Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:25, 26 August 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 2006)

Sysadmin userbox

Not a whole lot of contrast with the letters now, if you've traversed the link. Maybe a green pattern is just not the right base color, if we are trying to avoid confusing with WP officialstuff? Georgewilliamherbert 07:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That works. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 07:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

afd

MONGO, i think this needs an afd – dont you agree? --Striver 23:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Cruft Alert

Given your interest in conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, I thought you might be interested in one that was up for review. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks I urge you to carefully examine Misplaced Pages's policies and rules, and then carefully consider whether you have an opinion on the matter. Your friend. Morton Devonshire

Montana protected area stubs, etc

The stub guidelines suggest that a new stub type should have at least 60 stubs, so actually I'm coming up a little short with the MT ones, which seems to be the largest possible per-state split by a distance; so I don't think others on the same basis are likely (or at least, imminent). What would certainly work is a {{US-protected-area-stub}}, or a probably better, {{US-west-protected-area-stub}}, etc, (along USCB boundaries, as per the split of Category:United States university stubs and a couple of others done similarly). Per-state templates would likely be uncontroversial, though, feeding into a reasonably-sized common categories. There's at least one country (Australia) that I've suggested splitting out. Existing such discussions are at a couple of places on the the stub sorting prosposal page; please feel free to wade in there if you have any comments, or wish to add additional suggestions. Alai 16:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• In particular, see this block of proposals: I'd forgotten about making most of these. (Perhaps stub-type fatigue is setting in.) I won't be acting on any of these immediately, as the category's no longer quite oversized. I'll also leave a note at WP:PA (which I'd have done at the time, had I but thought of it...). Alai 00:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

images question

Hi... you do a ton with the media side of things for your national parks stuff I noticed, and was wondering what you thought of this section on this article. It seems to me to fall under the purview of fair use for information purposes, given the visual medium involved that the article is covering. What do you think? I've never seen something of this nature on any article before for screen shots, and four seemed to be a fair number to use for encyclopediac purposes. It seems (to me) to be a good idea, just wanted some input. Thanks. rootology (T) 20:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

images from press resources

In relation to the 50minutesFrontCover jpeg that was just deleted - wikipedia used to have a image copyright category called 'press resources', or words to that effect. The image was taken from a press pack of jpegs that have been given license to be used anywhere. Which category of license should I select? Gus Peterson 09:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Block of Giovanni33

Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · count)

I am in no way stating that you were right or wrong on this message. As they say "don't shoot the messenger".

Gio feels he was blocked unfairly. He was warned for 3RR, and hence stopped doing it. Instead he published a prose explaining, in all coherancy with Misplaced Pages policy, why he felt that the template was not justified. He asks that he be unblocked. Daniel.Bryant 09:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to believe that a week vacation for Giovanni33 is in the best interests of Misplaced Pages. Personally, I wouldn't argue if someone extended the block to indefinite based on exhausting the community's patience.--MONGO 10:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, have you acknowledged his explinations? About his wife and how he was at a friends house? The claim about his wife as a confirmed sock is pretty vaild, in my opinion - it's not uncommon for people who are in a relationship to share the same ideals and discuss what they have done during the day, which would have ultimately lead to her finding Gio's edits (like my girlfriend, who I'm not going to disclose the username of in fear of being blocked as a meatpuppet). I am inclined to be suspicious about the friend explination, but the current circumstantial evidence which has been used to prove he is a sockpuppet master is a bit flimsy in the light of these explinations. Daniel.Bryant 10:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser confirmed two sock accounts....I'm not inclined to believe that the accounts were his wife's or anyone elses. I have watched this situation for six months and am well aware of the ongoing issues.--MONGO 10:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me for butting in on your talk page with a reply to Daniel, MONGO, but Giovanni was told on 16 and 17 January about the three-revert rule, but kept on violating it, not through error (anyone can make a fourth simply by losing count) but brazenly, taking advantage of our reluctance to report a newcomer. He was told at 12:28 on 23 January that he had reached the maximum amount of reverts allowed. Twenty-three minutes later, Belinda made her first edit (from an IP) saying in the edit summary "rv to better version. I've been following in talk page". She then came to the talk page to support Giovanni, and then registered an account, making a total of five reverts to Giovanni in about four hours, splitting them between her IP and her username. They were both told of the WP:SOCK policy, and urged to read it. That policy explains clearly that meatpuppets are also forbidden. They carried on a pretence of not knowing each other — why would they need to pretend, if they were doing nothing wrong? — until they were caught out. I have no problem in accepting that Giovanni is married to someone called Belinda Gong. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that the person Belinda made all the edits that came from the user account Belinda Gong. There is no reason why wives would make the same spelling mistakes as husbands, for example. And the Arbitration Committee ruled that for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one individual.

Giovanni seems to think that if he can prove that he's married to BelindaGong, that will clear him of wrongdoing. It won't. We all know that Mindspillage and Gmaxwell are different people; that Tim Starling and Angela are different people; that Jdavidb and Carradee are different people. Those accounts have never been used in violation of the WP:SOCK policy. The BelindaGong account was, whether it's a meatpuppet (a wife who joined Misplaced Pages for the purpose of supporting her husband through votes, reverts, and talk page arguments), a sockpuppet (a husband who registered an account in his wife's name and made the edits from it, with her consent), or a combination of both.

You mention that the evidence is a bit flimsy. There is very strong linguistic evidence linking these accounts. I recently requested a checkuser (nothing to do with Giovanni) citing linguistic evidence. My request was declined on the basis that it was so obviously the same user that there was no need to wasted checkuser time on it. I have never wanted to make the Giovanni linguistic evidence public, because anything that he has been alerted to in the past has stopped with future puppets, but I have sent this evidence to bureaucrats and arbcom members. The report contained lots and lots of examples, with diffs. In some cases the edits have been deleted from the histories of pages because of a stalking incident in April, involving Trollwatcher and SimplePilgrim, who are not suspected of being Giovanni sockpuppets, but the posts can still be read by administrators. The contribution histories indicate that these accounts were created for the purpose of supporting Giovanni, making their way to unrelated articles, which they'd be unlikely to find as brand new users, and reverting for him or voting for what he wanted. So far, nobody who has seen the full report has described the evidence as "flimsy". It's also worth noting that seven of the ten suspected accounts are known to edit (or to have edited) from the same area as Giovanni33. The locations of the other three are unknown, but it's a matter of common sense, given the history as recounted here that RTS (one of the unknown ones) is the same as NPOV77.

And just to correct something that MONGO said, checkuser confirmed one account, that of BelindaGong. The Freethinker99 account was confirmed through these two edits. AnnH ♫ 11:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, MONGO. You've probably seen that I altered your signed post on Giovanni's page. You had linked to an account that didn't exist: User:User:MikaM. I've deleted the page. User:MikaM is already listed. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 14:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

In case you've missed it, this might interest you. (Not that there was ever any doubt!) AnnH ♫ 22:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Image Deletion

hello mongo. i wonder if you can help me. you have deleted an image File:StLawrenceCollege.jpg on the article Ramsgate for what i can see as no apparent reason. the image was released under a creative commons attributation license 2.0. it has been acknowledged on the images page and all the correct licenses have been attached to the page. i can find no record or notes as to why it was deleted. whats happening? KevinCarmody 13:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the speedy reply on the speedy deletion. i looked at WP:CSD page, but i still couldn't find the tags on the ramsgate article or the images page it says should be included about why it was deleted. anyway, if it's copyright violation then i'm cool with its deletion. well spotted mr admin sir. KevinCarmody 14:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

User posting information towards stalking ends

Greetings MONGO, could you take a look at this WP:ANI posting? User Banzai! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has formulated a user page on me and has provided links so that others can search for my personal details. As you've had a similar personal experience could you take at look at this case and see how you might be able to assist in preventing this user from further demonstrating bad faith? Thanks. (→Netscott) 07:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance MONGO. Just so you know I removed commentary of this user and one other user from my user page that included statements that constituted personal attacks (ie: words like "dick", "moron", etc.). This too was part of the reason that I wanted his user page deleted because he restored this commentary. This editor is now approaching status as a troll in my mind particularly with commentary on ANI that includes the line, "I know you were all dying to hear this update." Thanks again. (→Netscott) 08:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Redwood NP

Hi, I just noticed, that "your" article got featured status some time ago: congratulations. I have to check your references and citations to revise mine, where the two versions disagree. Did you really base it exclusivly on internet sources? You don't mention any printed books, besides "Native American Architecture". --h-stt !? 17:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I tend to use primarily web based sources for ease of cross referencing since many people cannot locate the books that are cited...I view articles I contribute to simply as one source of reference and hope that the linked sources allow readers an opportunity to read about certain items in more detail.--MONGO 18:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast reply. I have mixed feelings about online sources. They are convenient, as you can do the research from your desk and as you mentioned anyone can easily verify them and find a place for further readings. But they tend to get changed and moved, so you have broken links or worse, links to pages that say something different by the time they are read. Paper has its merits. And many online sources are much less exhaustive, so by relying on online sources only, you miss occasionally facts that are found in well researched books. For example the first proposal for a Redwood National Park in 1879 by secretary of the interior Carl Schurz. It can be found in the small book "Redwood" by the former chief park naturalist at Redwood NP, Richard Rasp, I happen to have on my book shelf, and that was very useful for writing the german language article. In this case there even is an online source, if you find it credible enough: http://www.shannontech.com/ParkVision/Redwood/Redwood.html from the Parkvision site by Patrick Holleran. And I noticed you use much less images than I did. OK, the german language readers have less of an idea about Northern Califonia, and pictures are useful for that. Furthermore, my article was written for the spring 06 writing contest, and I hoped to make an impact with the optical impression. Well, congratulations again, I like your article a lot. Judging from your user page, I will stumble across you quite often, as I write about protected areas in the Western USA a lot, as you can see from my user page at the German Language Misplaced Pages. --h-stt !? 19:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I can understand why you feel the way you do about printed word. In the case of Redwoods, the history and basic details, and in fact, much of the article could have used printed sources since not a lot changes there overall, aside from current events issues. I do what I can to only use either images I have uploaded or those from the public domain, such as ones posted by the U.S. Government. Forgive me for not having any mastery of German, but the articles you have listed on your userpage all link to what appear to be excellent work on your part. Your bilingulism could certainly be helpful as there are a number of articles I believe on the German Misplaced Pages about glaciers that I would like to see translated...I have access to one website which allows me do some translations of text, but they charge substantially for translating large paragraphs.. I'm also flattered that you find the Amercian West worthy of writing articles about for the German wiki...that means a lot to me...thank you. Ich werde versuchen, etwas von Ihrer Arbeit auf der deutschen Misplaced Pages heute Abend, besonders Ihre Verweisungen und Symbolik überzuprüfen. Hope that translated correctly. Does the German wiki have a protected areas wikiproject? If not, you may wish to join the English version Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Protected areas and write articles about protected areas in Germany...we can create a map which can be used in the infobox which would cover Germany or any other country of course. You may also want to use some of the information at the project to start one on the German wiki as well.--MONGO 20:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit shy contributing to english language articles, so far I haven't written anything serious in the article space here. But if you (or someone else) would offer to check on my writings in a timely manner, I would like to offer time permitting translations or as I prefer over translations, to write along a german language text here. Online translations are useful to get the topic of a text, and the general meaning, but they are useless for anything serious. And thanks for your kind words in german, they are almost correct, but higly formal, much more than I would expect in this project (You may have heard about the informal "Du" and formal "Sie" in the german language - in german online communities everyone uses the informal "Du"). In the de-wikipedia we don't have a general project on protectected areas around the world, but a small one especially on protected areas in the USA at de:Misplaced Pages:WikiProjekt Nationalparks in den USA - despite the name it is about all kinds of federally protected areas, and I am a contributer there. Well I travelled a lot in the western US (if you start as the pacific coast and count to eleven, you get the states I visited so far, plus the two westernmost provinces in Canada). And guess what, I like the place and its people. So it comes naturally, that I write about those topics in the wikipedia - along with greek islands, some lawyery stuff, a bit of french history and occasionally about something completely different. And you know how being an wikipedia admin tends to divert from actual writing of articles. Regarding the infobox, one of us already lifted it from your project, modified it a bit and we use it extensivly. Have a nice evening. --h-stt !? 21:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Smile

Striver has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Three Stooges

Not sure if this is a joke or vandalism by I have rv'd it. rootology (T) 07:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, not following you, just editing a couple of articles I had found from following around some AfDs and specifically the user page of one person who had commented on my talk page previously (Morton), if you're refering to the 9/11 stuff. I simply tried to NPOV per policy a few articles. For what its worth, the Three Stooges thing wasn't appropriate to edit in but it was funny. rootology (T) 07:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you added gomer pyle in as a 2nd edit, which is indeed vandalism--per WP:AGF I assumed the second was just an error or being mischievious. Please stop. rootology (T) 07:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Saw your comment, I'll leave it between you guys... just FYI; I'm pretty liberal, but for for what it's worth I personally believe there was no conspiracy to bring down the towers--I know what I saw happen live with my own two eyes when I saw it actually happen. I *do* believe the government should release every scrap of evidence related to the crash of course--it's hardly going to be a national security interest, really. Any five year old could figure out that if a big plane hits a big building really fast, there will be catastrophic damage... by the way, Gomer Pyle? Amateur. Proper tweaking of someone (were one so inclined) should involve something completely rediculous. Look at my user page, in the actually clever vandal section--leftovers from the Colbert Report mess, but it had me chuckling for nearly an hour. rootology (T) 07:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, many of the documents and imagery are a possible risk to national security. I can't elborate on it any more than that. In time, maybe 25 years, all the info will be made available. Bascially, the WTC towers were built for speed, not integrity and they are not the only towers in this country and in other locations that have similar vulnerabilities. It's better if specific details are not public knowledge and the U.S. government is hardly the most secretive government on the planet. If there had been anything other than what is known to be factual, there is no way it could be covered up by the feds.--MONGO 07:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Now now