MONGO
Mongo, the Walmarting article we corresponded about in March attracted contributions today from Alan Aycock, the University of Milwaukee anthropology prof whose course I cited as an example of the term. Pretty neat, huh?
He just wrote a note on my talk page and I've responded, asking if he can add references, since I'm sure he has loads. Hope you're well.--Beth Wellington 02:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you!
Your concern in my absence and your get-well wishes really mean a lot to me. Sometimes, well - life can be tough on us, but as long as good friends like you are there, I'll always have a reason to cheer up. Thank you, my sweet, dear Dave!!
Phædriel ♥ tell me - 17:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
A landslide victory for The JPS (aka RFA thanks)
| Hey, MONGO, thank you so much for your vote and comments in my RfA, which passed with an overwhelming consensus of 95/2/2. I was very surprised and flattered that the community has entrusted me with these lovely new toys. I ripped open the box and started playing with them as soon as I got them, and I've already had the pleasure of deleting random nonsense/attacks/copyvios tonight. If I ever do anything wrong, or can help in some way, please feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will do my best to correct my mistake, or whatever... Now, to that bottle of wine waiting for me... |
|
Possible reference approach
Tell me what you think about User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Hidden refs. It has a certain fugliness to it; but it might be plausible to try on some article to avoid the "cluttered edit window" issue that bothers you. LotLE×talk 17:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- I tried this at User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Shoshone National Forest. What do you think? Better or worse than the prior version? LotLE×talk 21:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I found another way of tagging the "hidden refs" idea, and I think it looks much better, and easier for non-coders to deal with. Wanna take a new look at the "Hidden refs" and "Shoshone" pages I mention. Actually, I think it might be good enough to actual do on Shoshone (I'd be happy to re-do it for the latest version of that page, if you think it's desirable).
Along the same lines, do you have any idea how to contact actual Wikimedia developers. I looked through the code for m:Cite.php, and actually provided a specific change at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes and cite.php metawiki. But it fell on utterly deaf ears... which makes me think I'm talking in the wrong place. The idea is, if this code was (first tested then) implemented, we could put the hidden reference block wherever we wanted, including in a friendly "References" section near the bottom. LotLE×talk 17:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Cyde
You seem to be pretty upset over this guys appeal to authoirty on the part of one arbitor speaking casualy. Personally I hate vote stacking; such votes may be discounted, and an RfC may be needed for the spammer. In a "Splash" sort of way, I do agree that no clear policy over this has been laid out, and blocks, especially by those involved in the vote may be a bit out of line. Nevertheless, try not get angry over this kind of Wikidrama...it will all play out sooner or later.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 05:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Rationales for not voting for Hillary Clinton in 2008
Blame my laziness on this one, but I only saw you had restored it after I deleted it. Am I missing any reason to keep the text in the history? After the Brian Chase thing I'm just thinking Wikipedia would like to avoid this sort of thing. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
References font-size
The references font-size proposal was resurrected [1], and I notice it has actually been implemented. [2] Not entirely sure it will last, though. Either way, you can go into your monobook.css (e.g. User:MONGO/monobook.css) and set your preference for font-size, by adding:
ol.references { font-size: 100%; }
and setting font-size percentage to whatever you want (if you don't like the default). This overrides the sitewide default. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 18:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the support on my RfA!
| File:Danavecpurpletiger.jpg | A belated thank you to you for Supporting my RFA! It passed 54/2/3, much better than I expected! I am still finding my feet as an Administrator, and so far I am enjoying the experience. I am honoured that you felt I was ready to take up this position, and wish to thank you formally! I hope I can live up to your expectations of me. Once again, thank you! --Darth Deskana (talk page) 19:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC) |
thanks
Thanks for unblocking me. thewolfstar 11:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Impeachment article imbroglio
I wonder if I could get your opinion at: Talk:Rationales provided by advocates of the impeachment of George W. Bush#What to do post-AfD?. LotLE×talk 17:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #3
|
|
Cuba
Hi,
I am sending this message to editors I know who have done work on articles related to communism.
Adam Carr recently started bringing the Cuba article up to standard, gradually rewriting each section. In the meantime, his work has been resisted for several weeks by a group of Castro supporters who dispute, among other things, that the fact that Cuba is not a democracy. Adam Carr is now at a conference for a couple of weeks, meaning his work will likely be undone. If you have the time and the interest, please take a look.
Best regards. 172 | Talk 05:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
You said: "That's not a POV..that's a mission statement. I don't edit war on the article. As you evolve as a Wikipedian, maybe you'll understand that we don't link to self promoting websites that exist to promote nonsense and make a buck. I really cannot explain it any better than that, so bye."
I find that rather patronising, and just a little arrogant. If there is really no more to debate about, as you imply with your 'bye', I find it rather sad as it means we will have to ask for help to sort out the dispute and I had hoped we could do that ourselves. I thought I'd drop you a note here and see if you want to reconsider. By the way, I also do not appreciate language like "That is a bunch of crap."; I would be grateful if we could keep this civil. Even though we may disagree (and I'm not even sure we don't have a similar POV but different ways of expressing it), I think we should leave the language of the schoolyard behind. Thanks for your consideration. Guinnog 18:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Mongo, I was interested in this which you wrote:
"Looks like it's time to do something more about the articles related to 9/11...POV pushers of nonsense are determined to have their link, even though it vilates a number of wikipedia policies. I am inclined to have a zero tolerance now even in the conspiracy theory pages that relate to this junk science. I am also about ready to start blocking folks for disruption of the talk pages.--MONGO 07:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)"
and then
"By all means, do what matters the most to you...just encourage you to keep tabs on what's going on and glad to see you participating...don't let it take over one more minute than you feel is necessary, for in my opinion, we are arguing with trolls mostly...sorry for the bluntness...just my style at times. Happy editing.--MONGO 01:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[3]"
On reading this, which seems to seriously violate WP:NPA and WP:AGF, I was quite insulted. Is anyone arguing against your exclusion of all but the single official link in this article regarded by you as "POV pushers of nonsense" and trolls? When you rebuffed my attempt to engage you in civil dialogue, and to gently remind you to stay civil with the curt message that "I don't compromise if it means policy is to be violated", taken in conjunction with the above, I began to wonder if you were letting your POV rule your editing behaviour. The only reason I bring it up here is because I think it affects your credibility in this debate. Is it really about photo copyright and commercialism? I think I need you to reassure me that you are not letting your passionate POV rule you here.
Specifically, could you also please withdraw your threat above to "block folks for disruption of the talk page", as I don't think anyone is doing so. Even if they were, in your opinion, it would obviously be inappropriate for you to take admin action like this regarding a page you have been editing. Thanks in advance, Guinnog 22:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
You replied: If adding a link to a website violates policy, then we don't add it. If people are disruptive on talk pages, then a block is justified. My POV, as you wish to call it, is based on the proven evidence, not on nonsense that is based on opinions or junk science that misinformed individuals have gathered from unscientific websites, whose sole or certainly secondary purpose is to make a profit. I don't think I can clarify it more clearly than that. There isn't much room for dialogue if folks keep trying to force policy violating websites into the articles.--MONGO 00:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Your reply worries me deeply. I find your use of "if" here very disingenuous. The question of whether any particular link "violates policy" was what we were discussing in the talk page. In what sense did you consider that was "disruptive"?
Howver, my most serious worry is that as an admin you would make this threat. Do you or do you not know that to carry out the threat would have been a flat-out breach of policy? If you accept it was a mistake, it would show courage and integrity to admit it. Guinnog 06:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
9/11
I don't disagree, but a widespread, across the board action would take a lot of time to sort through. I think it would have to be done on a case by case basis. That'd be a full time job considering the debating styles of some of the proponets and their tireless devotion to conspiracy. If I had time I'd love to root that crap out, a large pertcentage of it doesn't belong here. But I find 7wtc taking up what little time I have these days...I don't mind because it's important but I'm not sure how much more personally I can devote to it. But, I'd support you as far as I could if you did want to open up a wide front on junk 911 conspiracy theories. There would be some that are probably notable enough to include in conspiracy pages, but almost none of them belong on the main topic pages. Rx StrangeLove 21:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- You being blunt is no secret ;) I just put a long response in at 7wtc....40 minutes I'll never get back and it won't make a bit of difference. Let me know if you do open up a larger front on junk 9/11 theories, I'll help out as much as I can. Rx StrangeLove 04:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank You!
Thanks for the note. I'm Bett and really new here. With regards to the Wilderness stuff that I'm doing I was trying to help get rid of the red links and give a bit of info. Still nosing around and learning alot. I'm from Ontario, Canada. LdyDragonfly 04:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
External links - You've helped me alot but am a bit confused. On the links you've put date link was accessed. Is this necessary because I haven't seen that done anywhere else or is that to help me? Showing me some templates is a really big help as well. I really like the fact I can preview before submitting. Thanks! LdyDragonfly 07:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if I stepped on someone's toes with regards to the Wilderness template. I didn't mean to offend anyone working on the project. Is it alright to fill in a red lined subject with a couple of lines of info and an external link or two...for starters? I'm still new and you did kind of blow me away with all the template stuff. LdyDragonfly 01:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
What I meant by messing up anything was a setup that you wanted as a style(?) for your pages. They seem to differ in different sections. Ya I'm getting the knowhow of the embedded links but seem to worry when things in one section don't seem to be following the lead. What drives me nuts is the titles like....External links. I almost want to change them all to External Links. I'm learning though. I also edit on Netscape's Dining Directory and have edited on ODP for Netscape This is the first HTML based one that I've done so it's interesting and gives me a kick in the butt to make my own page. :) LdyDragonfly 01:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism
Just one question - How was I vandalizing Wikipedia?
Actually, I didn't realize my changes weren't encyclopedic. According to Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, encyclopedic is defined as:
of, relating to, or suggestive of an encyclopedia or its methods of treating or covering a subject
And encyclopedia is defined as:
a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject
How was that not being encyclopedic?
So, I also gather that you're an Administrator. May I therefore assume you have read the Vandalism and Resolving disputes articles? If I may say, and I quote:
Bullying or Stubbornness
Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them on an article's talk page, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is a matter of regret - you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. However, it is not vandalism.
Again I quote:
Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Uweretheone (talk • contribs) Uweretheone (talk · contribs) [4]
Changing "God's wonderful hand" to "70 million years of volcanism, migration, and evolution—processes" is not encyclopedic. It's your opinion, and if you do it again, I'll simply find a way to block you. Uweretheone 11:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
No response, I see....cat got your tongue, eh? Uweretheone 01:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Whoa, whoa, whoa- back up there...scientific information? So you think evolution is scientific? Ha! Sorry to break it to you, but evolution is false. Give me good, genuine, solid proof that evolution is true, and good, genuine, solid proof that Christianity is false, and then I'll stop bothering you. Uweretheone 02:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Check this out
I promise you will love it. [5]--Jersey Devil 06:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Also see my comment here.--Jersey Devil 07:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Reliable Sources talk discussion
I've started a topic on WP:RS on the claims that Seabchan makes about the validity of the 9/11 commision report and the FEMA and NIST reports.[6]
As you have been dealing it with him longer, I think you might be able to give more insight.--DCAnderson 10:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
rfa
I've replied on my talkpage. -ZeroTalk 11:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thank you for the e-mail. I've responded with one and on my talkpage again, and despite it being unsuccessful, thank you for nominating me. -ZeroTalk 13:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for voting in my RfA!
Thanks for the vote in my RfA! It did not gain consensus, but I'm happy with having accepted it. Good learning experience. - Amgine 17:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
A tribute
I've written an article in your honor! Check out the Mingo National Wildlife Refuge. Mingo/Mongo, Mongo/Mingo... It was close enough! ClarkBHM 19:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
MONGO, today you speedied this article as a non notable character. Surely you know the non notable speedy criteria is for real people, not characters? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Careful on the delete, the AOL anon vandal tricked you. -- Curps 04:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Talk:Ollanta Humala can you undelete the talk page? God, these vandals really piss me off.--Jersey Devil 04:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, please semi-protect again. These people aren't going to stop. Another incident amongst the countless others showing why IPs shouldn't be allowed to edit.--Jersey Devil 04:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Lastly, please block these IPs for vandalism. User talk:64.12.116.70 and User talk:205.188.117.74.--Jersey Devil 04:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I hereby award MONGO the rouge admin award for his deletion of Wikipedia's article on a current Presidential candidate. Keep up the good work! :P --TantalumTelluride♪ 05:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
:P--Jersey Devil 05:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
And for my next act...yes, that's right folks! I'm gonna speedy George W Bush!!!--MONGO 05:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Wow! Do you do children's parties too? Bishonen | talk 02:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC).
Why did you delete this page? It had a significant history of warnings, etc. greater than a simple redirect. Snoutwood (talk) 06:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- No, that's cool. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. O.K. if I undelete it? Snoutwood (talk) 07:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
RFC Against You
User talk:EyesAllMine#Mongo's behaviour and User_talk:Seabhcan#rfc, They were apparently plotting an RFC against you, didn't know if you realized it.--Jersey Devil 02:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
NP article
Hi, I was admiring the new pictures last night. I think the gallery is great, but it'd look better if you could connect the pics, see Flag of Australia where we ended up putting the images we wanted to display together in a table rather than using the gallery markup. You might need to mess around with the number of pixels to get them all the same size. One other thing, why is climate a subsection of ecology - it seems more like a geography subsection to me.--Peta 02:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)