Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MONGO (talk | contribs) at 02:25, 31 August 2005 (rvv). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archived Talk 1 2

Featured picture - comments requested

Hiya Mongo. I'm nominating one of my photos for 'featured picture'. Voting isn't for two days, but I'd appreciate your comments if you feel to add them. -- RyanFreisling @ 16:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Your gorgeous landscape photos

Are astonishing. They really make those articles come to life. The 'Cirque' image is so extraordinary - the mountainscapes are so sharp I thought it was CGI at first! That you live near such beauty fills me with low-grade nature envy. :)

And thanks for the nice feedback about my Antinous image - I have a few other really special ones that I took, for less notable figures in ancient Greek and Roman history, but I need to match 'em up with the relevant articles, or write new articles for them. I've already created/inserted a few photos - they're reachable from my User page. Be well, and thanks again! -- RyanFreisling @ 02:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: alumni

Hope you had an easier time choosing a major than I'm having. ;) Thanks for the kind words though. --tomf688 06:01, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link; I'll look into it if times get rough. ;) --tomf688 14:20, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Nice.

Whats with this character? User:Erwin Walsh At first I didn't check his edit history and didn't think anything about him. He asked me to purge a few of the members in the encyclopedic merit (decency) afterburner project and I said I would, but they all calmed down and now he's doing it himself...--MONGO 11:16, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to say one thing, and then I'm leaving for the day. That (^) was totally out of line, not to mention a lie. Having put my reputation on the line for your project, consequenting in a 24 hour block, it is piss poor treatment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ?????????????? (talk • contribs) 14:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

MONGO hates vandals...

Some one with a similar user name to my own vandalized your page this morning, and I fixed the problem, but then RAMA changed it, thinking it was me vandalizing, then Rama changed it back. Confused? Me too. Please note the vandal used a period at the end of their name. Thought an explanation might be in order. See you 'round! Hamster Sandwich 16:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit

I suggest you refrain from removing other people's names from the list of members. Zoe 05:06, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

If you remove my name from the list one more time you will be blocked from editing. Zoe 06:38, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

• I was about to suggest the same. People can decide for themselves whether or not they consider themselves members. Radiant_>|< 08:15, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Repeatedly removing other people's edits after being asked not to is grounds for blocking. You should assume good WP:FAITH on Zoe, and note that unilaterally removing people from a Wikiproject is not very civil, and has very little effect other than aggravating people. Radiant_>|< 08:29, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I see three possibilities here. 1) Zoe wants to contribute to the project but hasn't gotten aroudn to it yet; 2) Zoe wants to keep an eye on the project because she disagrees with part of it; or 3) Zoe is being silly and possibly breaking WP:POINT. In cases 1 and 2, you have no business removing her name. In case 3, she would be goading you and the mature response would be to ignore it. So any way you turn it, removing her name is not a good idea. So don't. Radiant_>|< 08:52, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Radiant_>|< 08:52, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I am with you on this one MONGO. This Zoe character is way out of line, banning users left, right and center for "disruption and trolling". Her original member listing on the Project, "I would like to see a standard which requires an obscene image on every page" was facetious nonsense, given the originally stated aims of the Project, and thus clearly against WP:POINT. It was definitely disruptive trolling, no question. BTW, 'being silly' is the term used when 'admins' disrupt WP by trolling, other users get blasted out of WikiSpace by the good Zoe. Good luck. --81.76.68.40 10:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Will keep an eye on things, 'admin style' ;-). Abuse of admin power is a serious problem here on WP. Give someone a 'block button' and there is a definite power trip that can ensue. I have found most admins to be responsible, but there is a hardcore of power trippers who promote their POV through abuse, no doubt about it. --81.76.68.40 11:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: brenneman

• Mongo, don't cite me out of context. Changing a section header to clarify what the section actually is about is entirely different from unilaterally removing somebody's name from a membership list. Radiant_>|< 08:54, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• He didn't revert your signed and commenced conversation for no reason. Zoe didn't violate a project page with a disruptive edit. Your perspective isn't fair. And if many people disagree with you, you should at least consider the possibility that you may in fact be wrong. I have better things to do than argue amount semantics; I suspect that you are smart enough to know precisely what is going on here. Now please go do something constructive. Radiant_>|< 09:10, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Mongo,
It appears that you have misunderstood some basic wiki concepts.
No one "owns" the discussion on a talk page. (See recent changes.)
brenneman 09:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

(Copied from other talk page)

Basic wiki concepts...nothing wrong with being bold...are you insinuating that you can teach me some new tricks...I'm looking for some article creation on your part...your edit summary suggests that you are more interested in janitorial work, not that this is a bad thing, er somewhat lacking in creativity. I think your edit was more than bold...it was rude...I inserted it along with my timestamped entry...you then post that the title of the subject heading can't be changed...by whose authority? My edit to User:Radiant!'s talk page was right on.--MONGO 10:07, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

The facts are thus:

• I changed a subsection title. Any argument that suggests this action was inapropriate needs a review of the basics.
• You reverted without an edit summary. I asked you to please use the discussion page before reverting again.
• It was uncivil of me to change the header of this talk page, and I apologise.

brenneman 12:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Orders

You seem to enjoy giving people orders. Here is the apology for altering my subject heading from the person who changed it...gives me ample right to remove the warning and shows you have no right dictating. Taken from my talk page: "It was uncivil of me to change the header of this talk page, and I apologise. brenneman(t)(c) 12:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)". You really need to do a deep examination of your behavior. Wrongful accusations of 3RR, calling people trolls with no evidence and making suggestions of vandalism when it involves content dispute is not the way to build a good reputation here. I won't bother Rfc-ing you on all of this because I think they are a waste of time. Don't act so threatened. --MONGO 00:10, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I do understand Wikiquette, if that's what you mean. I did not change your subject header on the talk page; but I think doing that is kinda borderline in terms of wikiquette. One definitely should not remove someone's actual comments—as you have done numerous times to various people—but changing a header is a bit more context dependent. The headers are organizational and navigational, and as such are more of collaborative content. Obviously, if a change really undercuts the intention of the original header, that's bad manners... brenneman's change ambivalent enough that I did not myself revert it, but also such that I did not object to your reversion. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:41, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

Whats happenin'?

Hey Mongo, wassup! Sorry to bother you, again, but I was wondering what is the current status of Encyclopedic merit? I am keeping tabs on the talk page and all I see is a lot of hot air and debate which is simply going in circles. I am not for one minute blaming you, but I was wondering what can be done/is being done with regards to the aims of the project? Or are we in a big debate cycle, putting a stopper in any project activity? Banes 13:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit No. 2

MONGO, the page was a good try, but I almost think that Agriculture was correct, not in quitting entirely, but in this page being useless. It is just one big edit war with no productive edit or standard in sight. It is entirely, with just a few exceptions, filled with editors who do not want to contribute anything to the goals except to see it die. I am not an Admin (and have no desire to be one), so I don't know how you control it. And if it is not controlled, then the page is useless. You might note that File:Autofellatio 2.jpg was removed from the deletion category today. The people who want to lower the concyclopedic standard of Wiki, violate all common sense, totally ignore the purpose of Wiki as Jimbo set it up, have won. I don't think there is anything we can do. That's Wiki. --Noitall 20:49, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

For example, see Gibadabmoob below. Just for laughs, here is his post on that page. --Noitall 23:23, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Hippies

No censorship on Wiki hippies. Wiki is not for you to censor. Who made you god? The pope? I don't think so. Even the pope understands naked people can be educational. This project is a violation of NPOV and needs be stopped. Gibadabmoob 22:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

How so...a violation of NPOV...in what way?--MONGO 00:14, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

What you're doing is wrong

Misplaced Pages is not for you to censor. Some of us aren't offended by the human body. Gibadabmoob 22:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion.--MONGO 00:15, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again (and again) for the kind words

:) -- RyanFreisling @ 03:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Dude

dued, you fucking rock. Bottom line. You're awesome. I'm gone but I just had to say. Out of all trhe people here. You're like the king of wikipedia, if wikipedia wasn'g all trolls. So rock on, peace out, ya;lld vooll. ~ Agriculture

2004 election

I've protected the page for now. Hope that helps. Please keep me posted if there are any new developments. Radiant_>|< 13:26, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Your post

No, I'm actually heading out. I wouldn't have been editing at all if it weren't for an excessive volume of Bourbon last night that for some reason compelled me to do so. Less hard feelings now towards people, but Misplaced Pages is still full of trolls. Hell, look at what you've done to WfD. Stellar effort, but the trolls don't want you to finish it. Particularly I find it interesting that a number of admins are abusing their powers there and violating WP:POINT repeatedly, but as admins, they get a free ticket and others jump to their defense despite your quite responsible actions to stop them. Thats Misplaced Pages. It's like trying to turn the slashdot comments page into something worthwhile. The Signal to Noise ratio is not good enough. Anyway, thanks for the message. I might drop in from time to time to catch up on your efforts. But no serious editing for me. Peace out. Agriculture 15:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship and Vandalism

Please see my proposal at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit. --Noitall 17:53, August 27, 2005 (UTC)