Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:06, 2 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)

Block

I've blocked you and XP for 12 hours per . You both went over 3RR and yours was particularly egregious since it is in fact normal to note previous AfD discussions. Even it if could have been done is a less loud fashion by XP that did not at all excuse your removal of it. And your use of the rollback tool was also uncalled for. JoshuaZ 02:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I was reverting his continued efforts to troll that afd. His last attempt to add a link to a previous discussion was also reverted by a third party. JosuaZ...did you bother to read the information, that thisother editor was also in violation on another page for 3RR/ Furthermore, why the late block? I haven't even been online for some time.--MONGO 03:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out what good this block is supposed to do...I haven't been online in 10 hours almost and that 3RR report was from 12 hours before this block was applied. Did JoshuaZ bother to read that this other editor had also been edit warring on another article and in fact broke 3RR there as well...yet he gets the same block length? I've never noticed previous discussions from previous afd's posted on current afds...maybe this is routine, but that's news to me.--MONGO 04:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking over the relevant difs. One moment. In the meantime, note that two examples of where the previous discussions have been listed are here and here it is in fact very common on AfD and I can give you more examples if you want. JoshuaZ 04:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've unblocked you under the presumption that there will not be further edit warring over the matter. I am also unblocking XP because the block there also seems to be non-preventative in nature. JoshuaZ 04:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, to clarify one thing- I gave you the same block lengths since a) you used the rollback tool b) as an admin should have known better than to go over 3RR anyways even without rollback and c) as I pointed out above mentioning earlier AfDs is by itself a common practice. JoshuaZ 04:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I sent you an email.--MONGO 04:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

|Autoblocked still:I can email my IP to an admin but will not post it here}}

You can post the block # and we can unblock with that. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 05:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll email my IP to you.--MONGO 06:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

1. 259213...can someone please reset this autoblock?--MONGO 06:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

1. 259213 hello....

Thanks.--MONGO 07:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Mtnbox start

So I just finished converting all the articles that used the deprecated ]. I notice you are an admin. I was thinking it might be a good idea to fix it so no one is likely to use it if that is possible. It still appears on some user pages and some Misplaced Pages: type pages. I did not think I should take the liberty to edit those. You can see the pages I left on this Whatlinkshere page Note that there are two other similar templates on the To Do list that I have not worked on.--Droll 05:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Badly formatted article

The article Squaw's Tit besides being poorly written and offensive is very poorly formatted. Is there some template I could use to mark it. Thanks. --Droll 06:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I would delete the entire section that starts with Squaw Tit, United States occurrences, leaving the last links and the categories if they are appropriate. I am not currently able to edit aside from this page so I can't help you much.--MONGO 06:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I deleted that section. Thanks for the speedy help. --Droll 07:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hey MONGO, thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It finished with an amazing final tally of 160/4/1. I really appreciate your support. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi

I've consulted an admin about your inexplicable warning after I contributed to a talk page, I would like to discuss what your problem is but judging by your immediate issue of a final warning, and removing my warning from your talk page about removing content, i doubt you would listen to me --Frogsprog 14:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Your editing history and block log clearly indicate you are a troll. Buzz off.--MONGO 14:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

and thats a personal attack --Frogsprog 14:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep...I can't see any justice in supporting your trolling attempts by lying and stating that your edits are helpful. Go away.--MONGO 14:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Block of Tbeatty (talk · contribs)

Tbeatty's second statement was that Jones had been suspended for misrepresenting his research and the Daily Herald cited to support this. The article states:

School officials suspended Jones over concerns that his paper on the subject has not been published in traditional, peer-reviewed scientific journals

It does not say he misrepresented his research.

The article also says that Jones stated it had been peer-reviewed in the "Journal of 9/11 Studies". The university wished it to be reviewed elsewhere. There is no statement of misrepresentation. Indeed the conclusion of the article is:

They will determine if Jones's version of events is plausible or if he has been irresponsible in his research, either by going beyond his expertise or ignoring facts that contradicted his hypothesis.

This clearly states there is as yet no conclusion on misrepresentation or otherwise, since the purpose of the new review is to determine this.

Therefore Tbeatty's second statement is no more validated than his first.

Bearing in mind the first comment that Tbeatty made, and my response, I would have thought a sensible course would have been to have backed off, rather than made the trollish rephrasing of his initial statement with the words, "not to be confused with lying because lying is ... different", clearly implying that he thinks in this case there is no difference, i.e. essentially restating what he said before.

I hope this explains.

Tyrenius 06:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as defamatory comments go, I don't draw a great distinction where they are made, because of the Foundation sensitivity over this. As seen here google stores and retrieves user and user talk pages, and will bring up an individual's name. (The google lag means the latest comments have not been cached.) The block was preventative, but if you feel it was harsh (I don't) then I have no objection to you shortening or removing it. I think a stiff warning from you as well would be very helpful. Tyrenius 07:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. Cheers. Tyrenius 07:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Lefty's RfA thanks

Hi, MONGO, and thanks for supporting me in my recent request for adminship, which succeeded with a final tally of 70/4/4. I hope I can live up to your expectations, and if there's ever anything you need, you know where to find me! --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 00:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Earlier block

I'm a bit busy right now, so I will take a look again sometime today or tommorrow (if it turns out no 3RR occured and you want I'll add a 1-second block noting that so it will be permanently linked in the block record). However, as I understand 3RR, it doesn't matter that the material reverted was different only that 4 reversions occured in 24 hours. As to the 10 hour issue- while I agree I should have considered that while making the block that is an enforcement issue and thus not relevant to the issue of whether there is a problem with the block in the log. In any event, I'll look at the difs as soon as I get a chance. JoshuaZ 11:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I read what you said on Joshua's page right, but you do realise that reverts don't have to be the same to qualify as a 3RRvio, right? They just have to be reverts. Guettarda 13:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know I'm being a pain, but indeed, the one revert I did was to remove a silly comment that I had made that I had earlier removed myself and which the other fellow replaced against my wishes. Here I added the comment and here I removed it myself, and it was readded by the other guy and later I removed it since I believed he was harassing me by replacing a comment that I made that I had removed myself earlier (diff reported at AN3RR) and with the report being 12 hours bevious and also being almost 10 since I had been online...my first edit was about an hour after the block, I just think this is really a grey area.--MONGO 19:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. That makes sense. (I know, I know, I should have looked at the diffs) Guettarda 19:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't like being this way, and I will "eat it" gladly to avoid any further baggage as I have zero interest in taking this further as I have a lot of respect for JoshuaZ's work here...I don't even wish to label what he did as a mistake, I suppose after the poorly recieved 15 minutye block that Kelly did on me (most were not pleased and she even admitted she shouldn't have done the block), I usually work to keep as clean a record as I can. Oh well, whatever Joshua wishes to do is fine. Best wishes.--MONGO 19:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

A lively RfC you might be interested in

Talk:Jeff Gannon#RFC on "prostitutes and courtesans" category. Crockspot 23:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The AfD

Well played, good luck. · XP · 06:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

XP, it's not about winning or loosing...I have always supported the policies and believe me, if there was any real proof that the WTC was imploded...I'd be the first person to grab my shotgun and march on D.C. I am not a strong advocate of global warming...I believe it is true, but I'm in the crowd that things that human impact on global warming is less than what some scientists believe...but I am not an expert on the subject. So I started the article Retreat of glaciers since 1850 and trust me...I looked really hard to find evidence that glaciers weren't retreating...there wasn't hardly a one that was reliable...but what was found, was put in the article. If, and when there is some real proof that the WTC was imploded...I'll be the first person to have an article on it.--MONGO 07:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I know. As I often say, if it were true--I'll admit a small part of me half-suspects--a patriot in America would have revealed the truth, likely been assassinated, and Bush, Cheney, et al would be in shackles or before a firing squad. That said, I know it's not winning/losing. I just meant well played as in argued. · XP · 07:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

A lot of folks think that the event was a precip to war. But if you know U.S., war is easy to achieve and there was more reason to invade Iraq (in my opinion) than there ever was to be involved in Vietnam. Strategically, Afghanistan plays no importance to the U.S. and since everyone else who ever went there ended up losing, the U.S. would have been hard pressed to find a rationale for going there. I have read that, and I believe that, the events of 9/11 may have been preventable...certainly foreign policy issues may have contributed to motive. But, if the WTC was going to be used as a rationale for war, all the feds would have needed to do would be to remote control (which is easy) a half dozen explosive laden semi's adjacent to the WTC and blown the bottoms out of the buildings...Thermate installed explosives is simply too hard to cover up...it's ridiculous and there would be many easier ways to do it. As an example of the amount of effort to pull off an implosion one 4th the size of either WTC tower, look at this... and magnify the amount of work to fit the 1350 foot towers X 5 at least...no how does anyone cover that up?--MONGO 07:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe you guys are arguing about MIHOP. It's all true. Here is all the proof you need. This is HUGH!!!!111. I'm SERIES!!!!1111oneeleven. ;} Crockspot 14:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The truth or otherwise of 9/11 theories is irrelevant as to whether we cover them in articles. The only consideration is whether they are notable enough to gain public interest and media attention, which they have done. This merits inclusion. Then the article itself should examine the subject, and it should be quite apparent, if normal wiki policies are followed, as to whether the theories have substance or not. It is wiki's job to present the information from a NPOV. Having an article on a theory is not an endorsement of the truth of that theory. If it is a false theory, then the article will show it to be so, which is a service to readers. If readers are not given the information accurately via wiki, then they will find other sources, which may well fail to give them a balanced view. Those opposed to such theories are undermining their own goal by seeking to exclude them from the encyclopedia, which normally has no problem in dealing with such things, as can be seen in List of conspiracy theories. Tyrenius 13:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand, but when I vote to delete an article, it isn't because I am trying to eliminate information, but because I am trying to uphold policies. Implications that I am doing otherwise might be construed as an insult to my integrity. Back on subject, Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center is a POV fork of Collapse of the World Trade Center, but I am not going to argue that here since there is another place to do so.--MONGO 15:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I am certainly not implying any insult to your integrity, and have no doubt that you are acting for what you see as the best interests of the encyclopedia. I am concerned with trying to find a meeting point for editors in a contentious situation, so that we can work as a team, not in a battlefield. As you say the POV fork is being discussed already. Keep well. Tyrenius 16:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI

-- User:RyanFreisling @ 08:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Taken care of, for now...expect more charades coming soon.--MONGO 08:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I inquired on Checkuser about the 'unexplained decline', and asked them to try to communicate better in order to avoid contributing to problem situations. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

DRV

Would you please look at my proposal re 911tRtT? Thanks, — Xiutwel (talk) 08:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi...I prefer to keep the article deleted. I don't view it as notable and I don't even like it being userfied...to be honest, I see it as profiteering at the expense of a lot of murdered people.--MONGO 08:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The CT link farm and my work on collapse of the World Trade Center

Hi Mongo, thanks for the kind words about my work on the article. I've tried to bring this up a number of times in the AfD discussion but my point seems to be getting lost. When you say, "Basboll did a fine job rewriting the Collapse article, but consensus was to not have all these links (link farm) in that article, so now they are here," you seem to be implying that as part of the rewrite I was involved in these links were discussed (they were not). You are telling people that (a) I rewrote the article (that's partly true at least), (b) that I tried to get these links in there (absolutely false), and (c) that because I could not have my way in that regard I created the CD article (also absolutely false and simply speculation about my motives). (b) and (c) are perhaps implicit, or try to establish guilt by association, but they are in any case related to something that happened, as far as I can tell, before I arrived on the scene. The link farm already existed at the 9/11 CT article before I starting editing the WTC collapse article.. Please review this information and let me know if I've misunderstood what you are trying to accuse me of. On the AfD you are now saying (I think) that I should be ashamed of myself for creating this article, like any other POV-pusher.--Thomas Basboll 07:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Geez, Thomas...I'm not perfect...it's hard to not group folks, but for what it's worth, you always maintain a high level of civility and other things. I thought you did an excellent job on the Collapse of the WTC article, so I am "surprised" that this one we are debating even matters to you at all. If the article is kept, I have spoken my piece and I sleep well knowing that I did all I could do to remove this stuff from Misplaced Pages. If my comments were insulting, it wasn't intentional. I see about rewording it, or adding something.--MONGO 07:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thomas, what else interests you? By that I mean, I can see you have a talent for writing...surely other areas aside from the events of 9/11 are interesting as well. You'll notice that I have interests in glaciers, parks and related things...I think the best way to be "happy" on wikipedia is to try and get involved in numerous areas and work on those articles in addition to articles that are controversial. When I create articles on parks, etc...it's just me generally and it completely takes me away from the stressful areas.--MONGO 07:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Do keep in mind that you are trying to remove (and bar) information from Misplaced Pages that I came here looking for and, upon not finding it, proceeded to contribute. These issues are really what got me seriously interested in becoming a Wikipedian. Until then I had been a pretty satisfied passive user (mere reader) of this thing. Sure, I fixed a couple of sentences anonymously, but I felt that I was being informed by the articles and their input in my investigations usually led me in fruitful directions. In the case of the collapse of the WTC and its possible controlled demolition there was suddenly something I felt I knew substantially more about than the articles were telling me. (I had of course hoped that the articles would settle some basic factual questions; but the collapse mechanism and collapse sequence in the article was simply a mess, as was the coverage of the controlled demolition hypothesis.) I'm just starting here, being a Wikipedian is not the only writing (or even editing) I do. I'm pretty happy on the whole with my intellectual life and I'm don't really need Misplaced Pages to feel that way. I just thought I could help, and at the same time see what this project is all about. And I do think I am learning something there. But if this article gets deleted, like I say, then Misplaced Pages just lost an editor, at least for a while. Anyway, happy editing.--Thomas Basboll 07:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

fbi

Hi, I've continued the discussion on: Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/FBI_poster_controversy#Continued_discussion_from_talk_page. Would you please take a look? — Xiutwel (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Acadame North

I have a favor to ask of you, I have written the Artical Acadame North with Nuetrality and also given proper refrences like the UM along with the Aerican Empire and of course government websites. Can you help me write an artical without breaking some sort of Policy or nonsense? thanksHelloan 20:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Why the Reversion?

Why the reversion on G.W. Bush without even the pleasentry of a comment as to why? From my understanding of the policies on wikipedia, the edit is correct. See: EisenhowerHollyWolly 21:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense?

What did I add that was nonsense? I moved his nickname per established guidelines, and readded a pice of trivia tot he trivia section. BY DEFINITION, trivia is nonsense: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/trivia HollyWolly 21:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

September 11 Attacks

Just wanted to take this over here. I understand you preferred the original edit (Attacks Section) but there are wording issues with it. It would read better with some work. Also, I'm not sure how much of the information there is needed since there is a whole article for the United Flight 93 hijacking. Can you look at the new paragraph on the discussion page and see if you'd revert it if I put it in?

I'm new so I'd also like to know how much detail is necessary in a main article when there is an existing sub article or is it left up to consensus? --PTR 21:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll look over the sub article later and see if the main article can be trimmed.--MONGO 21:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --PTR 21:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I restored your version, but kept the phone call info.--MONGO 21:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding the part about Todd Beamer praying with the 911 operator to the United Flight 93 page since it's not included (as I supposed it was). --PTR 21:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Frogsprog

I honestly don't know how we tolerated him as long as we did. FYI, I also blocked a sockpuppet of his that I identifed as his by his edits and voting record. I declined to block it earlier because he stopped using it the moment I warned him, but I saw no reason why it should be allowed to remain active after recent events. – ClockworkSoul 21:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey...long time, no see..hope you're well. Yeah, no surprise he had a sock or two...probably more yet to come.--MONGO 21:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I am well, thank you. :) I'm not exactly astonished either, but I would be a little surprised if he didn't reincarnate. I think it shocked him when he realized that somebody was onto him, because he behaved for about a week afterwards. – ClockworkSoul 21:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but that's what makes wiki so fun! Not! I see you've been active, we just haven't bumped into one another for a while and it's always nice to run into editors you haven't heard from in some time. It is interesting when a troll who is just below the radar realizes that someone is on to him/her, and they do start to be "good" temporarily. I often wonder...how many people are so bored that they just want to vandalize wiki...sometimes i think there are about 50 dedicated vandals and they simply go from one IP and username to the next. I was watching the newly created names category and noticed that out of 20 I decided to watchlist due to them having trollish usernames, after a few days of the username creation, (and once the semi-protection would no longer block them from editing pages protected under semi-protect), 14 of them immediately started vandalizing! It was actually, err, funny to watch in a way....and made the semi protection feature obsolete in dealing with them immediately. Anyway, nice to hear from you again.--MONGO 21:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

He (?) isn't a simple vandal or troll but is operating on the basis of some very extreme political views. Specifically, he bears a genuine hatred for America and Americans, and is somehow convinced that North Korea is a shining beacon of pluralistic democracy. Such views per se would not be a problem (lots of people around the world don't like us) but unfortunately he has insisted on using Misplaced Pages as a medium to lash out against the U.S. He will return; he's convinced that he Knows The Way Of Truth(tm) and doubtless feels that the block is unjust persecution by capitalist running-dog lackey imperialists. I realized a week or so ago that his first block only taught him to try and keep his vandalism under the radar, and I thought that he would get away with an ongoing campaign of low-level vandalism. It's interesting to see that others were watching him too. (PS: possible sockpuppets include NoJoyInMudville, The_duck and Brian_potter, all of whom persistently commit the same grammatical errors and post on the same or related topics). Raymond Arritt 04:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Those links are all to articles...what userpages does he have?--MONGO 12:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Gack. Sorry about that. Try The_duck, NoJoyInMudville, and Brian_potter to see their (his?) edits. Oh, looks like The_duck is already tagged...Raymond Arritt 13:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you...those are all taken care of...let me know if another one pops up.--MONGO 13:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I see that you reverted edits by HollyWolly (talk · contribs). I'm pretty sure she(?) and Lolakitty (talk · contribs) are the same person. Do you think these might also be sockpuppets of Frogsprog? — CharlotteWebb 02:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Certainly worthy of a CheckUser, methinks. – ClockworkSoul 02:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I thought of this because I mentioned Eisenhower on the talk page (perhaps a mistake) as an example of presidential nicknames being widely known, rather than "trivia". Next we get another unusually new user deliberately misinterpreting the Eisenhower thing . Originally I thought it was somebody actually upset about the use of "Dubya". Now I'm convinced it's just a troll. — CharlotteWebb 02:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me for eavesdropping (I don't recall now why this page is on my watch list), but "Dubya" is how Bush himself says it, if you listen to him. I wouldn't call it a nickname in the same way that "Ike" was Eisenhower's nickname, though. The article doesn't say, but I think "Ike" went back to his younger years and was a true nickname, like "Bill" instead of "William" Clinton. In contrast, the FDR page doesn't say Franklin D. "FDR" Roosevelt. That was a media nickname, methinks. And, aha!, there's the difference, maybe. Wahkeenah 03:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry folks...I have been away...good chance Frogsprog has multiple sock accounts. Yes, Dubya is a nickname George Bush has even used on himself....I reverted the one addition of it since it was already mentioned that this is his nickname in the very first paragraph of that article, and didn't see any reason to have it mentioned twice.--MONGO 04:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Now Frog Returns is a new sock. --Reuben 09:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

And now we have Frogbaby. As expected he will not go away. Maybe worth checking to see if he has a static IP, and blocking it. Raymond Arritt 21:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the additions on Daniel Boone National Forest, the infobox looks great. I haven't spent the time yet to learn much about making/adding infoboxes, maybe I should. :-) Pfly 01:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

NO problem...let me know if I can be of any assistance--MONGO 04:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for the Barnstar. I put it on my User Page--Droll 07:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem...it is well deserved. I am myself involved in three separate projects and I have found that as of late, I have been neglceting them a lot...so seeing all your efforts on the Mountain project is motivating.--MONGO 07:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mancs (2nd nomination)

Hey MONGO ... would you mind taking a look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mancs (2nd nomination)? This was an article that got on the front page a couple of days back (not as the featured article; I think it was one of those "Did You Know" deals), and some idiot SPA came along and tried to pull a bad-faith AfD on it, so I shut it down as a speedy keep. It's gone from the front page now, but now another SPA has come along and put it up for AfD again. On top of that, Martylunsford pretty much admits in the discussion that he created that second SPA (Sam1174) as a sock in order to do the 2nd AfD! (Martylunsford's just barely beyond SPA status himself, as you can see from his user contributions .) I don't want to close this down again as a speedy keep myself since I don't want it to look like I have some sort of obsession with this article, and I'm not an admin anyway so I probably shouldn't push my luck regardless. But obviously I think the whole thing reeks of bad faith, so if you could check it out, I'd appreciate it. (I don't really care about the dog, or the article, one way or the other, but I do care about process, for some silly reason.) Thanks, --Aaron 17:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I voted delete, and objected to discounting contributions based on the lack of an edit history. Don't tell me you actually believe that this editor has some personal vendetta against a dog. That's a very moonbatty attitude, and I know that you're not a moonbat. Crockspot 17:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, weird situation...but I will let it run it's course and that way, there won't be any folks screaming..."But MONGO...that guy who always wants to delete all the conspiracy theory articles...now closed this 2nd Afd on a no-name poor innocent little doggie...he went and closed this as a speedy keep and that's out of process...he should have his admin tools taken away...he should be flogged...he is a menace to Misplaced Pages...just who the heck does MONGO think he is, using WP:SNOW as a criteria...I'm taking him to arbcom...if for no other reason to waste his and a lot of other people's time."..........Sorry about that, but that is the kind of junk I have been dealing with lately.--MONGO 22:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate you checking it out, MONGO, even if you decided to let it run. To Crockspot: No, I don't think anybody involved has an issue with the dog; I just know that sometimes people can take it too personally when an AfD gets shut down in any fashion beyond the "expected" way (that is, a nomination leading to at least five days' worth of discussion followed by a close by an actual admin) and then toss it right back into the fire when it really doesn't deserve it. (I've been guilty of that at least once myself, back in my newbie days.) I wanted an admin to look at it, MONGO did, and I'm satisfied with that. However the AfD plays out at this point is fine by me. I will admit I'm very much anti-SPA when it comes to AfDs, but that's because they usually either are there only to attempt to save their one pet article and couldn't care less about Misplaced Pages as a whole, or else they're just too green to make a meaningful contribution to the discussion. (Almost invariably, they vote "keep" and give some variation of the long-discounted argument "How come we can have articles about Pokemon and porn stars but not this?") It's just my opinion, but AfD shouldn't be the first playground of the ultranewbie editor. Read first, make a few edits, start a couple of stubs, and then ease into AfD once you've got at least a baseline comprehension of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. That takes a couple of weeks, in my experience. --Aaron 00:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You mean your not a menace to Misplaced Pages? Not what I've heard, bub. I also hear you're responsible for global warming and Britney Spears ;) Derex 02:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Monad

Hello, you locked the disamg page Monad. I proposed a compromise, which it seems that all sides have agreed to. Would you look and see if you think its ready to unlock? Thanks Bmorton3 19:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected.--MONGO 22:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

HEY! This is wikipedia things aren't supposed work themselves out be this easy!

Just kidding thanks again MONGO and Professor Morton. LoveMonkey 05:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Barrett

Hi Mongo. There is a new editor over on the Kevin Barrett page who has started an edit war over the notion that Barrett "was suspected of planning to teach CT." He keeps deleting sourced material ( lying in his edit summary), and screwing up the sources, both in the reference section and in the article. If you look through the edit history you'll see he has tried to insert several different unsourced assertions. He has called me a liar when I have deleted his unsourced contributions. I've tried to reason with him, but he just keeps reverting to "his" latest version, despite never having demonstrated a deficiency in the status quo. He seems intent on theorizing about what Barret was "planning" to do. Anyway, on the talk page, he has said he hopes an admin will look things over. If you have the time...Cheers, Levi P. 19:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Building 7

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)