking admin seems to have gone offline, and I'd say there's a consensus here and on AN/I that the block wasn't justified, so I've unblocked. SlimVirgin 02:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)