This is an archive of past discussions with User:MONGO. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
He did a great job writing those articles but the demand for inline citations puts them all at risk. For the record, I don't like the inline cites because i think it makes articles look like college term papaers rather than encyclopedia articles. I'm mainly concerned that the info is referenced at the end...I just have adopted the cite work since most of what I do is grab factoids from dozens of sources and try and hammer them together in some form of readable format. The only way I can gety an article to FA level is when I can beg someone to copyedit for me! Mav has also been gracious enough to donate a lot of his own images for use in those articles as well...his contributions to Wikipedia are enormous. I'll try and do what I can to each one...is there any one that is in immediate threat of being delisted?--MONGO04:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Not that I know of—I never understand when editors FAR well-written articles, when there are so many in need of FAR that aren't well-written. But, you never know when someone will FAR one of them. If you can get them mostly cited, it may help prevent them from being submitted to FAR by any editor who happens across them. I think (? not sure ?) Mav took a lot of the content from NPS public domain, so often entire paragraphs can be easily cited (that's what I found when Yosemite came up on FAR, and I helped cite it). Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't know that Yosemite was at FAR...I have to watch that section of pages better.--MONGO23:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
ANI
You may be interested in the comment that I just belatedly posted in the ANI thread concerning you and user:Guinnog. Regards, Newyorkbrad22:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I am very sorry I did not say something to him then, but deleted what I had written without hitting submit. I was confused that an admin could be so unconstructive. And, frankly, afraid at offending in favor of someone "in bad odor." Again, sorry. Shenme00:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
One of the biggest mistakes on Wikipedia (and I was cautioned about this when I made it) was when I supported his adminship. If he continues to make the kind of violations he has done this time, he'll end up being desyopped.--MONGO08:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Magellanic Stream
Hi MONGO, Would you mind taking a look at Magellanic Stream? It's tagged copyvio, but it's clear that the alleged source is just a Wikipedia mirror. The user who placed the tag was acting in good faith, but didn't understand the WP mirror phenomenon. It's actually a rather good article, and it's a shame to have it tagged copyvio. Thanks. --Reuben22:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it happened because I have MONGO's talk page on my watchlist, to keep an eye out for cranks showing up to harrass him. See, MONGO played a crucial role here after all. 8-) Georgewilliamherbert00:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The only downfall of helping me dealing with periodic harassment is that those that try to defend me oftentimes become the subject of the harassment themselves. But I do thank you for keeping an eye out. Best wishes.--MONGO00:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Your reversions
Hi MONGO, there is no need to watch my edits and revert them out of spite - your transparent quotes of policy aren't going to fool people. Put the sour grapes away :-) --I'm so special18:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Archive19, thanks for your support in my successful RfA.
As the picture shows, the goddesses have already bestowed my new weapons,
which I hope to use to good effect. If you ever need assistance,
or want to give me feedback on my use of the admin tools,
please leave me a message on my talkpage. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mongo, I wrote this essay: Wikipedia:Attack sites, based on your experiences (in part) and was curious if you would be willing to offer feed back on the talk page there for all to see. There is some significant blow back against it from a handful of people who are opposed to eliminating hate/attack site links, and seem to think the risks of 'outing' editors are overstated. Thanks, - Denny(talk)18:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
If you want to, you should probably reapply to be an admin again. It's been almost half an year since you know what. I stumbled across your prolific edits and I was surprised that you weren't an admin. I'll support if you do decide to reapply (whether today or never, drop me a line). I hope the harassment from your stalkers eventually die down. ;) JumpingcheeseCont@ct13:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I won't be reapplying for admin tools for a awhile yet. Not being an admin has given me more time to work on articles and I have several I am thinking about getting to featured level, as well as dozens of more stubs I want to write. If I were an admin again, that time would be spent working on clearing out the numerous backlogs we now seem to be dealing with, especially the duplicate image backlog of images that are on en.wiki and commons under the same filename. I didn't agree with the arbcom decision, however, they were elected to their positions and had community trust to be arbitrators and they felt that my being desyopped was the best thing (at least then) for Wikipedia. Your comments are much appreciated though. Best wishes. --MONGO21:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Park is named for river. River may have been named for rocks, but not sure. That's how I read it, and it made sense to me. I'll try to look at the article further. Marskell11:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
No doubt, mee too!...well, if you get a chance and if not I still appreciate letting me know. I just know I am a poor candidate to do much more to it for a bit since I'll likely overlook something, even a minor typo. I asked Wsiegmund do a few edits and he cleaned up a few areas that had mediocre prose.--MONGO04:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
My writing style is different than the one featured in the article; I made a few edits at random, but they were mostly subjective. Looks like a great article though. — Deckiller04:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the feedback...maybe I can ask Tony to render his opinion and see where we stand.--MONGO04:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I experimented with the lead a bit; it might read a tad better now, but again, it was mostly subjective. — Deckiller05:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
No that looks good..thank you. I think we should stay away from "destroyed"[1] that would apply mostly to structures and fire is a natural part of the ecosystem. I appreciate your assistance on this...have a good one!--MONGO05:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe he just wants to vent...if he adds something that is useful then I can deal with some insults, so long as they don't get too severe.--MONGO17:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
MONGO, I know you don't like Miltopia, but rather than simply reverting him and removing his questions from your talk page, why not explain yourself at the talk page where he's asked good faith questions about why the template is the way it is? That's what we encourage people to do with talk pages, right? I share his questions and concerns about that template, and I'd like to see a response to them from someone who supports the template as-is. -GTBacchus(talk)19:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to delete this
MONGO, you're of course welcome to delete this, but I don't appreciate having my good faith attempts to improve Wikipedia characterized as "trolling". I also have no idea what you mean by calling me an "ED partisan" (considering that everything I've ever done at this website has been motivated by improving Wikipedia). I'm genuinely curious what you imagine my motives are. I doubt you'll reply or do anything other than delete this message as "trolling", but you are so wrong about me. I have done, and will continue to do, everything in my power to support and protect this website, and you, MONGO, an excellent Wikipedian. Whether you believe it or not, I'm on your side. -GTBacchus(talk)19:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I think we're doing pretty good on that count. Has Miltopia been wearing the wrong hat here? Have I? From what I see, Milt's being a pretty good Wikipedian. As far as karma goes, I'm surprised you don't give any weight to the fact that he's been blocked at that other wiki more than once for removing personal information about Wikipedians.
Oh, no, I have zero beef with anyone on wiki...just seems some have a beef with me tis all...that knee jerk reaction thing. I have doubts about some definitions of good wikipedians when I see things such as kind of edit summary after this vote...I suppose it was "funny"...not sure....not sure that was appreciated or helpful...I'm heading out...maybe more easy to find links later?--MONGO20:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Huh... I find it hard to reconcile "zero beef with anyone on wiki" with "rv further trolling from encyclopedia dramatica partisan". Do you really believe I was trolling you? Do you think I would even consider trolling anybody on Wikipedia? I don't have a beef with you, and I'd be surprised if Miltopia does. He didn't call your edits that template "vandalism", though you referred to his that way, when you were both clearly acting in good faith.
As for "kekekekekekekeke", I agree that was inappropriate, but I believe Miltopia when he says it was without malice. I think he's a kid who's still learning some things about communication and interaction. He's finding out that Wikipedians don't react well to jokey edit summaries. Live and learn, right?
For what it's worth, which may be very little, I think we have seen generally reasonable behavior and editing from Miltopia lately. I most certainly don't agree with every word he writes, and I've scolded him a couple of times for choosing his words poorly and seeking "lulz" in the wrong places, and the edits you cite are immature and were disappointing and should stop ... but I do think that at this point he's earned the right to be dealt with as a Wikipedian and not a revert-on-sight troll. Regards, Newyorkbrad20:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
vandalism?
I don't see how Miltopias edits amount to vandalism. Vandalism is a "deliberateattempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Is that really what those edits by Miltopia where, in your opinion? —AldeBaeruser:Kncyu3820:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
What can I say. You believe Miltopia's intention is to compromise Wikipedia. Well, it's not my call. Incidentally, I agree it's not best practice to edit the template while it's at TfD, but I also happen to believe Mil's intentions are good. (And his concise edit summary here gave me a laugh.) —AldeBaeruser:Kncyu3820:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, I fully agree with that. Yet I'm convinced it's not a deliberate attempt at compromising the 'pedia, and calling it so is a bit problematic. I've been reminding several others of that in similar situations before, and even though I realise you're a highly respected senior among administrators, in this case I feel calling these edits vandalism is testimony to some intermixture of your general opinion of that user, it appears not to be a pure judgement of the edits in question. Incidentally, in this vein we could tag the Troll template talk page with the Troll template right now. —AldeBaer12:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
You don't know the full details of the issue. Thanks, that's about all we need to say on the matter.--MONGO16:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
If you are still working on redrafting the Attack site proposal
Just recalling your message on the talk page saying you would turn your hand to trying to redraft this proposal - it strikes me that the definition of an attack site may need to be tightened up, though I have no idea how; certainly I haven't found a good reference in my reading. The difficult part is differentiating it from a hate site, which is often described in nearly the same terms, but most people would consider to be very different. No matter how hard I try, I can't equate WR with the sites found in this list.[3] I'm also a bit concerned about dealing with links in project space - there are sites that have included some things about individual WP editors but that are indeed used as references for other topics, as they aren't singlemindedly oriented toward Wikipedia. And you know how article building can sometimes be - leave a link on a user talk page for a fellow editor saying "I've just read this, do you think it would be helpful?" I'd be interested in seeing your thoughts on that, but I'd rather give you the opportunity to think about it without setting this question in amongst the current level of noise on the talk page. No rush. I would put a friendly smile at the end of this message but the only editor I know who does that drives me nuts Risker05:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
You say, on Nihonjoe's RfB, "I expect an absolute minimum of one year of service as an admin prior to further promotions..." Why is that? Would you oppose if they had 364 days of service? What's the difference, really? Have you looked at the candidate's ability as a bureaucrat, or simply put down a meaningless standard? Majorly(hot!)17:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think my comment was meaningless. I do expect a minimum of one year as an admin prior to promotion to crat. I think that promotion to crat should be an extremely rare event and expect that person to be extremely active in Rfa discussions and other areas related to the tasks of crat. I don't see that in this candidate.--MONGO18:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, I understand about RfA discussions, but not the year. Is there a reason for a year, when many of our bureaucrats were promoted with less than that? Btw sorry if I sounded a little harsh :) Majorly(hot!)18:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I really hate arbitrary lines which are sometimes used to eliminate a candidate from adminship, etc. However, I do have a one year minimal requirement before an admin is promoted to crat. I'll look over the issue again and might reconsider or adjust my comments.--MONGO18:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Durin makes some valid points, and I generally trust this editor to do a great job examining potential nominees, however, there is not a lot of reason to oppose overall.--MONGO19:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, be careful about solicting assistance from those who you suspect will be sympathetic to your cause[4]...WP:CANVASS is a page that you might want to read.--MONGO19:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
"An arbitrator clarified the position: "Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. The difference lies in the disruption involved. If what is happening is getting everyone upset then it is a problem. Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article." (From WP:CANVASS) What's the problem? Canvassing is frowned upon because it disturbs the people that are being "informed" (it is a form of spam), not because it influences the outcome of an RfC.--Thomas Basboll06:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks so much for taking the time to comment on my my RfA, which was successful. I learned a lot from the comments, I appreciate everything that was said, and I'll do my best to deserve the community's trust. Thanks again! And thanks for your kind words and support. --Shirahadasha04:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I wanted you to know that, although I've endorsed Crockspot's statement, I completely take reserve from giving you a cigar. WP is NOT for smoking. I'll AGF and presume you didn't notice, but encouraging and endorsing the use of tobacco while one is typing should be frowned upon, as it can lead to ashes falling on the keyboard (or even worse, HOT ashes falling you-know-where), burnt fingers, and countless other equally undesirable consequences. I strongly advice you to refrain yourself from further acceptance of cigars made by other editors, or otherwise I'm afraid I'll have no choice but to start a new RfC regarding your unacceptable coughing conduct. Regards, Phaedriel - 05:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
PS. It's great to see you again! ;)
Yes, good to see you active again...I'll admit, the last cigar I had was some time ago...I was here...nasty little things, and harder to quit than cigarettes I understand...luckily, it was never a habit. Best wishes.--MONGO05:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
"Cigars made by other editors" could contains materials other than fine tobacco, so I would tend to endorse Phaedirel's caution. Only accept name-brand cigars. - Crockspot16:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
No, the problem is, I really do like the things..."nasty" is a sort of way to say I like them, but know they are bad for me.--MONGO16:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
He should have been blocked long ago...it is the only way he'll start to see that we are supposedly here to write an encyclopedia.--MONGO17:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
A little pov?
Larry Pinkney. Don't know if this would interest you - but thought you might know what wikiproject might take this in hand. I'm no US government admirer, but this article is a little......paranoid.--Docg14:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The COINTELPRO stuff is something I have little knowledge of, but I can find someone who does know about it and see what we can do...looks like the 209 IP is likely the subject?--MONGO18:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
No, no government connection...I was meaning a few wiki editors. I see the edits look like attempts to remove "slander" and other stuff going on. It definitely needs to be reliably sourced.--MONGO19:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Ha! No problems. I think we've made some corrections to the article to eliminate some of the OR, but I am (as usual) to introduce any perjoritive info in there, especially considering the subject matter...--MONGO21:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I jumped into the talk page and tried to clean that mess up a little. Almost no comments were signed, and the ip anon has been posting personal info about the other editors, calling them racist, etc., removed that shit. You might get a good snort out of the warning I left him on his talk page. Reminds me of JJ's little brother on Good Times. - Crockspot20:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I just yanked a bunch of first person nonsense out of there. COINTELRO information is really pretty vague at best. He apparently is (according to the ref left on the talk page) under probation until 2009....can't come within 1,500 yards of any University, etc.--MONGO20:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
You may be right about this proposal not likely to gain community support, but I would prefer if you would discuss the matter on the proposal talk page before rejecting it. Thanks.--MONGO04:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Normally it would be fine to let discussion about the proposal proceed onwards, but some people are starting to cite this as if it were a policy already, and so I think it's necessary to act now. I have suggested rejection here. --bainer (talk) 05:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Pragmatism
I know we are on opposite poles re: the attack sites debate, but I just wanted to let you know that my opposition to the proposal was based mainly on my observations of the immediate effects it seemed to cause both on the talk page and elsewhere on WP. My own approach to the debate was couched in terms of my understanding of American Pragmatism, which more or less determines the veracity or usefullness of propositions by accounting for their (intended or unintended) consequences, rather than going just by their stated objectives. Your intentions in the debate seemed noble to me, however my opposition was mainly based on the practical consequences of instituting "no links to attack sites" as policy, the symbolic problems of which recall to me the the Iron Curtain and the United States–Mexico border.
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 LEADERFOCUS!04:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
you regret what, precisely? That your Rfa has at the time of this posting netted between 17 and 38 supports for views which are all variations on Give MONGO an award or Your complaints are vapid and only 7 supports for views supporting your spurious attack of this excellent editor? Indeed. KillerChihuahua?!?00:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This keeps hitting lower grounds. It usually takes a lot to wear off my patience, but this whole thing is slowly succeeding in that. And Bishzilla - no smoking here please! Phaedriel - 01:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Truthfully, a real cigar might be nice right now...but I fear that Bishzilla might burn half of Omaha, Nebraska down if she were to let it for me! I appreciate the support. Mr. Basboll feels that he has been severely slighted, so all I can do is work towards ensuring he isn't asked or feels forced to leave as he seems to be expecting me to do. I'll wait to see if arbcom takes the case before I respond or provide any evidence.--MONGO06:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Lamentably, it was withdrawn before I could weigh in with an "are you kidding?" C'est la vie. P.S. I went over to Rfarb and couldn't find your case. I thought for a moment you were the "Moby Dick" case. Funny.--Mantanmoreland22:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh. Sorry abotu that. You were an admin the last time I encountered you, when you helped me solve a dispute in teh Yugo article against that one guy who was threatning to sue me for reverting his edits. Between that time I guess you must have had your status removed. Sorry for the mistake, I will slash out my comment. Karrmann20:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I knew that. I am striking out my comment so I can rewrite it to avoid any possible confusion. It I talk as if you were still an Admin, it may confuse other editors. I am simply playing it safe, that's all. Karrmann20:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
