Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:14, 11 June 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) Archive 17 (February 2007) Archive 18 (March 2007) Archive 19 (April 2007)

Defender of the Wiki

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your diligence in fighting the CT POV pushers, I hereby award you the Defender of the Wiki Barnstar--rogerd 03:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...you guys are great...please keep up the good work yourselves!--MONGO 06:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

User security

Hey, I'm working on a guideline for user security practices and I wondered what you thought of it. My text so far is here: User:Academy Leader/UserSecurity. Everything past "Interacting with others" is copied straight from the Wikimedia Privacy policy, except for the information under "See also" and "References," which are links gathered from anywhere. This is not intended as a means of revisiting or in any way affecting the "attack sites" debates, I am simply curious as to what you may think of this. Best,—ACADEMY LEADER 04:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi...I copied this again here so we can keep this in one place. I'll try and help out as I can...maybe a guideline might be possible..but here's the thing...if we word it that it looks like a cautionary tale, it might discourage editors from being able to contribute...so as it progresses, it would be best to not name those that have had themselves stalked, etc. Maybe err on the side of caution by making it a suggestion as much as possible. There are also plenty of contributors who don't care if they are known since they are public figures anyway. But I think you have a good start...there are others who might be interested in contributing as well.--MONGO 05:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I would only want to discourage editors from providing any revealing details about themselves without considering the possible consequences, not from editing the encyclopedia. I very much agree that we don't have to reference specific cases or examples in doing this. Public figures I am not sure what to do with, evidentially they don't care, but still the main thing I'd like to work out is a codified process for discretely handling stalking or other harassment cases involving personal information, with minimal further exposure to the victim through the encyclopedia. I think it would be in everyone's interest if there were some well known public text somewhere that pointed to an email that could be used to report such instances to admins without using WP:AN/I. Best, —ACADEMY LEADER 05:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have always suggested to people who want to remain anoymous that they should create a completely fictious identity for use anywhere on the web. I was amazed at the amount of information that can be gleemed from just knowing someone's name and approximate location. If I query my real name on a couple websites, it lists the cities I have lived in over the last 20 years...it even gave my real age...all that for zero cost! If someone wants to know more, for less than 20 bucks they can get real addresses, marriage records, etc. I would recommend that Misplaced Pages:Oversight be incorporated in the text to ensure everyone knows that personally identifying information can be permanenet removed by the Stewards...additionally, history can be removed by deleting and then recreating any page minus the paricular edit that identified the person...but it is still available to administrators, all of which can see deleted histories and pages...maybe you have that in there already...I'll read it again.--MONGO 06:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, if anyone asked me I'd say not to bother, as true anonymity online becomes unrealistic even with one or more pseudonyms. Misplaced Pages:Oversight capabilities are alluded to but not specifically addressed yet. At this point, feel free to contact others or edit the text yourself if you want. I am not sure at what point it would be "proposal-ready" as a guideline, if the idea of it couldn't be better incorporated elsewhere or in some other fashion. I may be off-line for much of tomorrow. Thanks for your thoughts.—ACADEMY LEADER 07:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have a few minutes

Could you check out User:Crockspot/Sandbox and let me know what you think? This is my proposed submission of evidence to the NYScholar arbcom. The last section in particular is what I am most unsure about. It's something that needs to be said, but I could be wrong about that. Let me know what you think on my talk page. - Crockspot 19:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the Yellow bading part might be better if you leave out personal sentiments about what your perceptions are, though I don't disagree with these sentiments. What I have found when submitting anything to arbcom is it's best to be very short and offer precise evidence...ie "Joe is incivil...(and then examples: ,,,"). Four to ten examples of recent editing activity...if it has been months and months...then the evidence has less immediancy to it. Personal sentiments are fine, but I think arbcom is mostly interested in clear demonstration of the points that have been violated. I haven't looked over the exact case, thouigh I did see, even before you mentioned it, that you had posted comments on the arbcom case before it was accepted. Mostly, your discussion looks fine though...I might just trim that last section down and cite specific examples related to the case.--MONGO 05:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I would basically not post what you have written in the last section after the comment..."We have people repeatedly tagging Matt Drudge and Larry Craig as gay, based on very dubious sourcing."...except to expand on that theme...stay away from the politics of the issue.--MONGO 05:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I may just kill that last section, or chop it way down. It's a little rantish, and I don't think the phenomenon is anything the arbitrators aren't already aware of. - Crockspot 03:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Or, they may feel the opposite as well. No doubt, the issue of misuse of biographies to attack political opponents is one of our biggest concerns.--MONGO 04:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten that section to remove all the left/right and ranting aspects, and posted it to the evidence page. I think I got my message through without making it political. I even invoked Hanlon's razor. :) - Crockspot 06:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Jackson Lake Dam

Thank you! Your comments are appreciated. ●DanMS • Talk 01:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• You can put Milner Dam on your to-do list, if it's not already. It's the only dam on the Snake River left to do. ●DanMS • Talk 04:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Chris 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. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Save an egg crack a smile:)

Apology

MONGO, you're right. I failed in my civility. I was frustrated at our apparent failure to communicate. I'm sorry, and I'll be more careful not to post in hasted in.

You seem to think that I support linking to "attack sites", when in fact I don't. You also keep calling them "attack sites", which I think is hurting your case. I support your case, so what should I do when I see you hurting it? Should I look away, or try to help? You seem to generally take it wrong when I try to help, because you... I don't know what you must think I'm about. I've only ever been on your side, in every action.

I don't think you've replied to the arguments I have been making, about why making the policy explicit is a bad idea. I honestly believe that the best way to protect Wikipedians (my goal as well as yours) is to refrain from mentioning "attack sites" or the fact that there are sites "outing" Wikipedians, in policy. I think that would constitute a dangerous WP:BEANS violation. I don't feel you've addressed this point, and I'm hurt that you continue to suggest that I think linking to "attack sites" is ok. I don't, and I've said so clearly and repeatedly. -GTBacchus 22:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the trolling

Thanks for removing the trolling from my talk page, and also for the good work that I see you doing around here. :) ElinorD (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly...I see all your good work as well.--MONGO 18:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Design and construction of the World Trade Center - This article is one of a series of articles on the WTC that should be improved to WP:FA quality. It's ready for review now. Is the article comprehensive, or is it missing anything? Are the concepts here explained clearly enough? Any other suggestions would be welcome, should you have time to look over the article? --Aude (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

re: Misplaced Pages: No personal attacks

I wanted to take the chance to approach you somewhere slightly less noisy than WT:NPA regarding your comments. First and foremost, I agree with your fundamental opinions: there are Very Bad Places doing Very Bad Things, and we shouldn't link to them.

On the other side of the coin, I see how the project has struggled to define "attack site" in a meaningful way (is Free Republic or LGF, both of which have engaged in outing at one point or another? or Stormfront, an attack site of a totally different sort?). I can see how keeping a master list of bad sites is a WP:BEANS problem, and even how directly saying there are bad sites out there trying to hurt people might invite publicity for them.

I've been trying to help and find a middle ground, but because both sides feel passionately about what they believe to be right — and because there are a few people whose good faith in the debate might be questioned — little progress has been made. Having a major policy page perm-protected with disclaimer labels hurts the project. It makes it look as though we cannot set our own standards. And, maybe that's because, at a certain level, we can't. But I think that, at some point, the community has to settle on something, and take to dispute resolution (likely fasttracked to ArbCom) those users who insist on disrupt the project, whether by posting injurious links or by other tendentious editing.

By administrative request, my proposal has been userfied to User:Serpent's Choice/NPA/Proposal. I'd like your appraisal, especially regarding the "Removal of text" section. It has been suggested that a "firmer" version of the acceptance clause may be required, and I am considering suggesting replacing "...absent a specific, compelling benefit..." with "...absent a demonstrated, compelling benefit to the encyclopedia that cannot be achieved without its inclusion...".

Do either of those satisfy your concerns? From the talk at NPA and BADSITES before that, it seems unlikely that policy text explicitly describing site-bans will survive long in the projectspace. Can this be an acceptable compromise? If not, please, offer suggestions. I've been attempting to negotiate a way out of this for a month, and even still, can barely get more than a scattering of editors to sit down at the table.

Regards, Serpent's Choice 06:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Any time!

Any time, sweetie! ;) Btw, check your mail in a few mins, k? Hugs! Phaedriel - 17:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		I, ElinorD (talk), award this barnstar to MONGO for all the good work he does here in contributing useful images, and especially for this one. 08:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

	Friend, don't be sad as you read this, Whatever your trouble or grief, I want you to know and to heed this: The day draweth near with relief. No sorrow, no woe is unending, Though heaven seems voiceless and dumb; So sure as your cry is ascending, So surely an answer will come. Whatever temptation is near you, Whose eyes on this simple verse fall; Remember good angels will hear you And help you to stand, if you call. Though stunned with despair I beseech you, Whatever your losses, your need, Believe, when these written words reach you, Believe you were born to succeed. You are stronger, I tell you, this minute, Than any unfortunate fate! And the coveted prize - you can win it; While life lasts 'tis never too late!
Emily Dickinson

Hello, MONGO, and thank you so much for voting in my recent RFA, which passed 59/0/0! I promise I won't erupt all over this nice Misplaced Pages, and I will try very hard to live up to your expectations. Please let me know if I can help you in any way, but first take your cookie! Thanks again! KrakatoaKatie 19:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC) NOTE: I'm not very creative, so I adopted this from RyanGerbil10 who swiped it from Misza13, from whom I have swiped many, many things. Chocolate chip cookies sold separately. Batteries not included. Offer not valid with other coupons or promotions. May contain peanuts, strawberries, or eggs. Keep out of the reach of small children, may present a choking hazard to children under the age of 3 and an electrical hazard to small farm animals. Do not take with alcohol or grapefruit juice. This notice has a blue background and may disappear into thin air. The recipient of this message, hereafter referred to as "Barnum's latest sucker", relinquishes all rights and abilities to file a lawsuit, to jump on a pogostick while standing on his head, and to leap out in front of moving trains. KrakatoaKatie, Jimbo Wales, and the states of Arkansas, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma are not liable for any lost or stolen items or damage from errant shopping carts or drivers such as Paris Hilton.