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.
What a close out...
I didn't realize someone could read that fast. In seven minutes, it was decided: [1][2] I need to take the same speed reading course. I was going to ask some questions, but the admin is inactive according to the timing of this post [3]. JungleCatShiny!/Oohhh!03:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Bad close
(The below thread was posted mostly on Mailer diablos usertalk, but he has refactored it here. I have never seen a more odd way to handle usertalk then this.--MONGO12:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC))
Your closing of the Afd for State terrorism by the United States must have been based on a raw vote. I fail to see how you could evaluate the comments on that Afd in 7 minutes between your last close of an Afd. If all you are going to do is to count votes to determine consensus, then maybe you shouldn't be closing Afd's. I am very disappointed in your handling of this matter.--MONGO03:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Those are simply essays, not the project's policies which must be enforced. I do not want to sound like a Wiki lawyer, but you have not made a proper decision based upon Wikipedia standards. Not good. JungleCatShiny!/Oohhh!04:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Deletion is not the sole method is solving problems that you have mentioned above. In such controversial AfDs, it is expected of the nominator and its supporters to make a case to show how the article violates policy, and why the article in question is un-salvageable and there is no other way. Other than that, normal editorial functions can resolve these concerns - If parts of the article don't conform to policy, they can be aggressively removed. If the title does not conform to NPOV, change it.
In short, if you scream 'action Y' to be done because of 'reason X' and don't show why, to do 'action Y' as told is as blind as counting votes because, for the simple reason there is no case to begin with! - Mailer Diablo05:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, I believe your dismissive attitude here about this closing is of serious concern. You have yet to address how you were able to render your decision in 7 minutes. I expect that this thread be left here until you provide me with a more mature and responsible response than the ones you have. I am not here to play games with you. Please respond here. Thank you.--MONGO11:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
If you remove these comments here one more time, I will file an Rfc on your actions. Do not be rude. I want an appropriate response to my question.--MONGO11:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
MD's closure of the AfD was appropriate, in my opinion. The article is salvageable despite it's POV problems. Perhaps you should try WP:DRV and contest against the closure? — Nearly Headless Nick{C}16:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I was more perplexed by the inability of Mailer to explain how he could read all the comments in only 7 minutes since his last close, his dismissive attitude when I politely questioned him and the snideness of his attitude about the affair overall. I completely disagree that the article is salvagable and feel that it should be merged into already existing articles that aren't violations of SYNTH and other policies.--MONGO21:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Really, the amount of bad faith in your first post at my talkpage is appalling. Firstly, you assumed that I counted votes, which did not even come to my mind having moved on from the Votes for Deletion era years ago. Secondly, you assumed simply from the timestamp that I took 7 minutes to go through everything and pass judgement - Yes I did take 7 minutes to close, because the day before I was at my military base spending more than an hour reading through this discussion (and other discussions on Wikipedia) and munching on my rations (do I also have to declare that?). When I came back the next day I have not seen any new substantive by those advocating deletion that is sufficient to convince me. Thirdly, you disregarded my reasoning of my close (posted as above), refused to even consider my talkpage guidelines, and decided to make further assumptions aganist me with ageist comments. This discussion is already at the wrong end of the stick to even begin with, of course it is going nowhere.
If you are still not satisfied with the decision, please take it to deletion review for recourse, I'm sure the community will be more than happy to determine its fairness, policy and thought into it. - Mailer Diablo17:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that if editors come to you and question you about some of your closings, and you aren't able to remain considerate of their request for clarification, that you not close difficult Afd's. Yes, I do not see how you closed the Afd in 7 minutes. I am not the only one who questioned that...we have a right to question that and a right to not be dismissed by you with such a flippant response. I have a lot of respect for your work overall and I do thank you for all you do, but I also expect you to be able to explain your actions more adequately in the future. Again, if being questioned when you close such Afd's makes you defensive and short in your responses, then stay away from them. Shall I just archive all this now? Where shall we chat about this then, since you don't permit threaded comments on your usertalk.--MONGO05:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Seven minutes cannot be used a definitive conclusion on how much thought is given to the discussion. Rest assured that I have read the discussion fully the day before its close. Please feel free to archive this if you want to. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo11:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jaranda...long time, no chat! I really appreciate it, but I do think I am going to wait. I have some things coming up soon on a personal level and I might not be around a lot for several months...but who knows. I am glad to see you are back with us and editing again.--MONGO05:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Ha! I guess I should have left well enough alone...but you know what...Bigfoot is real! I saw him on a couple episodes of The Six Million Dollar Man and in the movie Harry and the Hendersons and there is this video which is irrefutable PROOF that Bigfoot is a real mammal!!!!!!! Plus, this guy says they're real and he discussed some of that matter here!!!!!!!
I've added some links to the editor review. I think the core of the problem might have been nailed by Krator already. I was talking about a set of copy-edits on one page, while SlimVirgin was talking about a general approach to editing policy that she felt that my edits to several pages conflicted with. As a result we talked past each other and I felt that she was trying to avoid commenting on specifics and own the articles, while she felt I was trying to ignore the bigger picture. Tim Vickers14:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Reverting on State Terrorism
I'm not surprised you reverted me, but why must I solve the issue on the talk page but not Tbeatty? I don't know if you know the history of that section, but I developed it in consultation with another editor, Ultramarine. Tbeatty deleted it without consulting anyone. So why did you not revert his deletion since he did not solve the issue on the talk page before deleting a mass of material without providing any justification? Why would we not go with the version that three editors from both "sides" (me, Giovanni (in an edit summary), and Ultramarine) agreed upon and then talk it out? Why go with a mass deletion that no one discussed and no one endorsed except Tbeatty?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs06:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The location doesn't (nor do my skills) allow me to get pictures like the one on your userpage, but is convenient and able to stay indoors until the rain stopped. When the weather is nice, it's fun to get a spot by the capitol and hear the music. Maybe next year. --Aude (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Nah, your image is fine. I always hanged out on the grassy area between the reflecting pool and the Washington Monument, getting there by 10 am and parking by the Lincoln Memorial near the river. I'd spend the day with family or friends checking out the band and the museums. It oftentimes became a 20-24 our affair due the outrageous commute home, about 25 miles west of DC...but always worth it. Probably would walk 5 or more miles each time I went. I imagine that now it is almost impossible to get a car into some of the places I was once able to.--MONGO17:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Haha...you betcha. But I have lived to tell the tale, so the federal agency with no initials didn't get us all!--MONGO18:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
500
Hey, thanks! I had no idea anyone would notice. On my to-do list I still want to bang out articles on all the local wilderness areas, rather like what you've done for the northern Rockies. Hope you had a great Fourth: here it was steaks and beer. Cheers, Antandrus (talk)21:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
That would be great. I tried to make sure all protected areas such as national parks, wildernesses, fish and wildlife service areas and national forests in Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, South and North Dakota were covered. I still have a few more fish and wildlife service areas in North Dakota to do yet. Maybe when I get that done, I can move on to Colorado and Idaho. I'm only have a little ore than half as many article starts as you do...so I odubt I'll catch you anytime soon, if ever.--MONGO21:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Dry bread for supper
MONGO is in disgrace, and is sent to bed with nothing but dry bread for supper.Can't send you to bed without a toast first.On second thoughts, perhaps he deserves a little honey
Hi, MONGO. Umm, you've been naughty again, I see. (Lucky that previously-deleted RfC was still on my watchlist.) It's too bad, as I was planning to make some more ice cream this weekend, to give to the good Wikipedians. Nothing but dry bread for you, I'm afraid.
I thought it was considered courteous when you file an RfC to inform the subject of it, so that they would have a chance to respond if they wished, but obviously I'm wrong.
I've changed the {{TrollWarning}} template at the top of your page to more accurately reflect reality. "May attract trolling" seemed to be seriously understating it. Feel free to change it back if you don't like my modification!
I have added my view there. It looks like Seabhcan should have informed you on this as he started this quite a while ago [4]. Looks like bad faith on his part. JungleCatShiny!/Oohhh!14:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, given that the RfC has been deleted, I suppose it's possible that the dry bread is a little harsh, so I've added some honey. It's in the comb, which is how I personally like it best, but there are still a few bees in it, so be careful not to get stung. I'm sorry I didn't get the chance to endorse 'Zilla's roar. Unfortunately, I went out for the afternoon. ElinorD(talk)23:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
They can't just shut the fucking hell up, can they?
The Resilient Barnstar
Because you've had more frivolous RFCs than the number of articles on the Wikipedia. Were you still an admin, you'd be third in quality, behind only Jayjg and SlimVirgin (my fourth law of Wikipedia) Will(talk)16:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow..very kind of you Sir. Much appreciated. I don't think I would lump myslef beside contributors on Slim or Jayjg's level though...but surely the three of us have had our share of frivilous complaints.--MONGO16:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
My fourth law says that no. of complaints = quality of job. I think there should be something in the blocking policy about making bogus RFCs against you =) Will(talk)16:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Ha! Perhaps just frivilous Rfc's in general. There is a dispute resolution process and I don't remember the major certifiers mentioning mediation or similar. I would never say I am perfect...I shall try to not respond to overt baiting and then I won't feel inclined to be snippy with these editors. I really liked your redirect though...that was fanciful!--MONGO16:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll be taking the weekend off from that quagmire. I think everyone else should as well. The article is protected and tempers are high, so it's best to leave well enough alone for a bit. I'm hoping we can get a more NPOV title in place and move forward from there.--MONGO04:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, the editors I've mentioned are just so extreme. However, maybe taking the weekend off is a good idea, like you said the article is protected, so nothing can really be done anyway. Have a good weekend!WacoJacko09:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, I think a more NPOV title is an excellent idea...possibly something like "Alleged State Terrorism by the United States"?WacoJacko09:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment
I'm a little busy to reply in full right now, but my short answer is "you're generalizing." Don't assume that responding to someone else's comment with names means all future comments apply to all names, and don't assume that I disagree with everything you do. I'm not out to get you... -- nae'blis16:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
It makes perfect sense in my world to oppose based on who a user sees as role models. You wouldn't have a problem if a user with no actual problem edits in articlespace said 'And the user who taught me everything I know was Essjay?' or 'I think WillyOnWheels is hilarious'? All three of you have made decisions/taken stances I would vehemently disagree with (and generally have, when I'm around to see them in time), so a user who idolizes that is a problem in my book. That doesn't necessarily mean I won't support you if you run for admin again, but you do have a tendency to go off like a cannon at times, my friend. If I see that trend stop, I would be glad to support. -- nae'blis13:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, quite believable, at least from my perspective. But this line of discussion does not seem to be fruitful for either of us at this point. -- nae'blis16:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow...that was quick! Again, aside from maybe a few other editors here, I don't think very many can create a featured level article as quickly you can. I'll do what I can to help stem the tide of vandalism too. Good work!--MONGO19:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, you're quite good at featured articles. Don't know when elk will be on the main page, especially since we just had cougar featured. Featured article vandalism is always annoying. And, Tuesdays seem to be the the peak day for vandalism activity -- User:Aude/adminactivity, though I'm sure it will be less because kids are out of school for the summer. There are always people watching the main page article, but any additional help is most appreciated. --Aude (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi again - you previously voted at Geology of the Lassen volcanic area's FAC. Since then, a tag was added to the intro saying it was vague or misleading. So even though there is consensus to feature this article, it can't because of the tag. Could you look at the intro/lead section and comment on the article's talk page about whether or not to keep the tag? Thanks. :) --mav13:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Seems they want too much detail in the intro...all the intro need do is summarize what the article is about. I'll see if I can make some adjustments later if you don't beat me to it.--MONGO14:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm just letting you know that I can't guarantee that this edit will survive; I put an {{inuse}} on the page because I'm making extensive style, formatting, and grammatical changes. The edits are simply too many to merge back into subsequent ones. east.71822:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, I think the article needs a lot of work before we get too serious about stylistic issues...please contribute to the talk page because I beleieve almost any improvements will be difficult to make until we can get the article more stable.--MONGO22:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
To be fair, the refs are the biggest problem as they look like shit and I can't make sense of any of them. Most of them are missing things like authors and other critical info, I'd like to get this fleshed out before we decide what should be included. Also, I apologize for forgetting to mention this, but I prefer responses to be left on my talk page. east.71822:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I like to keep talk discussion intact...they become difficult for even me to follow if they are back and forth from one talk page to another. No one can make any sense of the refs...this is what happesn when you are dealing with this kind of article...I really do recommmend working on content first before we get into stylistic issues...seriously...but if you can straighten out the refs, have at it.--MONGO22:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I got just the first paragraph done and it took me an hour; I'll have to do this a lot more. Also, please copy your reply onto my talk page, it keeps both of happy. east.71822:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Happy MONGO's Day
MONGO has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as MONGO's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear MONGO!
I've responded on the Talk page, and have once again removed the section about O'Reilly. I'd ask you to hold of on re-inserting until there is strong consensus either way to include or exclude the section. A similar dispute is occurring on the George Soros page, and it appears to spilling on to Moyers page. Eleemosynary04:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
...the most frivolous 3RR reports you've ever seen? [6][7] I find it amazing how new anons with intricate knowledge of processes seem to find their way to ANI and such with ease. east.71818:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, if you look at the current version of the report on you here, you'll see that the username 'Anon' has been changed to the only verifiable means of identifying the person who left it: An IP address. (That is, if it was left by 'Anon', then he didn't log in) Interestingly enough, it was filed by the same person who reported you to AN/I for that unfortunate edit summary you made (which I choose to assume was just a slip of the tongue, or, uh, typey-fingers). Bladestorm18:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, MONGO, for participating in my RfB, which ended unsuccessfully with a final tally of (80/22/3).
I shall continue to work on behalf of the community's interests and improve according to your suggestions.
Most sincere regards, Húsönd00:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Obrigado, MONGO, por participares no meu RfB, que terminou sem sucesso com um resultado final de (80/22/3).
Continuarei a trabalhar em prol dos interesses da comunidade e a melhorar segundo vossas sugestões.
Calorosos cumprimentos, Húsönd00:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks in part to your support, I am Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to live up to your confidence and kind words. Andre (talk) 09:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Please do not cause spin
I take you that you may be a crony of Guy (or "friend" if you like), and I respect that. But impartiality, justice, and truth I think is important, don't you? Your latest comment,
"Holy over sized butt plug...is that what the root of this is about?"
on Guy's talk page attempts to reduce the debate to something it wasn't about. The debate was about the hypocracy of censoring and locking my talkpage over something deemd a "soapbox", and then proceeding to go and do the same thing on your own userpage, and not admin the hypocracy.
...and you know it. So why join in as a crony and try to twist this?
Please remain impartial. Rfwoolf18:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh my goodness.
"Holy over sized butt plug." You just made my day/month/possibly year. I'm at work and just absolutely laughed out loud. I think you just became my new favorite editor. Rockstar (T/C) 18:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks...it might not have the calming effect I had hoped, but I can't imagine what else could be used to achieve what obstensibly might be needed to achieve the end result of what the article in question appears to have been about. I guess I know little about such matters, thankfully. Best wishes!--MONGO18:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, very funny. Although anal stretching is substantially different, and nonetheless wholly irrelevant to what was actually being discussed, which makes MONGO's comments seem to be a spin-doctor defence for JzG against me. This may not be true, but right now the comment doesn't help truth, justice, fairness, accuracy, or good debate, and I'd appreciate a response of some kind Rfwoolf18:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I was trying to be funny...it wasn't intended to demean you of course, but again, didn't this incident between you and JzG happen a long time ago?--MONGO19:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
For your consideration
Noticed your latest hassle on WP:ANI. I keep a list of "10 rules" as a reminder. One of them is "Don't waste your time arguing with an idiot." Just offered as a suggestion -- carry on as you see fit, of course. Cheers - Raymond Arritt01:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
More often than not, I tend to take the bait. Unformately, I am baited more often it seems than any other editor...but that might be my own tunnelvision too. Thanks for the advice.--MONGO03:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
It is not your particular limits of vision. You are baited more often than any other editor, it seems. And almost always by someone with ED connections. Someone put you up for RfC, didn't notify you, and then deleted the discussion? Nobody else gets this level of garbage hurled at them here. BusterD11:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Heh, it was deleted since they made no effort to solve the dispute directly and well, one of those that signed on is a sockpuppet, likely of a banned editor.--MONGO20:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I would also say your vision was just fine. My favourite saying (especially as I have teenagers :o) is "Never wrestle with a pig in mud - you both get dirty and the pig likes it". Sophia12:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed the controversies section since it was only citing Youtube and a bloggish post to support the entire section. There have been plenty of complaints of inaccuracies regarding the images that show planes hitting the Pentagon and WTC towers, but none of it has ever been seen as credible or even noteworthy. People who know little about relatively mediocre security cameras such as the ones that barely captured the images of the plane which hit the Pentagon use that as "evidence" that the images were doctored.--MONGO20:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Nah...be BOLD! I definitely think there are better examples of "fakery" than the ones this editor is attempting to cite...even really provable ones. I have the article watchlisted.--MONGO21:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Please don't
This is inappropriate and I'm sorry to see you touch such depths. Walk away from whatever is upsetting you, or deal with it, but please don't make any more edits like this. --John22:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Such depths? I see, so once again you are supporting another sockpuppets wikistalking, trolling and harassment just because he is on the same side of a content dispute as you are. I, Bishonen and a number of other editors are able to see that this person is a sockpuppet, probably of a banned user...why is that so hard for you to see...one wonders. The last admin who tried to help a sockpuppet really looked stupid doing so after the obvious was shown via checkuser. See: Doctor11(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log)--MONGO22:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
As the admin who "really looked stupid", I'd just like to add that your behavior was not any more acceptable because Doctor11 was a sockpuppet. Your are uncivil on a level that is beyond belief, and now you are vandalizing talk pages. Why people continue to not only tolerate, but encourage your behavior is insane. Feel free to revert this and accuse me of harassment, but mere accusations don't make it so. - auburnpilottalk22:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Admins who support wikistalkers and harassment of established editors shouldn't be admins. I would like to see both of you resign your admin status.--MONGO03:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
It's a two edge sword the trolls love to use. They say "Don't WP:BITE the newbies" - even though SPA's who troll are a dime a dozen. At the same time they say "Established users have special protection!" and also "How dare you call someone a troll for doing just that!" I had to paraphrase the true meaning based on some users lately, but it sounds correct. JungleCatShiny!/Oohhh!03:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Yup....Admins who encourage, aide and abet sockpuppets who are harassing and wikistalking our contributors are the ones who are being rude. If admins fail to act to help me defeat harassment and wikistalking, the only thing I have left to do is to take matters into my own hands and aggressively combat their time wasting nonsense. I can only ignore it so much and when I am out and about doing what I can for the website and have to fight off constant and incessant trolling and harassment, the only thing left for me to do is to fight back. I don't have the time to be bogged down with Rfc's and arbbcom when the evidence should be readily apparent to anyone with a clue.--MONGO03:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know anything about any of that "wikistalkers and harassment of established editors". If somebody turns out to be a sockpuppet, the system will take care of them. You know very well where RfC and ArbCom are, if you think a user is stalking or harassing you. I'm just asking you please not to make that kind of edit to someone's user talk page. Although we've disagreed in the past, I thought you could accept a "word to the wise" from me about the area you're getting into with that sort of edit. If I was wrong and you would prefer me not to comment on your talk page, then say so. That would be a shame though. If you can show me that the edit you made was backed up in any way with consensus or policy, you can have my humble apologies. Until then I just see an editor you are in a long-term content dispute with, and I see you reopening the thread on AN/I about it, then I see you make the edit above I already highlighted. If you contend that politely drawing your attention to what a poor edit that was disqualifies me from being an admin, I contend you are wrong. Finally, in investigating further I see you were doubtless bristling at the tag being added; although I still think what you did was inappropriate, I can more easily see why you did it. Just cool it a bit, can you? Please? --John03:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
A mountain out of a molehill...I will not be chastized for dealing with this troll and wikistalking sockpuppet my way since none of you admins want to go a damn thing about it. I don't want to waste weeks and whatever in Rfc's and arbcom stupidities when the evidence is apparent...you just have decided to badger me about it. We had some really heated discussions on the WTC 7 article where you supported adding more conspiracy theory nonsense there...then you played nice-nice with me for some time leading up to your effort to get adminned...and not long after you got your adminship (which I supported although I was inclined not to), you resumed your efforts to badger me and this too hasn't abated. Yes, I think you should resign your adminship for once again, you are defending a troll and sockpuppet who is stalking my edits. I do not think you are welcome on my talkpage anymore.--MONGO04:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Here is MONGO's original comment [8], Here's the trolling reversion and snarky edit summary by SevenOfDiamonds [9] and immediately after reverting SOD followed up with a troll warning [10]. I think it's pretty clear who the troll is. Defending that action as an admin in any form, including harassing the victim on their talk page, is unacceptable. --Tbeatty04:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I can't say anything about being uncivil because I'm sure I've been uncivil lots of times in the past, but what on earth did you hope to accomplish with these edits? So you say you want to "deal with trolls and wikistalking sockpuppets your way" - how exactly does changing (or, should I say, vandalizing) a box on the top of a user's talk page (which they can revert or delete at any time, since it's their talk page) help you do that? Or perhaps I am blind to the grand scheme you have to rid Wikipedia once and for all of these pesky trolls and wikistalking sockpuppets... by the way I have tried several times in the past to create a method for the community to desysop admins (as you have suggested should happen to some of us), but apparently other admins don't feel it's necessary... go figure. ugen6405:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Complained:
In attempt to make you feel better I left a semi-funny complaint on your complaint board. Hope it cheers you up! Regards, Spawn Man05:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Uphill both ways? How did you know? ;) You do know that I don't have any quarrel with you right? I was trying to make you feel better, but you didn't mistake my complaint as a back handed stab at you did you? I wasn't and thanks for the barnstars - to be honest, they look pretty cool! Anyway, hopefully my lame joke was better than the other complaints you've recieved today. Anyway, hopefully we can speak again - Cheers, Spawn Man06:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I've asked SevenOfDiamonds and I am going to ask you too. Please remove the troll template from the top of your talk page. It comes across as aggresive. Thanks in advance. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn10:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
MONGO's has been here for quite a while and isn't directed at any specific person. SevenOfDiamonds added his specifically after a post by MONGO. There is no comparison. --Tbeatty12:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Well SevenOfDiamonds would have probably been here a long time to had I not asked him to remove it. But that's beside the point really. The template serves no useful purpose here. It does nothing to foster cooperation between editors, so why have it? Please MONGO just take it down. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn14:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
FAR
I have nominated Gray Wolf for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKiernan13:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Bishapod (swimming happily in and out among MONGO's lilypads on Bishonen's page) awards MONGO the rare Plush Stuffed Toy Proto-Tetrapod Award for all the beautiful landscapes he has uploaded on Commons. bishapodsplash!23:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC).
Lights has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Cheers,Lights00:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
There might be a few to many pics on that article. But you remove the two that are mine? Thats a little unfair. Plus, those two had matched the article they where in! A pic showing the towers up close, and one of the observation deck. Whats wrong with those two? Could you please return them?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pag293 (talk • contribs)
Looks like you already replaced it. The article would be better (I think) if the gallery was removed since those images can be found in Commons, and there already is a link to Commons on the bottom of the article.--MONGO09:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I am speechless
I am speechless at this point... I was shocked when I logged in. I will be reading the other posts and be in and out today. I appreciate you and others discussing this at ANI, I really do. Just wow... JungleCatShiny!/Oohhh!14:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
My RfA
Thank you for participating in My RfA which closed successfully. I am honored and truly more than a little humbled by the support of so many members of the community. It's more than a bit of a lift to see comments on my behalf by so many people that I respect. I'll do my best to not disappoint you or the community. - Philippe | Talk02:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
That's weird since I haven't been that deeply involved in working on 9/11 realted pages for a while now. I leave a comment or two every now and then, but the last major work I did was when I added all the cite templates in the September 11, 2001 attacks article almost a year ago to get that article looking better since it was the 5 year anniversary of the attacks.--MONGO20:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
What complete tripe. He says that Morton alone deleted four articles, but one of those articles hasn't even been deleted, and Morton did not nominate the other three. And since Morton does not have an admin bit, he can't delete anything anyway. But this explains a lot. I've caught a few stray comments from newer users about my nefarious involvement with 9/11 articles. The only problem is, I don't think I've ever edited a 9/11-related article. Maybe you and Morty will get mentioned on Art Bell. That would be cool. - Crockspot23:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
The link is not working for me. I get a "Forbidden 403" error. Is this the same article that I saw earlier that was mainly concerned with Morton? --Aude (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I read it last night, it was a tedious analysis of how the word "pull" (in relation to gravity) got changed to "push" in some article, and at the end he tracks the edit down to Tom Harrison. Big conspiracy, psyops, blah blah blah. - Crockspot15:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I just wonder why the link isn't working. Did Alex Jones take the page down? or is it just me? It didn't really seem to be about MONGO, but mainly Morton and Tom. Truthers must be desperate now if this article is the best they can do. --Aude (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I see now that both links are giving a 303 error. The file permissions have been changed. Unfortunately no hits at web.archive on those urls. Another user has reported to me by email that they can't get them either. The first story was an attack on Morton and MONGO, the second one was sort of an update that names Tom. - Crockspot15:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
You know, if either of those postings are characteristic of Jones' researching skills and ability to get the story right, it does not reflect a great amount of credibility on other topics. I'm sure they were removed because if anyone checked the Wiki record, as he encourages people to do, it completely shows his assertions to be incorrect. That would leave him open to accusations of fraud. - Crockspot15:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
According to PP, "Prison Planet.com Hit By Major Hack Attack" - "The perpetrators could be trolls acting in response to our article about Wikipedia censorship yesterday or they could be acting on behalf of all manner of government agencies that we have clashed with over the years." LOL --Aude (talk) 00:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey...don't forget all secret agents are supposed to meet this Thursday in Derkaderkastan so we can install a new puppet government...man am I getting tired of those assignments...--MONGO00:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar?
Right-wing conspiracist MONGO continues to in his evil crusade to... um, stop left-wing conspiracy theorists
Granted, there was an arbcom ruling on this very issue saying that this is an encyclopedia, not a resevoir for conspiracy theories, but hey, that's not important. What's important is that we continue to meet behind closed doors to shut out all those liberals from getting The Truth out! The Evil Spartan18:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Heh, I suppose from an international perspective, I am pretty conservative, but as far as American politics, I consider myself in the center. There are some areas I am very conservative about, but also some I am very liberal about as well. Thank you very much for the barnstarish thing and for all your support...it is very much appreciated.--MONGO20:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment left on PrisonPlanet
Hi Mongo, I know its almost certainly not you leaving this comment, but someone pretending to be you, but did you say:
"Your work on Wikipedia is harmful to Americans, and you know that. Why do you support sites that out people who have a right to edit anonymously to protect America?" [13]?
You're right, it's not me. The only place you'll ever find me on the web is right here on Wikipedia or over at Commons uploading images.--MONGO20:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
"State Terrorism and the United State" has been nominated for deletion 6 times. We won each time and now it stays.
But it will be nominated again - we need new dedicated editors - ones who are respected and seen to be impartial - to argue for this info to be kept.
Basically, we need under-cover truthers to come out and help every now and then.
Seabhcan 07.28.07 - 10:16 am"
Is that you asking for "under-cover truthers" to come here and filibuster or disrupt this website?--MONGO21:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Read the rest of what I said. I was arguing against vandalism and single purpose accounts and trying to get people genuinely involved. Don't ignore my previous comment which was "launching vandalism attacks will have no effect. - and will just hinder our profitable efforts at winning the argument. Please - there is no quick fix to this. The only way forward is to spend some time on wikipedia learning the ropes and making logical, rational arguements infavour of good content." ... Seabhcan23:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Has Alex Jones ever been a Wikipedia "user"? If so, his screed against Morton/MONGO and call to arms is certainly a violation, and any users who answer that call would be considered meats. - Crockspot15:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks like there are few people blogging comments there...the one going by the name "sane" is on a pretty different page than those who normally fit the definition of that username. They seem to be dupped by usernames here as well and have assumed that someone posting on Wikipedia are in fact using their actual real life names as usernames here. Idiots.--MONGO17:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I am new to Wikipedia but I have been following the arguements as to whether this is a documentary or not and have provided evidence that the film is NOT a documentary. I would love to have your input. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fahrenheit_9/11/Not_a_documentary - sorry I'm not sure how to link to the discussion this link takes you to. The discussion on the actual film article could use your input as well. Thanks for your time :) Arcade12320:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your beautiful words and warm wishes on my birthday, dear friend! I took a well-deserved one-day wikibreak and spent it with my family and my friends... and actually had a beer after months of forced abstinence! :) Of course, there's no way I'd forget about you, so I saved a great, tasty piece of chocolate cake just for you - but sorry, no beer left! Again, thank you so much for taking the time to wish me well, and have a wonderful day, dear Mongo! Love, Phaedriel - 08:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
No words are really needed when you've seen inside my soul the way you have... so just thank you, for being the way you are; and everything you mean to me, I'll never find the words in any human language to express. xxx, Sharon
Hi, MONGO. Can you confirm that you've seen this and this? Apparently, someone who has already been asked not to keep posting on the page of a much-trolled admin is continuing to post on the grounds that you and I might not have seen his original post. I told him that he could rest assured that I had seen it, and I promised that I'd make sure that you had seen it as well — just so that he wouldn't feel forced to repost unwanted material for our benefits! Thanks. ElinorD(talk)15:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I did see it and the only reason I didn't remove it myself is because I as I was trying to remove it, Slim did so at the exact same moment. Why is this badgering stil going on? What should be a discreet question is continuously being asked and discussed in the most indiscreet manner...the only reason that could be is due to a desire to be both disrespectful and rude.--MONGO21:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
My RfA
Hi, MONGO, and thanks for your participation in my RfA. I've withdrawn it, and will be writing up an "analysis" of it, which will soon be available at User:Giggy/RfA/Giggy when it's done. Please come around when you get the chance, and give me feedback on how I can improve. Thanks again, GiggyUCP04:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you edited this article often and I feel that I have a solution to the disputes on this article:
I suggest categorizing this article as Category:Conspiracy theories. This way those who hate this article don't have to take it seriously and those that want to add content to it about "terrorism", can. This article is obviously a POV mess that will always be in dispute and eating up time that could be constructive.--SouthernTexas 23:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
