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.
My pleasure...if indeed your age is what you claim, I am the one that may need lessons from you in maturity for I seem to lack it at times when I most need it. Best wishes!--MONGO03:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
As you said, wow. "Amanda", the NYU student who "trying to understand the ins and outs of Wiki to further her knowledge of the online encyclopedia", certainly has a deep voice, no? It added a certain entertainment value to my otherwise mundane Monday morning. Antandrus (talk)19:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, lessons learned the hard way...besides the threats to you and others which sounded like you were all headed to some waterboarding experiences at GITMO, I was particularily amused by how she changes all your delete votes to keep at the Afd! I don't think I've ever seen that before...MONGO19:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Arbitration Committee RfC
I have started one at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 3. If you would like to add yourself as a certifying party and perhaps make a statement, it would be appreciated. Also, if you would like to change the formatting a bit, please feel free. This is my first RfC creation and this also isn't a common type of RfC, so I used a generalized format. SilverserenC23:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Isn't that a pain...the BOTS are taking over! While some useful, others hardly give a feller the time to make an adjusting edit...I will surely help you on this, but the speed and determination of these BOT-zoids will make it tough to guarantee that they won't show up en masse at your talkpage with warnings of impending doom.--MONGO18:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Sure...will take a look...I live 12 miles from the river, but spend more time near the Platte River which flows into it. Nice to hear from you.--MONGO01:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Tom harrison
Concerning what you said to Mkat, when an editor essentially starts Godwinning an article in such a blatant manner I think admins tend to give out lengthy sanctions. An ARBPIA case recently was filed on an editor who kept trying to insert the Nazi flag into the belligerents section of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War article alongside the Arab states and that editor also got indeffed. As to your comment about my history with him, I didn't file the request out of any hostility to Tom. Obviously he was intent on inserting woefully inappropriate statements into prominent parts of the article that essentially smeared all adherents of 9/11 conspiracy theories as antisemitic even after I asked him to stop. Something that far off the reservation should generally not be overlooked, in my opinion, and I have overlooked a lot.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
What is it that is "far off the reservation" in your opinion...perhaps I am overlooking something.--MONGO23:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The basic problem with Tom's edits 2, 3 and 4 is that it looks like he was purposely putting stuff into the article to make CT look bad, as opposed to simply writing about it neutrally.
Also, while I think the For Dummies books meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability, it doesn't look good. It's a shame, too, because there are stronger sources as I pointed out at the talk page of AE.
The For Dummies series of books are generally well reviewed and authoritative...so if the admins in this matter had been doing a decent job they may have considered that The Devils Advocate, the filer of this request for arbcom enforcement, had himself been topic banned in this area for 30 days not too long ago and has had 2 blocks placed against him also due to this topic area...and Tom harrison commented at the arbcom enforcement request against The Devils Advocate back in November...Tom has been editing for 8 years, never been blocked or topic banned and the admins in this case seem to have no idea what a benefit it has been to have Tom harrison work in this difficult topic area and yet always remain cool, always use reliable sources and be a tremendous benefit to Wikipedia...his "reward" for doing such a fine job is to be told to go away it seems...I am totally disgusted...these admins have done no justice here.--MONGO00:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Also, many the CT's regarding 9/11 DO HAVE a strong anti-Jewish undertones...the entire CT that "no Jews died on 9/11" was indeed hate mongering from anti-Jewish sources...just to be clear, I am not Jewish, nor is Tom Harrison I don't think.--MONGO00:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I've only been consulting the banning admin...I haven't yet asked why the one admin who gave a 30 day topic ban to TDA but supported an indefinite ban on Tom Harrison...I've worked with Tom harrison a long time on this website and I know he is meek and he isn't ever going to want this to be some drama-bomb for him...you have no idea what level of harassment he has sidestepped in his efforts to keep the CT's at bay...this injustice is not going to stand.--MONGO01:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
For example, adding in the editorial voice the claim that 9/11 conspiracy theories "in fact" articulate antisemitic themes while "ostensibly" blaming others was plainly in appropriate. Putting it in the lede of the article was even more inappropriate. The things Tom was inserting were all in the editorial voice, all placed high up in the article, and all highly inflammatory. Don't you think saying 9/11 conspiracy theories and all other conspiracy theories have their origin in "hatred and fear of Jews" is inflammatory?
Now, as to the fact that he has been involved for a long time, I think that would have worked well had he not made insertions like that three times in a row despite the obviously objectionable nature of the edits. Also, Tom probably did himself no favors with the kind of responses he left on the AE case. Seems to me this is symptomatic of the issues with any article on conspiracy theories. People who plainly express their disdain for conspiracy theories too often use WP:V as a way to ignore basically every other policy at times plainly running afoul of common sense. It is also taken too readily that any editor that tries to have articles be less absolute about describing the conspiracy theories must agree with them and therefore must be editing tendentiously. Unfortunately, this is the result of a systemic bias that goes well beyond Wikipedia.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
It was a momentary lapse in reason. Apart from this one incident, has Tom H seemed reasonable to you? Do you honestly think he deserves an indefinite topic ban? AQFK (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't even think I would say that...the diffs provided by TDA didn't = indefinite ban...if there was an edit war going on, why not protect the page...instead, some overzealous admins wanted to show their "power" by once again overreacting.--MONGO02:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Really, I don't like it when anyone is given an indef, but sometimes people dig their own graves and there is not much to do about it. While an editor with a long editing history and clean block log gets a lot more consideration and good will there are plenty of things they can do to lose it all. Had Tom made one edit like that, I think the admins might have given him some slack, but three edits like that obviously exhausted his good will. Take a step back and imagine if it was the other way around like some article on skeptics getting repeated edits essentially claiming skeptics are all religion-hating Stalinists. Even if the editor was also otherwise productive I imagine you would be less sympathetic to them. Sometimes admins really do overstep, but I think you will have a hard time convincing anyone that this was one of those times. I am sure if Tom goes on making good contributions elsewhere there will be some positive consideration of a future appeal provided he is apologetic about those actions.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Maybe there was some way to email you, but I didn't figure it out, so I am ccing you on your talk page:
Forwarded message ----------
From: Beth Wellington <communitypoweredreporting@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 2:12 PM
Subject: Why reliable new editors/ female editors may be discouraged
To: Fabrice Florin <fflorin@wikimedia.org>
Cc: Alan Aycock <aycock@uwm.edu>, John Aycock <aycock@ucalgary.ca>
Fabrice,
Since, in your new position, you are tasked w. encouraging new editors, I thought this might be of interest...
In 2005, I spent lot of time editing the article "Walmarting" to prevent it from being deleted as I knew that it was an academic neologism from writing about Wal-mart for the New River Free Press.
His name showed in red, which I knew it hadn't at the time he wrote me:
Beth, I'm the Anthropology professor referred to in the links for this entry. I've attempted to fill out the definition of Walmarting a little based on my own reading of the (amazingly substantial) literature. I've striven for a NPOV, though I'm not entirely satisfied on this score and would welcome further interventions! best, Alan Aycock (aycock@uwm.edu) Note: The preceeding unsigned comment was added by--Aacock 07:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
It turned out his user name had been deleted in 2008 by MZMcBride, whomever that may be, s/he has no bio on the user page, but from the talk page appears to be very active.
Here's what I left at that user's page:
Walmarting article. Not sure why you deleted this user as he is an anthropologist, Alan Aycock, Ph.D. who coined the term and indicated on my talk page back in 2006 that he had edited my work to clarify the concept when the article was in danger of deletion.
(cur | prev) 09:49, 30 April 2006 Aaycock (talk | contribs) (5,725 bytes) (→Background) (undo)
(cur | prev) 07:54, 30 April 2006 Aaycock (talk | contribs) (5,692 bytes) (→Background) (undo)
(cur | prev) 07:40, 30 April 2006 Aaycock (talk | contribs) (5,639 bytes) (→Background) (undo)
In the article, you will see that he even encouraged his students. Also in that article, hs co-author John Aycock notes:
Thanks to one Wikipedia entry, I was sent on a wild goose chase while preparing my lecture for a computer science class. And after all this...[the unsubtantiated date],1588 still persists in the Wikipedia universe – the digging I’ve done constitutes original research, which is prohibited content according to Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia, c).
Ironically, if Aycock were to pubish the results of his digging in an article on the topic, rather than about Wikipedia and I were to cite them, they wouldn't be "original research."
BTW, User MONGO was very helpful and pleasant in dealing w. me on the article. And yet for some reason he lost his sysop privileges and was unable to get them reinstated.
At left under toolbox there is a link "email this user"...but you have to have your email enabled as well. It's been a loooong time, but nice to hear to hear from you. Walmarting is still an article, User:Aacock was an account deleted under category for speedy deletion, nonexistent user [2]...--MONGO07:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
More like he needs anyone who questions the result of the case banned; God-forbid we do so, because questioning an admin will cause something mind-bogglingly terrible to happen! All this really does it give more legitimacy to the argument that he is seeking retaliatory blocks/bans against anyone who has done something he doesn't like. ToaNidhiki0523:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, that is well put. I generally really hate questioning adminstrators...they aren't paid to do what they do and most of them do just fine...I imagine even the three involved in this affair are probably fine overall. The issue I have is that the parameters make it difficult for the administrators to dwelve deeper into the situation so that they may make a more impartial assessment....3 edits possibly construed as problematic enough to warrant an indefinite topic ban vs. the (I'm probably underestimating) 5000 edits to the same topic area that no one else found an issue with. There isn't much justice sometimes, not here or in real ife...about all Tom can hope for now should he even want to edit 9/11 pages again is that the one administrator Tim, will discuss the situation with WGFinley...--MONGO23:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Nice...yeah...lots of redlined links...I keep repeatedly seeing people say the majority of articles have already been written...that isn't true by a long shot.--MONGO03:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
May I?
I'd like to include your "We need to fight to the end to do everything possible to keep paid corporate hacks off this website" (J.Wales's talk) on my user page. Would you feel comfortable with that? If not, would it be OK with you for me to quote it without attribution? Writegeist (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
Multi-licensed into the public domain
I agree to multi-license my eligible text and image contributions, unless otherwise stated, under Wikipedia's copyright terms and into the public domain. Please be aware that other contributors might not do the same, so if you want to use my contributions in the public domain, please check the multi-licensing guide.
[10]...yet...not only we unblock our pals who call other heinous things...but when they persist with further nastiness, not only does this get ignored, but those complaining about it are badgered...
I respect the position to have it focused on the attacks, but I think the warning section plays into that. People reading an article on the attacks would probably want to know if officials had any inkling that something like that would happen and would want to at least get some information about that in the article. Really I think the "Attackers and their background stuff" as well as the "casualties section" are the things that should be seriously trimmed as they probably contain way more information than necessary, some it possibly being mentioned elsewhere in the article, and prevent us from actually detailing information about the attacks. The investigations and memorials sections should be similarly trimmed, in my opinion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
TDA....I have the article watchlisted...post comments there please and I will respond there.--MONGO00:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
TB
Hello, MONGO. You have new messages at Hghyux's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, MONGO. You have new messages at Hghyux's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Reminder to self....
We need to fight to the end....
... to do everything possible to keep paid corporate hacks off this website...From Jimbo talk/Archive 99. Mind if I quote you when appropriate? My focus is political hacks but probably the only difference is the pay scale. See WP:Paid Operatives for an essay I'm working on. ```Buster Seven Talk20:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Above...another editor asked me the same thing...so my answer is still the same...
I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
Multi-licensed into the public domain
I agree to multi-license my eligible text and image contributions, unless otherwise stated, under Wikipedia's copyright terms and into the public domain. Please be aware that other contributors might not do the same, so if you want to use my contributions in the public domain, please check the multi-licensing guide.
(crosspost from my user talk page to ensure MONGO reads it)
Hipocrite, if you look higher up on that BLPN page, you will see I had participated in a previous discussion on the same issue, BEFORE you did. So, actually, you followed me to that topic. MONGO, same thing. You know that I was in the Pentagon during the 9/11 attacks, so I have more than a passing interest in the topic. That's the only topic, as far as I know, where our paths of crossed in the last few years. You, however, have followed me around. A certain recent MfD vote ring any bells? For you two to follow me around and then accuse me of following YOU takes a lot of gall. While we're here, Hipocrite, stop threatening other editors and calling them racists. MONGO, why don't you and the other 9/11 editors stop the campaign against The Devil's Advocate? I will post this on both your talk pages to make sure you get it. Cla68 (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I can easily demonstrate with diffs that you have been actively seeking various sanctions against me since at least 2007...I didn't even participate in the climate change arbcom case and be thankful for that...MONGO03:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
MONGO, when you posted the ArbCom threat on my talk page today, I didn't have your userpage on my watchlist. Did you have my userpage on your watchlist? Cla68 (talk) 04:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I do for two reasons...you're always causing others grief and you're a prominent editor...you got two editors right now telling you to back off...so...back off.MONGO11:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the honesty. I don't have you on my watchlist because I don't have a goal of trying to get you in trouble. My only issue with you is the way you and the other 9/11 regulars are excessively personalizing the dispute over the conspiracy theories. I don't remember if I told you in detail my experience at the Pentagon before. I stayed in the building while almost everyone else went for the exits. No bravery on my part, just morbid curiosity (for real). As a result, I have some firsthand experience with some of the terrible injuries that came out of that. I still vividly remember leaning over an Army LTC to shield his terrible burns from the sun, because it was a brilliantly clear and sunny day that day. I remember he was grunting softly from the pain, which stayed with me more than if he had been screaming. Now, if I can have that memory and not be offended by the conspiracy theories, can't you? Treat them as any other dissenting viewpoint for any other article in Wikipedia. You know an admin has left Wikipedia because of the hard time you and other editors gave him for banning Tom Harrison. Can you give it a rest? Cla68 (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
That admin admitted to a COI and resigned their adminship under a self proclaimed cloud...so no, I don't feel the least bit sorry they relinquished their tools. No one said they had to stop editing altogether...I get rather tired of admins that, when confronted with preposterous actions on their part, instead of admitting that may have acted with excessive force, stonewall and either run away or refuse to be reasonable...the indefinite topic ban on Tom was totally unreasonable, the strong turnout in favor of overturning that ban after 30 days showed clearly how excessive their enforcement action was...I don't bother for long trying to reason with the unreasonable. The 9/11 CT's aren't a "dissenting viewpoint"...they are non-science (nonsense) and everytime we let a little of that nonsense in the articles, it is still never enough...they want more and more...and that is why we have other articles already dedicated to that nonsense, but for the CTers, that still isn't enough...what facinates me so much is the ONLY time I see you at any 9/11 page is to ask why the the CT's aren't mentioned or why their isn't more coverage of them...you have a history of turning out plenty of FA level work, but you never make any useful edits to 9/11 pages...me thinks you go there to do what you do simply to stir the pot, not to actually be constructive. I've rewritten sections, added tons of refs, cleaned up prose, followed MOS...yet you don't bother to do anything but complain about the lack of CT stuff...frankly, it looks like trolling. The LTC...was that Birdwell?--MONGO03:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Hereforward, I am self-imposing a ban on noticeboards, afd's, Rfc's and other non-article based areas in which you are a prominent player...by doing so, I hope you'll reciprocate in kind. I would much rather have you resume your excellent article work and by my not wasting your time arguing over petty nothings, we'll both have more free time to dedicate to the primary reason we are here.--MONGO19:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
AE
I have closed the report concerning you on WP:AE. No action was taken against you save an admonishment for incivility. We recognize this topic area can lead to frustration but would encourage you to avoid be incivil in the process. Future instances could result in sanctions. --WGFinley (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Dispute resolution survey
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite
Hello MONGO. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
I chuckled as I semiprotected your page (requested at RFPP by Calabe1992). Let me know if you'd rather not have it. EdJohnston (talk) 05:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Appreciated...it's been awhile since anyone targeted me...but all I can say to those guys is to......
Warning: Do not attempt to view good-sized snack on Blackberry! Small devices asplode!
Wow...that looks good! Make tasty snack after having grubs for meal! Blackberry vaporized in hand...singe numerous hairs, almost look human-like.--MONGO23:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Influenced by Pay Editors
Check out Jimbo! He is coming down hard on paid editing. It's good that he take a definite stand. There is a discussion about who is in the minority position. Editorss need to speak up. As usual, it is the "What's the BIG deal" voices that shout the loudest. Creating involvement in this important and timely discussion is needed. Thanks for your continued concern. ```Buster Seven Talk12:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Though enforcement regarding this matter is going to be somewhere between hard and impossible, it should still be policy that paid editing is prohibited...I forsee a possible OFFICE situation here and editors will just have to face the music.MONGO13:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." (Jonathan Swift) Of all groups, conspiracy theorists seem the most impervious to reason. I suspect this is because a great emotion (fear, hatred) underlies the whole thing, rather than logic. It's like a divide by zero error in the human brain. Cheers, Antandrus (talk)02:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Tis true...sometimes I carry the coversations on longer than need be...I am ever fascinated that they want the more incredulous storyline to be reality, when in fact, the easiest explanation is usually the right one...best wishes...nice to see you here!--MONGO03:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, and yeah, it's a few months since I've done much besides scrape vandalism off my watchlist and answer talk page requests ... I'm trying to do some writing again when I get time, but it's been busy in that "real life" place. Antandrus (talk)03:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I hear you on that...I took off yesterday hoping for a mini-vacation from work, but it follows me where ever I go...part of that silly "manager" thing...I'm trying to get a momumental article cleaned up enough to nominate it at FAC, and thanks to two of the best editors on the website, that is looking possible in 30 days...otherwise, I will retreat to my stubs which better fit my concentration levels and time frames...FA's a very labor intensive as you know and this latest has been been a years worth of efforts.--MONGO04:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Dave, just got this up yesterday. Lots of work on individual articles if you are interested. All is well. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Wow...sooner or later...I'm in a big project for the next month or so...but good to see your efforts...MONGO14:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Cape Hatteras
Apparently you failed to read the law (Title 16, Sec. 459, United States Code). Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreation Area is, past and present, the proper/official name of Cape Hatteras. The National Park Service was given permission to drop the use of "Recreational Area" for informal correspondence only, in a memorandum from Assistant Director Hillory A. Tolson, in 1954; read it. In Cameron Binkely's August 2007 writings, he used Hillory A. Tolson's, May 10, 1954 memorandum as a source when he says that the portion of the name "Cape Hatteras National Seashore" was authorized for use in " . . . all administrative purposes . . . ," when, in fact, the memorandum states only that " . . . the shorter title . . . " can be used in " . . . all correspondence, except formal memoranda, and documents which require the correct, full name . . ."
NPS does not now, or has ever had the authority to change CHNSRA's official name; the name can only be changed through an act of congress. The portion of the name "Cape Hatteras National Seashore" is a nickname, and the locals go even further and simply call the area "Cape Hatteras." The purpose of the name as a Seashore/Recreational Area is clear, and woven throughout the enabling legislation. In fact, the word "recreation" is used approximately 22 times in the law; read it.
The legislation's use of the word "recreation" is obvious, and does not infer that "recreation" only represents hunting -- in paragraphs one and four of the enabling act, the legislation reads as follows: " . . . said area shall be , and is, established, dedicated, and set apart as a national seashore recreational area for the benefit and enjoyment of the people and shall be known as the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Recreational Area . . ." and " . . . for certain areas, deemed to be especially adaptable for recreational uses, particularly swimming, boating, sailing, fishing, and other recreational activities of similar nature . . . shall be developed for such uses as needed . . . " Cameron Binkley does not provide any cited, documented sources, in his 2007 writings, that say that "Recreational Area" was added to CHNSRA's name, in 1940, solely because of hunting. In fact, in Binkley's writings, it's clear to me that "Recreational Area" was added to ensure enforcement of ALL designated recreational uses of the area.
Seriously, are you really going to argue that the law is not fact, and that the words "recreational area" were added just for the purpose of hunting? For whatever reasons, you appear to be trying to present Title 16, Sec. 459, of the US code as defunct. Well it's not, it's alive and well, and its purpose is clear. Instead of just relying on the NPS's web site, perhaps you should give them a call because they've been operating CHNSRA as a seashore/recreational area since its establishment in 1937. In fact, I had a conversation yesterday with a fellow who was a Cape Hatteras park ranger, from 1958 to 1962, and he verified that during his years in the park service, CHNSRA was indeed operated as a recreational area along with its other designations.
The edits I've made to Wikipedia in reference to Cape Hatteras are factual, and my source, the US code, is undisputable, as to its factual content. Your reasons for deleting my edits are not based on fact, only on what you appear to want the facts to be. So, as a result, you've distorted the administrative facts on the Cape Hatteras page. You've given no credible reason for deleting my legitimate edits.
It's seems to me, that in reference to the Cape Hatteras page, you have a biased agenda and don't want the facts to be known. Especially, since you and others have blatantly ignored the issues with the closures' section on the Cape Hatteras page, such as, information that's not backed up with sources, due to dead links -- this information should be deleted, and there are multiple other inaccuracies in the page that aren't backed up with sources. Simply, the Wikipedia Cape Hatteras National Seashore page is, presently, an inaccurate MESS. FYI, the NPS does not own Cape Hatteras, they only manage the area, and in their managerial duties, they are to abide by the law, in particular, Title 16, Sec. 459 of the US Code.
Wikipedia encourages unbiased factual editing, of which, I've provided; however, since I been editing on the Wikipedia CHNSRA page, I've been the victim of incessant, unjustified reversions by mutiple biased Wikipedia editors/administrators. I'm a very good researcher and documenter, and have thoroughly documented the abusives that I've suffered here. Perhaps its time to go to the media. (67.238.253.102 (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC))
When multiple editors disagree with you and revert your edits, please consider the possibility that this occurred not because of "bias" or "abuse", but rather because you were in error. If the NPS's own website categorizes an entity a certain way, and your preferred categorization results in a redlink, perhaps Wikipedia should do it the way NPS does? Antandrus (talk)01:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME applies in these cases. Many protected places have legislated names that are at variance with the common names used by the public and by the managing agencies. The enabling legislation is interesting, and maybe worthy of mention, but WIkipedia is under no obligation to use an obscure title that is not in common use. This is an encyclopedia, and we use the names that people expect to find that are in daily use, particularly if the managing agencies use those names themselves. Acroterion(talk)01:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
67.238.253.102, I added sourcing directly which clearly explained the history of the article name...and that is now in the article. What I added was cited and linked and does clearly add the fact that the original name was changed but after this name change, the addition of the words Recreation Area did not need to be used except in official correspondance where it was necessary, see this diff. Recreation is legal and anticipated in many National Park Service locations...in NPS areas that are solely designated as Recreation Areas such as Lake Mead National Recreation Area, then a primary focus is recreation, but don't think for a minute that this doesn't mean that there isn't enforcement of various federal laws governing endangered species, water quality and other resource protection measures...the NPS sites where recreation is not at all in focus is at historical sites like battlefields which usually don't have any campgounds, hiking trails or opportunities to go fishing. After doing a little research myself on the issue with Cape Hatteras, it appears that there have been closures of all or some of the seashore on a permanent/semi-permanent or seasonal nature to help protect various species...so this push to have the full name in the article to include Recreation Area must be backlash from that issue. In this case, we follow WP:COMMONNAME, which in this situation is Cape Hatteras National Seashore. That is according the the NPS website, I also saw that title in various documents...it is in their contact information here...I don't know what else we can do for you. I also feel the article needs a lot of work...but what it needs is a flora and fauna section, a history on shipwrecks perhaps, on the lighthouses and naturally a section on recreation...similar to other national park service areas like Yellowstone National Park and Glacier National Park (U.S.)...what it doesn't need is multiple paragraphs about a naming trivia and subsequent paragraphs about how the the NPS is the big satan for barring off-road vehicles and pedestrians from some areas they manage...closures and limiting access to some forms of transportation isn't unique to Cape Hatteras.--MONGO02:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I am not telling you how to vote; you may indeed vote as you 'goddamn well please'. I'm telling you that your edit summary was over the line, and that further such personal attacks may warrant a block. I am somewhat aware of your past with Malleus and don't understand why you'd put yourself in this position. My comment was intended to be friendly but a warning nonetheless: whatever the merit or lack thereof of Malleus's comment, you didn't have the right to remove it and certainly not with that wording. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2012
No, Drmies is not a fan of civility blocking, but even if I were I wouldn't have blocked myself. Mongo, I'm not happy with myself for my response to you, but I'm also still not happy with you--your initial comment in that edit summary (but I saw your note at AE, which I appreciate) or your response to my first talk page note to you. I'm going to leave this matter be; I have no intention of stalking you or messing around, or otherwise getting in your way, and I certainly am not going to play the admin in my interactions with you, should there be any. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Congrats! You survived a close encounter of the MONGO kind...perhaps one of the worst kinds of encounters one is likely to encounter on this website!MONGO19:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh MONGO! I can name you plenty of worse encounters.
Even if your become irritable or you prematurely mail something from your blackberry, your integrity or sanity are not questioned. We feel your MF pain.
I dewatched the Rfa...I don't care if all or none of the exchange between Malleus is there, but only having part of it doesn't do him or me justice. However, if we're moving part of it to the talkpage and leaving part of it up, then the exchange is broken.--MONGO17:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
tetons spelling etc.
Completely unsolicited advice arrives! After running over and article with WP:AWB to check for sp and gr errors, you still have to catch a few stray ones. Here's my trick; if you don't want it, don't do it:
Go to printable version
CTRL-A, CTRL-C
paste to a text file (not MSWord, yet) to remove formatting images etc.
delete the TOC and the notes and refs
CTRL-A, CTRL-C and paste to MSWord
CTRL-H, Click "More", select "Use wildcards"
Carefully type \[*\] in the "find what" field. Click "find next" to make sure you did it right. It should select the first footnote [1] or whatever.
If it does, click "replace all". Bye bye notes! It's a good thing they are automagically generated though becauseif you had typed them by hand and accidentally left off a closing brace, you'd be deleing a chunk of text, for example: The sun is really big[1 . According to Smith and Jones, it's huge[2].
Click F7 or "Tools--> Spelling and grammar. Check carefully. Watch out for image captions triggering the "sentence fragment" mesgae; ignore them. Etc.
Hi Ling.Nut! Your help is most appreciated. I'll give this a try. I should have run it beforehand and I appreciate you already making some improvements...--MONGO15:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for !voting
at my successful RFA
Thank you, MONGO, for !voting at my successful RFA; I am humbled that you put your trust in me. I grant you this flower, which, if tended to properly, will grow to be the fruit of Wikipedia's labours. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mongo, although sentences must indeed end with a period, I don't think the caption "Large blue Yogo sapphire in the head of the Conchita Sapphire Butterfly, created in 2007 and currently held by the Smithsonian Institution." is actually a sentence. The noun "sapphire" is not the subject of any verb (certainly not "created" which is imho a mere participle). Would you do me the favour of looking again at your edit and see if you wish to revert your addition of the period, please? Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
There should be little stars and stuff like for FAs: "This editor has been involved in four arbitrations, 2 RfCs, 18 dispute resolutions, and 178 threads on ANI." Tom HarrisonTalk20:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Saw this and couldn't stop laughing! It applies to me as I know at least 4 arbcoms (several more if Basboll had his way before he was permabanned from 9/11 pages), 2-3 Rfc's and a number of dispute resolutions and probably a fair share of AN/I complaints as well. Not something to be proud of...excepting that the complaints were all nonsense.--MONGO22:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Ah yes...their talents for distraction were always bewildering...most would have said enough and moved on. I never really knew if they actually cared, or they just were so bored that disruption was their real game. It's hard to fathom that anyone could actually be so articulate and also actually believe the impossible.--MONGO23:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm certainly proud of my RfCs, and keep a list of them on my userpage. A long list. You have 2-3 RfCs, MONGO? [Condescendingly: ] Uh, that's quite... nice, I suppose. Bishonen | talk00:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC).
Hehe. You have been plentifully honored, surely. We can't all have been blocked by Jimbo, or taken him to arbitration, can we, dear? Anyway, you shouldn't taunt Tom for his shortcomings in the wikitrophy area.[18] Instead, congratulate him on having finally achieved a topic ban (or whatever it was). Bishonen | talk14:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC).
Oh my...Jimbo blocked you for THAT???? this gets back to your essay...I have had commentary here and in many other places that is far more rude and "unbecoming an admin" (and obviously intended to be so) than being called a "little shit"...I'd much rather be told to F off then have the dealings of some sanctimonious, condescending and xenophobic/nationalistic editors and admins. While we all do try and be pleasant with one another, there is a pervasive attitude amongst some to be snide and generally intolerable of cultures and idiosyncrasies of places and peoples beyond their own doorstep. I am sorry that I had forgotten about that block placed upon you...as Hannibal Lector might say, that was an "unspeakable ugliness"...and just plain stupid.--MONGO17:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Teamwork Barnstar
For your outstanding support and dedication in getting Yogo sapphire from a new article to DYK to GA to FA and FOUR. The team effort of the uncountable people involved in getting this unique article to FA is a textbook case of teamwork in article improvement, ie, what Wikipedia should be, not what it all too often is. I can never thank everyone enough. PumpkinSkytalk23:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
That's flattering, but you deserve the lions share of the credit. I am pleased this unique gemstone will now become better known with such a fine article documenting it available to the entire world for free.--MONGO02:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I remember those fires in 1988. My family and I went on vacation there in 1989. I have a t-shirt somewhere (about 5 sizes too small now) advertising a fake beer. There were bears peeing on a fire and it said "We tried and tried, but the park still fried". I wish I could remember the name of that fake beer. There were all kinds of different advertisements for it. I had one of those stickers that you wrap around a coke can that made the can into that kind of beer. I googled, but can't seem to find anything. Anyway, I enjoy your work, MONGO. Tex (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Hiya Tex! It's been awhile and glad to see you're still around. I was "brevet" promoted to Crew Boss during the Yellwostone fires and spent a total of 7 weeks in the park that summer. We watched the fire from Grant Village (which was destroyed) after fleeing north to avoid the fire jumping Lewis Canyon, and any fire that can do that is best to run away from it if you can. Most Yogis are smarter than the "average human" from what I can tell. I don't recollect that tee-shirt and the truth is, most people were pretty angry at the Park Service employees for the Yellowstone fires, but one would have had to be there to know...if the conditions are ripe and the fire is mad, it's going to do almost whatever it wants.--MONGO23:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-officeconnect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.
Is it just me, but is this dispute over "Men's rights" versus "Men's rights movement" rather lame? I mean, it's just the article title. The content is the same. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I haven't looked into the specifics of that issue...my comment at arbcom was in regards to how page moves should be handled and that if talk page discussions are showing progress, that arbcom need not get involved.--MONGO02:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, start a stub for a Taylor Peak, and then Taylor Peak wouldn't be disambiguating zero extant Wikipedia pages. When dabbing Taylor Peak, it would be helpful to have more than one link as well such as on Taylor Mountain, otherwise Taylor Mountain will just get redirected to this new page or that page moved over. I would help but I know absolutely nothing about the subjects. KTC (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay...it'll be a day or two since I'm stuck right now using the worlds slowest portable device...I'll add to the list so it satisfies the criteria for a disambiguation page and create a stub or two...then I'll return my disamb over redirect back.MONGO17:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Though I indented below you, my comment was meant for the wider audience. THAT article is going to attract all the wrong kinds of trolling from neonazis to, well, you name it....so tempers are going to flare from time to time...I think if I were going to act as an advisor to Andy or anyone else caught up in the maelstrom of that article I would do so in a non-public manner via email. I have great respect for your calm, adult manner of handling things. Andy needs other areas of the pedia to retreat to so he can build the place in relative calm and then come and go to the areas that are more like battlegrounds. A cursory glance at the 800 plus article starts I have made have nothing to do with 9/11 attacks or a few other hotspots where I might write something that my opposition would use against me...any admin/editor needs a zone of retreat to fall back on or burnout is inevitable.--MONGO02:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I went to the edge and beyond, but always when dealing with those that were trying to misuse the website to promote conspiracy theories on 9/11 articles...I was desysopped because of it. Andy just needs to find other subjects on the website where he can retreat to, otherwise all he'll end up doing is running into POV pushers and wackos that will test his patience. I want to go on record that I don't think the indef on Meowy is justified...and his unblock notice is worth consideration...why doesn't the admin corps look into ways to limit Meowy editing or commenting in their problem areas as well...the community used to either ban editors for exhausting patience or put limitations on editors until they could clearly demonstrate that they were prepared to grow up.MONGO15:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
In this issue:
Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Why thank you Dispute Resolution Newsletter BOT! It should be noted that I have never onced had a disagreement on wikipedia with anyone, and all editors love me and care about me as I do them.MONGO19:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
That is truly sad...that story provides a window into the level of paranoia, self-deception and delusion that the worst off face. It goes beyond mere denialism at some point and indicates possible mental health issues.MONGO15:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Talked to a person just the other day who is some sort of engineer and he asked me if I had examined the events of 9/11 and if I was aware that the Bush administration did 9/11 so he could avenge the war his daddy lost. He then told me we needed to get that "Kenyan" out of the White House...I just listened, not bothering to ask him about Area 51, Reptilians, or our Flat Earth. I believe that this person was being serious, and it struck me as interesting that one could still have some measure of career success yet still be a nut.MONGO11:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Seen that too, and it's funny where they draw the line. Area 51? "Sure, that's where they test the alien technology." Obama a Muslim? "Nonsense, that's crazy!" Romney planning to institute a Calvinist theocracy? "Well, maybe there's something to it..." It would be interesting (not really...) to see a survey of crazy things people believe, and if anything correlates. Tom HarrisonTalk13:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure that 9/11 CT's are more likely to be assumed to be true to anyone with a dislike of George Bush and the Obama is a Kenyan to be plausible to those that dislike Obama. There is a fundamental difference between the casual and unemotional acceptance of such things and the serious or paranoid acceptance, the latter of which indicates either mental illness or just simply a lack of education. In my opinion, the 9/11 CT's are so preposterous that anyone accepting any of them as fact is a fool...that is a bit harsh, but it's where I stand. I also believe that the majority of those pressing for expanded coverage of those CT's on this website is a troll. The magnitude of the event and its scope make the entire coverup angle simply idiotic.MONGO14:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
There was the one where people saw Osama, Satan and/or George Bush in the smoke...another about gamma rays or similar being used to take down the buildings. The one about the passengers from the "real planes" all being held at Gitmo...MONGO17:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
To answer your question
StillStanding-247 did have a previous user name, but changed it because it contained their IP address. They had started editing as an IP, then created an account cleverly named "Still [IP number]". Later when they discovered that IP addresses could be traced to geographic locations they renamed the account and struck several instances of the old username. (This is fairly common knowledge, so hopefully it doesn't constitute outing. If it does I sincerely apologize.) ~Adjwilley (talk)23:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and sorry about posting that on your user page...I clicked on your signature from the ANI thread, saw a long table of contents, scrolled to the bottom, and started a new section. (The barnstar section at the bottom threw me off a bit.) ~Adjwilley (talk)17:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
No sweat...you're not anywhere near the first to do that...I don't have a usertalk link in my signature.MONGO17:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I have been well. Pretty busy at work, but I got on WP and thought I would check in and see what you have been up to, and saw that request. Yes, I did see about Alex Kerras. He will be missed. I always liked him and his wife, Susan Clark. --rogerd (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I got Grand Teton National Park (with plenty of help) to featured article level, but aside from that, doing mostly stub work on mountains and glaciers since so many articles are missing from those subjects. Between work, play and family, I hope you have time to continue to help us...you're sorely missed.--MONGO02:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Thank you for taking the time to participate in my RfA. I hope that I will be able to improve based on the feedback I received and become a better editor. AutomaticStrikeout22:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
bad form
it's considered bad form to delete content with an edit summary justifying things. and i notice that editors who "camp" on a particular page or pages contribute the least to WP. i would say 80% of disputes occur on WP between people who are trying to find the missing pieces to add to articles and "quasi-article owners" who think they 'own' a particular article. good luck. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Really? No, nothing bad form about removing something that has zero references to back it up. In fact, as it says when you go to edit, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."MONGO05:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I reexamined your edit and see there is information about KAL 85 and that NORAD obtained permission from Canadian authorities to shoot the plane down if it failed to comply with instructions, but this was due to a communication breakdown between the pilots and air traffic controllers. The problem is that that link in that article is dead and I haven't been able to find another one. Also, the information may be too peripheral to the September 11 attacks article, but I don't think it deserves complete exclusion since it was an event that happened on that day...can we come up with a reliable reference that allows us to first fix the daughter article, then decide if and if so where the info should be in the September 11 attacks article?MONGO17:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Captures it exactly. People are somehow thinking that I *WANT* to ban someone who does a lot of good work for the project. I don't. I really don't. If Malleus even says "I will TRY to moderate my comments in the future, although I will find it utterly difficult and ask for some leeway" or something similar, I'd fall over myself to rescind the motion. Unfortunately, I don't see it occuring. And it sucks. It completely sucks. In my opinion, this job would try the patience of a saint. SirFozzie (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
It sucks bad...none of this is easy. If MF were to acknowledge the issues and provide adequate assurances, I'd be the first one to defend him should others bait, insult or provoke him. As it stands now, it's hard to imagine that he's not liable for most of the grief he's been dealing with. MF is arguably the best copyeditor on the website, and has a well versed knowledge of all the criteria for good and featured articles...criteria I have to look up. The hardest part of all this is that MF isn't a POV warrior or worse...and this situation is somewhat unique...MONGO20:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Although, people seem to be doing their best to make it just like Every Other marginally controversial topic. Anyway, I think we have to accept that we do not live in a just or morally clear universe, and sometimes good people can be bad fits.--Tznkai (talk) 21:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I think had some of the earlier blocks that had some justification not been overturned so rapidly, then the penalties for such aggression might have been easier to grasp. I suppose that sounds terribly condescending towards MF...I don't mean it that way since I know that MF is obviously highly intelligent. The argument that there is justification for calling editors tw-ts, c--ts, etc.....it just doesn't hold water. A promise to cease such really is mandatory sorry to say.--MONGO23:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, MONGO. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Disambiguation link notification for October 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Administrator John comments calling me a "liar" in his edit summary, then that I am "lying" and "beneath despicable"...I responded at his talkpage...he removes my comment and in edit summary..."not welcome here, you serial liar; post your diffs or shut up".
John...do you want me to post them...where exactly if you remove my comments...why don't I just post them with arbcom? Along with the info from here to go along with a whole lotta other stuff???
Here's the diff John... You were arguing about the planes...later at the GAR Malleus was as well...I added the information and neither of you liked it because it was based on the facts...as always, you wanted the fictional account...I brought my edits up to you repeatedly and you ignored or pooh-poohed them...
Definition of DESPICABLE: deserving to be despised : so worthless or obnoxious as to rouse moral indignation[19]
....and I am "beneath" that! I am beneath being worthless or obnoxious as to rouse moral indignation...what would the word for that be? Where is the block for this? Why isn't User:John blocked? He's an administrator...he should know better.
That's not a diff, MONGO. It's a link to an article talk archive, in which Malleus does not even contribute. You are a liar, a hypocrite and a coward. I challenge you to substantiate the accusation you made here. With diffs. Or apologise. Until then I repeat, you are a liar, and you are beneath despicable, for lying to try to get another user in trouble. --John (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
In that archive you were arguing about that issue....you did again here and at the GAR [20]...Malleus clearly stated....
"This continued emphasis on "conspiracy theories" is disingenuous. The first plane struck at 8:46 am, the last at 10:03 am, 77 minutes later. It needs to be explained why the USAF apparently made no effort to intercept any of these hijacked aircraft, and what if anything has done since then to deal with a future incident like this one. The controlled demolition theory has also had some support from academic physicists and needs to be at least mentioned, not ignored" and
"Yes it does need to be explained, as reliable sources have discussed the issue." and
"Indeed, but let me be more precise. I'm not talking about the whacky idea that Dick Cheney was in charge of NORAD on 9/11 and that he ordered them to stand down, but a rational discussion of why NORAD was powerless to do anything and what, if anything has changed to make NORAD, less ineffectual if something similar should happen again. It seems ridiculous to me to argue that this article on an air attack could be considered to be sufficiently broad to meet the GA criteria when it fails to address the issue of the US's air defences on the grounds that to do so would be to give weight to fringe theories" and
"The issue has never been whether or not Wikipedia should cover the topic of NORAD's lack of action but whether this article should. This is an article on an air attack that completely ignores the question of air defence, which I think you'll find a hard sell to persuade anyone is "unnecessary detail".
When I brought up the issue about my rewriting this[21]...neither of you said a word...you just ignored it even though (if your reread the GAR) you'll see bnoth of you bring the issue up repeatedly. The material I added was reliably sourced and well referenced...others fine tuned my additions, but neither you nor Malleus said a word...I am not a liar, a hypocrite, beneath despicable or a coward.--MONGO19:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to get your friend in trouble?...nonsense...he's gotten himself in trouble, repeatedly...HE IS responsible for his actions. But based on your insults and whatnot here, I am not surprised you defend similar behavior of his.--MONGO19:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
That's good, because I'm not going to apologise. Let's look at the specific allegations you made in the diff I presented above, (which was made on the user talk page of an Arbitrator, in the context of a ban discussion) and match them up with the "evidence" you presented above.
"Malleus was promoting conspiracy theories, a violation of NPOV and the undue weight clause"You lied
"Malleus brought forth "evidence" that the U.S. didn't send fighter jets to intercept the hijacked planes..."You lied
"I found a dozen reliable sources that indicated that was incorrect and I added it to the article..."You lied
"I presented the evidence to Malleus and he laughed it off, instead wishing to cite a fringe story that was rife with misinformation and inaccuracies."You lied
Now I will leave you alone, but not forever; only until the next time you lie to get someone in trouble. Until then, --John (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I didn't lie...its all there in the GAR and diffs. Malleus was at the GAR humming the same ignorant uneducated/illeducated horseshit stuff as you've been doing for years...the same years where you, knowing that after promoting moronic conspiracy theories, the only way you'd get your admin bit would be to befriend me...which you did and I AGF that you'd reformed, but it was just a ruse of yours wasn't it. Malleus isn't in trouble because of anything I have said...nice attempt to deflect blame...HE IS IN TROUBLE FOR ALL HE HAS SAID. But of course...all the dependent types like to think anything that happens to them must be someone elses fault...--MONGO20:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, MONGO. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Please step back for a moment
Hey MONGO. I came here to say the same as I just said to YRC; please consider stepping away from AN/I (and other discussions here, perhaps) for the night and come back later. I guess you're angry, fair enough. But clashing with YRC will not do much except annoy people. --Errant(chat!)22:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, just leaving a note to say that I reverted your removal of a non-constructive comment by the IP as it was technically still there at the moment the discussion was closed and no further edits should be made. You may disagree if you wish, and if you remove it again I will not revert (not least because I'll be asleep) but it is my current understanding, both from reading policy and watching respected members of the community remove their own comments when they realised the discussion had been closed prior, that a closed discussion should be left entirely in its original form unless there are extreme circumstances, such as personal information or death threats. I thank you for your understanding. --GilderienChat|List of good deeds23:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
No reason to leave a personal insult from an IP up...so yes, I removed the personal attack again...the one from Cologne, Germany.--MONGO00:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Indeed...and anyone making personal attacks against me anywhere will get it back in spades and/or watch me remove it. If Malleus and John can harass anyone they want anytime they want and nothing is going to be done about it, then it is most definitely open season.--MONGO00:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
The website is a shithole...where IP trolls that used to be blocked now get to have their garbage posts left up. Welcome to Wikipedia, where everyone is either a cunt, a twat or an asshole...so sayeth the arbitration committee.--MONGO02:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, MONGO. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
After your upset last night over John's inappropriate comments I am highly disappointed to see you use the exact same rhetoric. You don't get to call others out for incivility and then go all out yourself. Please consider just walking away from the computer for a day, let the anger abate before commenting again. --Errant(chat!)08:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
No anger here...an administrator named John repeatedly calls me a liar, and well you know the rest and he gets a zero penalty. Stephen blocked Malleus and as is normative for him and/or his party then shows up to insult Stephen (or whichever admin has the balls to enforce our policies) about his editing history...was that one unnoticed. Here's the thread. Malleus insults his editing history and then when I respond, he says it doesn't look like he does much in essence. He then procedes to call me a liar and refers to MathewTownsend (a name I brought up) as also lying. If Malleus gets to be snarky and insult as many people as he wishes, then why can't I have that same opportunity? I think my rights are being violated. I'm shocked that Malleus gets to call me and another editor a liar and gets to insult the editing of another and when someone calls him on it (me), they get a warning. I know you're just doing your job, but fair is fair afterall.--MONGO09:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Also...I never did, so unless someone else did and I am unaware, Malleus has never been banned from posting at my talkpage.--MONGO09:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Yer right...I was just trying to feed fire with fire...the website doesn't seem to reign in the shenanigans. I'll cease the Wyatt Earp idea.--MONGO09:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Mongo, unlike your namesake, you're a smart guy. I think everyone is aware of it. The point I was trying to make in this and tangential discussions is that what matters more than incivility is our reaction to it, because it is in that space that we can change the dynamic. Civility isn't something you can enforce, it's something you can create in your response to any perceived slight. Viriditas (talk) 01:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
There is rarely I time I ever disagree with you and if one were to happen, it would be done with civility. I fully understand the context of what you are writing and concur with the ethics of it. I will say that I do think some enforcement is needed though because not everyone is like you...this enforcement doesn't have to be by me really (I have no power anywhere anyway), and I know that no response is oftentimes the best one. Have a great evening!--MONGO01:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
The Wyatt Earp idea
MONGO, this is a response to your post immediately above, I just don't want to post in a section called "Warning"." Just a personal preference, y'know. Anyway, I thought your Wyatt Earp post meant you'd stop commenting on Malleus for now, and rejoiced; but I guess it didn't, I still see you doing that here and there. Maybe you were merely saying you'd stop talking to Malleus? Anyway. I'm sorry to see you on this track. You've been heroically abstaining from posting comments on Malleus for a long time; but this road you're on now is kind of unravelling all that restraint, and risks making it go for naught. For your own sake, I wish you'd try to get off that road, it's not going anywhere good. And please don't let Malleus, nor John, play you like a fucking musical instrument. (I take pride in my mixed metaphors. See how there was even a bit of knitting somewhere in there ("unravelling")?) Contact me if you want to talk. (I'm off to bed round about now, though. Those timezones.) Bishonen | talk23:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC).
I had made a suggestion to Casliber a few days back that something similar to what appears to be passing might be a possible remedy. However, I struck that when Malleus said that he wasn't interested in working on improvements. Therefore all I now support is an indefinite ban....which I believe is an inevitability unless he intends to prove me wrong. The road to follow is the one where editors are expected to abide, not to the letter, but at least the spirit, to uphold our policies, and to make assurances as part of their compact with the community, that they have every intention to abide by that spirit. When we have an editor that is believing that these covenants aren't applicable to them, then all we have is anarchy. For the record, I simply don't think any editor that repeatedly calls other editors cunts, twats, assholes and tells them to fuck off has any business on this website...especially after they have repeatedly been warned to not do this. I have little doubt that the Foundation would take my side on this matter. Yes...I did mean I wasn't going to talk "to" Malleus....that was right after he called me an idiot, for which in my rented-userspace, I felt obliged to counter. But this episode is winding down anyway...Malleus isn't going to be banned unless he makes a credible death threat.--MONGO23:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Bish...this thread is indicative of one of the plethora of reasons I feel that Malleus is no longer part of the community...I saw this and it sure seems pretty heartfelt to me..Maybe Mathew doesn't have all the copyediting skills or knows his way around GAN and FAC as a long time contributor like Malleus, but Malleus sought this fellow out and after another gave Mathew a barnstar, Malleus crapped all over that...here and also scroll down the page to the bottom. That kind of thing is bullying if I ever saw it. Malleus is not Giano, Bish...there is no humor in this kind of activity.--MONGO00:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd speak to Moonriddengirl, Iridescent, Truthkeeper, Dennis Brown and quite a few others before jumping to conclusions. As I tried to explain to you several hours ago, there is far more to the incident than the excerpts to which you keep linking. When someone like MRG gets upset with someone who at least claims to be a newbie then you know that buttons have been pushed quite hard. Please accept my apologies for intruding here but it needs to be said before this becomes another piece of distorted folklore. - Sitush (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
It really doesn't matter what the precursors were...that is the comment Malleus made, one of many along similar and even worse veins. The guy giving the barnstar made a comment, "Well, I just read the discussion over at the good article wiki project talk page and I'm pretty disgusted. Editors like Malleus Fatuorum don't belong on Wikipedia if they are going to act like that, we are supposed to work all together, not rip each other apart...." and Malleus retorted... "Perhaps the real problem is know-it-all schoolkids like you, who in reality can't even tell their arses from their elbows."[22]. I don't know and don't care what happened prior to that...his personal attack was not necessary. "another piece of distorted folklore"...thanks.--MONGO00:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mongo, I noticed recently that you didn't have rollbacker, so I added it after checking with HJM. I also added filemover in case that's helpful too. I hope this is okay. Best, SlimVirgin(talk)19:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I'll shoot HJMitchell a note reassuring him and thank you Slim...I'll be extremely careful. Hope all is well with you.MONGO20:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your kind message to me in my times of distress and for giving Truthkeeper88 a Barnstar for reaching out to me despite my ignorance. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
well thank you very much Mathew...don't beat yourself up...I think you do just fine and I'm not the only one that feels that way. Have a great day.MONGO14:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
Hey Mongo, for some reason I just noticed the barnstar on my talk page, so apologies for the belated thanks. It was very thoughtful of you. Hope all is well with you. Best, SlimVirgin(talk)00:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm obviously not going to suggest that you withdraw, because of course these things have at least the potential to change (7 days is both a long and a short time). And Wikipedia has a lot of editors, and one never knows how these things may go.
I expected more opposition even quicker...I recognize I am one of the least popular editors on this website due to some comments I have made and a few stands I have taken. I regret and retract my comments and the apparent hostility they have attracted. I surely deserve the wrath of those I have offended.--MONGO03:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
NO...I am the foreigner...and proof of my leftist tendencies is found in Retreat of glaciers since 1850. I think in 2005, that same leftists and foreigners issue sprang up in my first Rfa and your master (the ever mighty Bishonen) and ElC didn't like it...ah, the slight of tongue, the impetuousness of thine typing fingers...--MONGO11:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Much that once was is lost; for none now live who remember it
Reposting from Keifer's page...
I already blocked every truly horrendous jackass back in 2006...not to sound like a saint (since I surely aint) back then you really did need Wyatt Earp...I guess we don't now though. Back then we had the GNAA here enforce...and some pretty vile real life stalker thugs that were harrassing the lady-folk...but alas, all those efforts of mine seem to be forgotten now.
2005 RFA mighty interesting, MONGO. Even little nominator call you right-wing POV-pusher! But both he and other two pinkos you mention can be seen warming to you, in RFA itself. Ah, theirs (and yours) was indeed giant race before the flood ! bishzillaROARR!!15:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC).
Hum...I may have been easier to hug then and there was some empathy towards me for some of my dealings with the George W. Bush article. American liberals like editor Kizzle thought I was trying to suppress negative opinions on Bush...but what I was really doing was BLP work before that was even policy. The entire semi-protection effort was spawn from what was going on then at the Bush article...we were so busy reverting vandalism or not being able to edit at all due to the page being protected, no article improvements were possible...most of the "pinkos" I worked with there like Kizzle, Ryan and lulu all became my buddies...even Tony Sidaway later defended me. Today, I guess I'm not very loveable!MONGO16:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay...I suppose so...only I'd kind of like to see the WMF use their (my) money to keep the servers up and running. But if you insist, I suppose even grumpy old jerks like me get gifts n rare occasions.--MONGO02:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I figured Bwilkins response was accurate, but appreciate the added info. I seem to have forgotten about that. I did find the suggestion that Malleus is a sockmaster or has an hidden admin account to be preposterous. If he did, he probably would have used it to block me by now! Just kidding.--MONGO21:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I just now saw your RFA
Not that it would have made any difference, but I wish I had seen it earlier so I could have again supported you without reservation. --rogerd (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
That's very kind of you! I may try again in six months or so...I'll need to better demonstrate why the tools would help me and the website, and work to restore trust in the community. I have no interest in the title of Administrator and wouldn't likely display that anywhere in my userspace. I've already had several situations in the last week it would have been helpful to have access to the extra buttons. Hope all is well for you!MONGO18:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
a little help please
Hey MONGO- I created a disambig page (BCTC) and found that when I did Special:WhatLinksHere/BCTC, two articles show up that are not related to any of the articles I put on the disambig page. I looked at both articles, and can't figure out where they reference the disambig page. I have had this problem before, but have always been able to figure it out, but not now. Can you give a quick look and advise? Thanks, Roger --rogerd (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
There must be a piped wikilink that was put in place on the articles before your disambiguation page was created. Maybe its a glitch in one of the templates on those two pages? I did a cursory look and nothing jumped out. I could look again this evening when I can access my home computer.MONGO12:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree it is probably something like that. I wish we had some tools to better dig into these things. Since you edit a lot more than I do, I thought that you might have some knowledge about some tools that I don't know about. Thanks. --rogerd (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I found them...the first one was in the article text and linked and the second was embedded in a reference...BCTC is N-(4-tertiarybutylphenyl)-4-(3-cholorphyridin-2-yl)tetrahydropyrazine-1(2H)- carbox-amideas shown here...I'm not a doctor of that sort of stuff so whatever all that means! Also adjusting the disambiguation page.--MONGO02:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I hope that didn't take too much of your time! It is hard to track those little things down sometimes. --rogerd (talk) 06:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mike...I'll check that out tonight as my portable device doesn't handle pdf well. Do we know if the structure is still standing and if so, if its on the national register of historical buildings or similar?MONGO14:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, I've been in that structure...I believe in 1981 or so I did my entrance fee remittance reports there and we had the drop safe there too. See what 30 plus years does to us...lol.MONGO15:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm starting to build it up a little bit. I've noticed that the NRHP has a lot of trouble keeping the east and west side of the park in the right county - this isn't the only place that's been screwed up. I'll work on it some more tomorrow. Acroterion(talk)02:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Much better...you're the master at these types of articles. If you get it where you like it, feel free to make it an active article and delete the user subpage its currently parked on (the latter chore I could do if I only had more buttons) I can't access pdf's with this stoneage portable device I have and my desktop is about to have a close encounter of the sledge hammer kind!MONGO14:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Acroterion...cool beans! I've done a few of these types of articles before, but have trouble with locating various information from those references.MONGO14:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
After you've done a few hundred you get into a rhythm, just like with glaciers and mountain peaks. A lot of the Park Service structures are poorly or strangely documented because they were among the first entries in the National Register in the 1960s and 70s, with quite brief or unreferenced research. A lot of the truly historic buildings nationwide were documented in that first effort too, often by amateurs, so nomination forms for grand old estates from that era were done by the local garden club ladies - you'll see them signed by "Mrs. Frederic S. Snootington," which is at least a cue to treat them with some skepticism. Since the 1980s most nominations have been done to a higher standard by consultants. Even when Park Service structures were documented by consultants in the 70s (as was the case here), the data can be sketchy, and nobody's gone back to update the entries. Acroterion(talk)14:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a good DYK page....Did you know that the Saint Mary Ranger Station which was built in 1913 is one of the oldest surviving structures in Glacier National Park (U.S.)?......all yours if you wish...I can't edit the template area at DYK due to problems with my desktop....maybe I need to get myself a new home computer.MONGO15:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Also...you could have copy pasted the article from my subpage to article space...seems unfair that I get an article start credit for an article you did 95 percent of the work on...MONGO17:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I did that on purpose - Mike noticed the source material and you started the article, so credit is due all around. I have another DYK in the works once I get it set up, and I'll do this one at the same time. Acroterion(talk)17:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll keep a lookout for it. A better hook might be along the lines of how these cabins were all built by the rangers that first used them. The rangers of that era, especially in a place like the eastern boundary of the new park bordering the not pleased Blackfoot required skills both as an outdoorsman and as a diplomat that made them a different breed than the modern "tree huggers". The isolation meant an injury might equal death...Their job was infinitely more isolated, rugged and dangerous, though modern rangers also face some pretty difficult situations like "crowd control", which is one of the issues rarely faced by rangers of that era.MONGO20:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I've reported the anonymous "Daniel Craig has diabetes" editor for edit warring here. This is your revert. As it turns out, the Danny Craig who has diabetes is a video game character, hence my exasperated edit revert summary here. - Fanthrillers (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Understandable...if vandal hops IPs I'll put in a request for semi-protection of the article...or, since dozens of administrators have my page watchlisted hoping they can figure out a way to block me, maybe one of them can intervene and do the admin slamdunk!MONGO18:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
If you can't come, but still want to find out about events in the greater Topeka region (which may include KC, Manhattan, Lawrence, Salina, or other places where volunteers are interested) sign up for future notifications at Wikipedia:Meetup/Topeka/Invite list.
AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Just kidding. The morning star on the santa hat is only for... for... creating a bit of Christmas FUD, I guess. Some traditional Swedish Christmas fare for you in the parcel, enjoy! [Db withdraws precipitately, embarrassed to be caught meekly delivering gifts like some.. like.. oh, like Fish, I suppose.] darwinbishBITE21:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC).
Thank you! MONGO always careful with morning stars...make sure to bring tabasco sauce for ease of digestion.MONGO14:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah...looks like better weather there than here...its about 5 °F (−15 °C) and expected to remain below freezing for the next two months...I'm up late here (0117 hours on the 25th) waiting for Santa...but I already ate all the cookies! Merry Xmas to you too!--MONGO07:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Good news - the zoo was open today (did most of family stuff last night) and it was a great day (21 C) to go as not stifling hot and humid....then it rained....still getting sodden in summer is not as big a deal somehow....Casliber (talk·contribs) 07:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
If we get any precipitation this time of year, it is almost always frozen...While it may make for a more "traditional northern hemisphere xmas", its darn cold out I tell you! I can celebrate xmas just fine if I was surrounded by palm trees!--MONGO07:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)Like this left behind from the blizzard of 4 days ago!
Hi! – – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| gives you this puppy! Puppies promote WikiLove and I hope this little fellow/girl (your choice) has made your day better. Remember! Your puppy must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever.
Merry Christmas and a happy 2013 19:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Nah..thats fine...I did mention in a couple threads above that I ate all the cookies before he might have arrived, so that must explain it...hes been reduced to bribery!--MONGO20:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Happy holidays. Not much different here. 4 inches (10 cm) of fresh snow on Christmas Eve and temps in single digits. Off to Yellowstone this morning for a few pictures of the Fort--Mike Cline (talk) 15:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Bundle up as you know...the coldest I ever saw it was −56 °F (−49 °C) in Colter Bay, Wyoming in January 1992...so the -5F degrees here in Nebraska this morning wasn't "too bad"...we had weeks on end that winter in Wyoming where a -5F morning would have felt like a spring thaw.MONGO16:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Merry Merry and Happy!
Thanks for thinking of me with holiday wishes. I appreciate it so very much. Hope you have a wonderful new year! (And that our paths cross more.) Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Wish I could make it...I'll work on a few NRHP sites in Montana to make amends for my absence from my home state.MONGO12:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Super! Feel free to add yourself as participating remotely, and to put links to your articles in the "Results / Outcomes" section. Come to think of it, given the size of Montana, we need to add a remote participants section to the event ... Djembayz (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
From the Puppy
Happy Holidays from the Puppy!
May the coming year lead you to wherever you wish to go.
...never the old year ends, but somebody thinks of someone. Thanks for thinking of me. A blessed new year to you and those you love. BusterD (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg)
