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.
FLC reviewing
Hi MONGO. I couldn't help but notice your comment at this FLC candidate, where you seemed upset at some commentary from TRM and I. In retrospect, I was too harsh towards you and apologize for it. Please understand that we've been dealing with issues at FLC and FAC for some time involving reviewers who offer one-line "This is great!" supports for articles/lists that are later found to have significant problems. Most of the main offenders are pop-culture article reviewers, and you got caught in the middle when I reviewed the article and expressed frustration, which was as much for other reviews as for that one. TRM was surely frustrated too, which led to his comments; I'm sure he was aiming at the pop-culture reviewers, not at you in particular. I respect your actions in striking the support when issues were found, and wish more reviewers would do the same.
As for whether you want to review more FLCs in the future, it would be wonderful if you could do so. The review processes are all in desperate need of more reviewers, and FLC in particular sees many reviews from a mere handful of editors. It particularly helps that you have FAC experience; editors familiar with FAC can show us things that we are not reviewing for that closely. If you're still interested, the best thing to do is look at the FLC page and see what types of comments are typically made in reviews, which can show you what to look for. We need prose reviewers, so any help you could provide there would be very welcome. Those picky things that get talked about again and again at FAC are also things that can be mentioned in FLC reviews. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
My normative style of doing reviews at FAC, where I am starting to try and help out more, is to do a fair bit of editing to the articles before I make comments. I usually don't even support until I see others chime in with their suggestions and to see if their issues are addressed. At the FLC in question, at the time of my support, it appeared all the issues had been generally taken care of....but I am not a seasoned FLC reviewer by any means so I have much to learn. I'll keep a lookout for other lists and contribute as I can...and I too apologize if I seemed distressed. Happy New Year!--MONGO05:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
It may be several days before I can do much (all this getting back to waork stuff) but I'll be around to help out more. Its looking far better now.--MONGO01:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013!
Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year.
Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians!
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.
Hey, MONGO, could you peek in here and reassure me the old PD text was addressed? Someone wants to nom this article TFA for Feb 26 (about which you might also have an opinion). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Sandy! Wasn't able just this minute to chime in there (slow blackberry connection causing page load issues) but will later today. I don't think any PD text remains in the Grand Teton National Park article, or even any close paraphrasing. I believe I rewrote what limited text was there when I worked on the article leading up to FAC...I can sure double check this evening. It hasn't been an FA all that long though...not compared to some articles.--MONGO18:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll revew the changes made since the last FLC and see if everything outstanding has been addressed.--MONGO18:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
thanks
Thanks for the clarification on my talk page. I believe my initial response already covered that, and I have now amended my script to be punctuation neutral for 'US state' vs 'U.S. state'. However, it's strange that you should find Tony's comment condescending and sanctimonious, and would invite you to remove that rather brazen personal attack that prefaced your comment. Cheers, -- Ohconfucius ping / poke01:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I've pretty much given up on the idea of pushing Dry Tortugas National Park to FA. The main features of the park are already covered in Dry Tortugas and Fort Jefferson, Florida, which mean that the article on the park would have to focus on the park's history as a park. Since Dry Tortugas is administered from Everglades, and is a sort of stepchild in that respect, there's not a lot of material to work with, so apart from improving it where I can I'm not going to focus on it.
In looking around I saw that the Alaska parks are pretty sketchy, and un-stubbed Kenai Fjords National Park, the only US national park formally rated as a stub (lots of so-called "starts" are the same way, but I started there). It occurred to me that, if I felt ambitious, I might tackle Denali National Park as the literal opposite of Biscayne, and failing that, there are a lot of common histories, ecology and activities in the ANILCA parks that ought to be brought into the individual articles. Denali has huge swaths of unsourced and possibly copied text that would have to be gone through. Acroterion(talk)19:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I would have to say that Denali National Park should be a priority for FA. Another that is really lousy is Grand Canyon National Park. With Denali, one would have to do what I did with Grand Teton National Park and that is to simply remove the existing text as you work through it one section at a time. As I mentioned, I'm watching (patiently) as Biscayne goes through FAC and as things on the peer review for Fort Yellowstone wind down, look forward to that being submitted for FAC. The main priority I intend to tackle soon is to revamp my oldest FA before someone drags it to FAR. Also on the burner is North Cascades National Park and I've been stubbing out support articles. Kenai Fjords is much improved...nice. I will watch Denali take shape.--MONGO19:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Just playing but added an image to the infobox and switched out the maps...nothing is written in stone. Denali is 6,000 feet taller than any mountain I've ever seen...even Mount Foraker has the Rockies beat by 3,000 feet.--MONGO20:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
The thing about Mount McKinley/Denali is that it rises something like 18,000 feet in one go from a relatively low base, making it the most visually impressive mountain (when visible) on the planet. We've been kicking around the idea of an Alaska trip (we've not been there) this year, and this is one way of scouting it out. I'd agree that Denali should be a high priority for FA, and I'd probably use the method you suggest, rewriting as I go. There are a few others that really ought to be FAs: Mount Rainier, Sequoia/Kings Canyon, Acadia, Great Smoky Mountains, Rocky Mountain, Mesa Verde, for instance, but they'll eventually get done, rather like all the battleships and major hurricanes. There are already 10 FAs out of the 59 US parks. Acroterion(talk)21:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, FAC lacks reviewers and I would oblige but you need a more neutral reviewer. I don't see any issues with the article as it stands. My understanding of Denali is that seeing the summit is not especially easy due to a persistantly overcast summer, and accessing the region in the winter is difficult at best.--MONGO04:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Biscayne is straight forawrd enough...it should sail through. Two or three of my FA collaborations failed at FAC on the first go and I think I yanked them out to keep from tying up the board.--MONGO20:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Quite an achievement
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
900 articles is quite a lot. A few more than I've ever read, probably. So very well done. (... you seem to like these animated thingies, which I personally find quite unsettling!) Martinevans123 (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Wow...you're too kind! I'm cheating really...these are mostly just stubs and when I write them, they allow me journey off to some remote place and to vicariously go off on an adventure I will likely never have. Thanks Martin!--MONGO20:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
RfA: thank you for your support
Mongo, thank you for your expression of support. Your willingness to show some confidence in me in the face of some rather concerted opposition meant a lot to me in the final stages. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Grand Teton National Park is a United States National Park in northwestern Wyoming, established on February 26, 1929. Approximately 310,000 acres (130,000 ha), it includes the major peaks of the 40-mile-long (64 km) Teton Range and most of the northern sections of the valley known as Jackson Hole. Human history dates back 11,000 years, when the first nomadic Paleo-Indians migrated into the region. The area was explored by mountain manJohn Colter in 1807, but permanent white settlers did not inhabit it until the 1880s. Efforts to preserve the area as a national park began in the late 19th century and the eventual expansion of the park in 1950 was a watershed in the land conservation movement. Though the Teton Range is the youngest mountain chain in the Rocky Mountains, some of the rocks in the park are the oldest found in any U.S. National Park, at nearly 2.7 billion years. More than 1000 species of vascular plants, dozens of species of mammals, 300 species of birds, more than a dozen fish species and a few species of reptiles and amphibians exist. The park is a popular destination for mountaineering, camping and fishing, and has over 200 miles (320 km) of hiking trails. (Full article...)
I never intended to edit war with you, and all the subsequent changes I made to glacier articles were unwitting, so I ask you please to assume good faith. Edits and summaries like these, sometimes misleading, are certainly unhelpful. You took me for some maverick and opened a case against me without properly engagement, when the true reason behind my apparent reverts of your edits is because I am working off a list that I mark off daily as policed based on the presence of the 'use xxx dates' template, and that your removal of same caused these to stay on my list. If you don't want articles on my current worklist to be treated any more, kindly remove these from said list if you insist on removing my template. That will save both of us a lot of anguish. Thanks, -- Ohconfucius ping / poke03:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
You lost me with this edit summary where you removed my comment and referred to it as trolling. Now, with that clear, you would probably find that I am more in agreement regarding the need to follow most MoS issues than you may expect. My "fixes" today included removing that m/d/y boilerplate because it is unnecessary and I hate templated pages. My other fixes today was a restoration of a wikilink to United States...these were done on articles you edited on the 16th. In addition, as I worked through the articles, I also did some rewording on a few for flow. As was in the previous arbcom case you were named in, you are apparently headstrong on delinking...in that case it was dates, now its your overzealous interpretation of OVERLINK. You're attempting to "police" (your word) articles using a guideline as if it were policy, in articles that don't now and probably never will be rated as GA much less FA since there is very little information about the subjects. I would say that while your mission is honorable, its being done with a lot of zeal, and that's the part that has gotten you in trouble in the past and might do so again. Therefore, recognize that I have delinked from U.S. state, been adding preceding zeros, and conforming to MoS in a realistic manner, and cease demanding an overzealous application of delinking or we will eventually not have amy links, depending on who may be interpreting guidelines. Its late here so perhaps until I can adequately examine your to do list tomorrow, you'll play nice on those glaciers while I sleep...perhaps you may find me, after I have slept off this headache, more agreeable...until then, signing off from Nebraska, United States...--MONGO04:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
How is your list generated? I looked at the history and saw you're adding and subtracting to it. On your to do list there is a List of glaciers in the United States, but individual glaciers are also listed, so they're listed twice essentially. If you're running a bot on articles then you still manually remove things from your list after you run the bot? Or are you simply returning to your own editing history and seeing if your bot work has been reverted or updated since your last visit?--MONGO12:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The only thing that might happen to those glaciers while you sleep is melt a little ;-). I actually have other lists I am working from until we have reached resolution. I added a few articles on ships to the abovementioned todo list, at the bottom. These lists were generated from database scans. They are being updated using AWB: I filter out any articles that have the {{use dmy dates}} or {{use mdy dates}} because when I process article, it will invariably have one (unless it is summarily removed, in which case it stays on the list and can get processed again). -- Ohconfucius ping / poke16:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay...that makes sense. I see you need the boilerplate to be able to keep track of what's been "done". Then replace it as you see fit and I'll leave it be. I try to keep the wiki-markup somewhat simple on articles I work on so newbies or those not as experienced are not confronted with a mass of templates and other confusing issues. I also am myself generally one who agrees that internal links to the obvious should be eliminated, but we have to be cautious about our interpretations of what is obvious. While I don't have an issue with you reinstating your m/d/y boilerplate, I do urge you to be prepared for ongoing questioning from others as you work across their watchlists...it isn't hard to misinterpret some of your edits when you're doing cleanup.--MONGO16:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I cannot hide it anymore...they already suspect so I might as well admit it...I hasor thesthard foris thathano ngency w ag IA work boeve simply t borincy ast hageveveathancy hanor or I t CIA wangenevexin f, fowat sthancy thexisorin.--MONGO03:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
W. T. F. are you two talking about? (looks around for the cypher key) This is so unfair to post these in public, you know how maddening it is right? KillerChihuahua04:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Its all algorithmic code....only top-secret (even more than top-secret) operatives are privy to it....Tom was respnding to my edit summary and comment here as he linked above...he was trying to tell me I have blown my cover. I was responding that working for the CIA was so boring, so now I work for an agency that doesn't exist...here's a basic version we can't give out the official version or we'll both end up in a place no one has ever heard of. This edit will self destruct in 5 seconds.--MONGO04:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Larry Lobster and Sam Clam where best friends. They did everything together. The only difference between them is that Larry was the nicest Lobster ever and Sam, well lets just say he was not so good.
Larry and Sam did so much together that they even died together.
Larry went to heaven and Sam went to hell.
Larry was doing well in heaven and one day St. Peter came up to him and said, "Larry, you know you are the nicest clam we ever had up here. Everyone likes you but you seem to be a bit depressed.
Tell me what is bothering you, maybe I can help."
Larry said, "Well, don't get me wrong Pete, I like it up here and everything, but I really miss my good friend Sam Clam. We used to do everything together and I really miss him a lot."
St. Peter looked at Larry with pity and said to him, "I tell you what, I can arrange it so that you can go down to hell tomorrow and visit Sam all day. How would that sound?"
This made Larry very happy and he got up bright and early the next morning and grabbed his wings, his harp, and his halo and got in the elevator to hell. When the doors opened he was met by Sam. The hugged each other and they were off. You see in Hell Sam owned a disco. The spent the day there together and had a great time. At the end of the day Larry and Sam went back to the elevator together said their goodbyes and Larry got back in the elevator and went up to heaven. He stepped off the elevator and was greeted by St. Peter who blocked the doorway to heaven. He looked at Larry and said, "Larry Lobster, didn't you forget something?"
Larry looked around and said, "No, I don't think so I have my halo and my wings."
St. Peter looked at him and said, "Yes, but what about your harp?" Larry gasped and said, "I Left My Harp in Sam Clam's Disco."
Oh...I did some edits there for sure, but there are some unsung heroes that helped make it a featured article. It is my favorite place, so I'm most pleased its getting more attention.--MONGO12:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, excellent article -- magnificent! It's been a while since I've been hiking in that astonishing place -- just a little too far for a day's drive. (Once I tried to climb to the ridgeline in June, but it was quite impossible even after the summer solstice -- the snow was just too deep.) Antandrus (talk)14:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
During the "summer" of 1993, the snow on the passes never melted away and were very unsafe to traverse without an ice axe. But most years the passes are dry by mid-July. Grand Teton is pretty remote...Salt Lake City is the only urban area close enough for it to be a weekend trip.--MONGO15:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Just noticed there was a Wyoming-related TFA yesterday. As someone who left Wyoming... yikes... more than 25 years ago, I still have a soft spot for the place. Thanks for taking that to FA status, and congrats on the front page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
It is my favorite place and pleased the front page appearance made more aware that just south of the famous Yellowstone National Park is another majestic national park.--MONGO23:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
“Wow, I hadn't thought of this! I have based my opinion on the underground propaganda video reel released back in the 70's by G. Lucas. Funny how the truth is starting to come out now that a multi-billion dollar deal has just transpired.”
Man...thats funny! Only they forgot to put Dick Cheney's face in there...somewhere...the one comment I saw was something about how it was funny 9/11 truthers were trolling the video.--MONGO23:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
If this video continues to go viral, we may have enough reliable sources for a separate article that meets WP:GNG:
Nearing 1 million views. Its very clever...instead of being all scientific to debunk the truthers, it just mocks them.--MONGO03:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Collapsing at RFB
I hope that collapsing the discussion (much of which is about you, not about Wizardman) is an acceptable compromise. Regards, Crazynast04:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
It wasn't. This is an Rfb, not an Rfa...my standards for crats is extremely high...I expect almost perfection.--MONGO04:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay. Issue solved then. My standards for crat are almost unreachable, but I respect your oppose. Everyone has the right to vote as they prefer. Regards. — ΛΧΣ2104:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
It was simply a lesson to all...children won't understand the purpose of my effort. What was the point..well, an editor wuith 180,000 edits, years of contributions, a former arbcom member should have a better moral compass than to vote never on someones Rfa.--MONGO05:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Mongo, please forget about the the "never" statement. He already stated his reasoning on the requests for adminship page and obviously no offense was intended by Wizardman. It was based on other arguments that were already provided before his opposition. While I can understand you may have been offended by the vote, it is time to forget about it. You are still entitled to your opinion at his request for adminship regardless. Cheers. TBrandley05:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I withdrew my opposition...look...as I said, if I wanted revenge, I could have muddied up the works on his FAC nomination, or on the candidate for admin he recently nominated...I just expect someone of that level of history to offer another long term editor a little more consideration than to come to my Rfa and crap on it. Makes no difference as I'll never run for the toolbelt again anyway....especially considering the level of hostility I got the last time around.--MONGO05:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I had a message in my opposition...it wasn't adequately explained...there might have been another way such as a question at top...I dunno. The message was to Wizardman: if doing a closing on an Rfa, and you saw an oppose vote! as "never"...would it count?--MONGO05:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Admittedly I'm not sure myself, but an existing bureaucrat would probably know. As I previously stated, everyone is entitled to an opinion, and the opposition did make sense based on what you have said, although from a different point of view, it could also be viewed as revenge as seen at the requests for adminship. However, I agree with what you just claimed. TBrandley06:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I originally thought about just voting never...but that would have lost the real message or two I was trying to convey...and frankly, any opposition simply stated as never should be discounted. Not that this would have mattered in my Rfa or his Rfb, but the point is that this is insufficient to stand as a vote IMHO.--MONGO06:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
A bowl of strawberries for you!
Having slept on things and cooled off a bit, I think the reaction to your !vote was a little unfair. While I still don't fully agree with your reasoning, in hindsight, it probably was not a revenge !vote after all. Hopefully we can put this dispute behind us. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 17:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I withdrew my opposition...I don't expect Wizardman to answer my perhaps pointy questions there, but they are what I should have posted in the first place as that may have better explained why I would either support or oppose. It just so happens that the Never vote was at my Rfa, but the point is as a crat he would consider such a vote a viable one that might go towards a hard consensus count and if so, I don't think he should be a crat no matter whose Rfa a Never vote may be on.--MONGO17:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Gerda...yeah, they look fine, but I lean towards no infoboxes on bios of that nature since I think the article text can cover the issues. A couple FA's I was the primary on do not have an infobox. I think its a case by case thing and for some reason that isn't based on any policy or guideline, in the case of the Bach article and similar ones, I prefer no infobox. I wouldn't sweat it...nobody gives 2 hoots what I think anyway.--MONGO19:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I do ;) (care, I mean). I am new to the topic and try to understand. For example why someone phrases "impose an infobox" where I would just say "add an infobox". The sheer mentioning of the word seems to generate strong feelings in some users. Looking at FAs, 2 of the 10 scheduled for April have no infobox, one is a political movement, the other an opera. Did you know that an {{infobox opera}} is in the making? (Look at the example, for fun.) All bios of April have an infobox. - Looking at March: all 10 bios have an infobox, dead or alive. Keep looking! (Did you know that I have a history of fighting infoboxes? "My salad days ...") --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Nobody cares! MONGO just a pawn in the game of life! In order for me to change my mind, I have to have a mind to change!--MONGO20:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Saw a movie about them not too long ago ... had Clint Eastwood in it. Was actually pretty good. "Get off my lawn!" I've felt like that around here a time or two. Antandrus (talk)20:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi MONGO/Archive33, here are some delicious cookies to help brighten your day! However, there are too many cookies here for one person to eat all at once, so please share these cookies with at least two other editors by copying {{subst:Sharethecookies}} to their talk pages. Enjoy! Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion,
a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
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.
Hi Mike....um...neither do I...nor have I ever, even when we had the gallery up. I think galleries are generally considered undesirable for featured articles, we have had some featured articles that have them. There is a gallery of Grinnell Glacier I think in both the Retreat of glaciers since 1850 and the Glacier National Park (U.S.) articles which are both featured. I know the Fort Yellowstone article may seem like it is no longer mainly your effort, but it just seems that way I assure you. The research and body of the article and the message are all yours, and its an important storyline that even this old park ranger that used to work in Yellowstone, wasn't fully aware of. Kudos to you for educating so many.--MONGO17:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Glacier National Park (U.S.) Was brought to FA by Elkman and I back in 2007 and I updated it in 2010 so it could be on the mainpage that year to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the founding of the park. Anyway, if you look in the section on glaciers, it has a gallery, but not in the standard format. The only real difference of note however, is that gallery is setup to provide a timeline of glacial retreat, showing how Grinnell Glacier has receded over time. So its not really just a random collection of images of buildings.--MONGO18:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Comments left at RfA
Thank you for leaving comments at my RfA. This is just a friendly notice that I have replied to them. Regardless of your vote, and your decision to continue this conversation or not, I appreciate you taking your time to vote in the the first place. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here15:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Improper RfC closure at Talk:Ugg boots trademark disputes
Wayne...you apparently edited the UGG Boots article afterUser:Phoenix and Winslow did...the two of you first met (I believe) on the Franklin child prostitution ring allegations 2 years ago. On the Franklin article, much of what you were protecting was fringe material..and it was stubbed out by User:NuclearWarfare...You were also protecting fringe material on the Kerry and Kay Danes article (which Jimbo Wales ended up stubbing out) and many years ago on 9/11 related articles, which is where you and I first met and in which I was one of those keeping as much fringe material out as possible. Now I see you have followed Phoenix and Winslow to both UGG Boots and the Tea party dramafest...thats not good at all. Are you aware of the issues regarding Wikihounding?--MONGO03:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
If you check the history of Ugg boots you will see that I started editing in October 2010. Phoenix and Winslow edited two days later which would have been the first time that I knew he was also editing the article. Despite both of us editing frequently, the first time we actually interacted was on the Talk page in July 2011 when I replied to a post he wrote and there was no acrimony at all. The disputes first started in October 2011 when P&W objected to using the word "generic" in the article. Most editors opposed him so he posted the most insane personal attack against me that I've ever seen[3] in an attempt to discredit everyone who opposed him. That post was the first time either of us said a bad word about the other in that article. I remained completely civil in answering that post and did not "complain" about anything else P&W said until two days later and that was because he was refusing to accept consensus. You can check the link above for yourself. Being on the same article, treating them civilly for the first 12 months and then only starting to argue after they make an unwarranted attack on you, is that the behavior of a stalker? I remind you that over 90% of my 911 edits are still in those 911 articles and that the 911Arbcom you filed against me found nothing wrong with my editing. Are you claiming to be a higher authority than Arbcom? Wayne (talk) 05:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I'll look again at your talkpage archives, but I did not see any evidence I filed either an arbcom case or filed an arbcom enforcement action. Jehochman did...he apparently brought up your edits and I may have commented. It would be helpful if you could supply diffs showing where I filed and also help me see what that "insane" personal attack was that Phoenix lodged against you rather than the link to the entire talkpage archive. Here's what has to happen between you two: either work together collaboratively or be forced into an interaction ban. But I know I can speak for the community when I tell you that this multi-front, multi-year antagonistic relation between you and Phoenix is growing tiresome. It should also be of note to you that disruption of articles isn't limited to article space...the worst POV pushing is usually in talk pages...and that sort of thingn the promotion of fringe stuff greatly undermines the ability of good fatih editors to effectively improve any article.--MONGO11:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
My mistake, it was filed by Jehochman. That investigation also looked at my talk page posts and found them reasonable. This is P&W's specific post, even you must admit that I never claimed Bush had prior knowledge. Wayne (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay...its always best to not get personal about other editors and Phoenix went overboard in that comment. What we need to do here is figure out a few things. Firstly...which one of you is or are either of you stalking each other. Secondly, if you two are showing up at places where the other is active with the sole purpose being to pick a fight, it needs to stop. Thirdly, if you can't stop, then the community will make you do so, either by way of an interaction ban, topic bans or other restrictions. So what do we have to do here...both of you know the way forward that is best to each of you and the pedia. Perhaps if you avoid the Tea Party articles, Phoenix will avoid the Ugg Boots articles...I don't know if that's a fair trade to both of you or not. Think about it.--MONGO16:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
If you check the editing history of Franklin child prostitution ring allegations you will see that Phoenix and Winslow made his first edit to that article in January 2011, over three months after I first edited Ugg boots so I couldn't possibly have followed him from the Franklin article to Ugg boots. We had no arguments at Ugg boots until October 2011 after he made that post. He has since brought up the stubbing in every single unrelated content discussion. In regards to the Ward Churchill article, I edited the page in April 2009. P&W first edited it in April 2011. In regards to the Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin articles, I did follow him but was justified in doing so. P&W had argued on the Franklin talk page that because the Tarpley and Chaitkin articles both claimed in their leads that they were conspiracy theorists, the Franklin article could say the Franklin accusations were also a conspiracy theory because Tarpley and Chaitkin both supported the accusations. I then went and had a look at both articles...and found that P&W himself had edited both articles hours earlier to include the claim, so I tagged both edits requesting cites. Other editors reverted both of P&W's edits the next day as BLP violations. P&W is leading you up the garden path about stalking. The real problem is his bringing up the stubbing of the Franklin and Danes articles and my 9/11 editing to discredit the editors whose side I take in disputes and which you keep helping him with. This has been brought up before three boards but all that happens is that an admin tells him it's a personal attack and that he is not to do it again. Then he keeps doing it. It was so blatant during the RfC that I thought he would be finally warned at the very least but again he gets away with it. Wayne (talk) 08:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
This isn't about who edited first...it about which one of you if either of you are following the other around the website. Now if he's adding material, especially to BLP's that needs a reference and you're simply adding citation needed tags, then that's not really an issue. The bottom line though is that you two seem to be at war across several article spaces and noticeboards...if you folks end up at arbcom, the arbitrators will look at everyones editing history...and sadly, it only takes a small fraction of diffs to cast a long shadow over even an overwhelming preponderance good contributions. The two of you need to decide what you're going to do to avoid further confrontations.--MONGO13:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
You are missing the point. We were both editing Ugg boots and this was the first time we "met". I was already editing Franklin when P&W turned up there. This was after we edited Ugg boots so definitely no following anyone on my part. Did P&W follow me to Franklin? It's possible but unlikely. At the Tarpley and Chaitkin articles I tagged unsourced edits he made to those articles specifically so that he could cite the Tarpley and Chaitkin biographies to support a Franklin edit he made, so that doesn't count as stalking. The result? No stalking by anyone. Wayne (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Let me repeat...The bottom line though is that you two seem to be at war across several article spaces and noticeboards...so the two of you can either disengage or it will only get worse.--MONGO15:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I stopped editing Tea Party as soon as it was brought up. The Ugg articles are the only ones we both edit. I created the article so how can I not edit it anymore just because someone doesn't like me and decides to disrupt it. P&W's very first post on this article accused it of "trashing Deckers" and avoiding mention that Australian companies are "obviously mimicking Deckers" boots. There would not be any warring at all if he didn't make personal attacks. Wayne (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
MONGO, the sequence of events was fully detailed at the ANI thread, which has probably been archived already. I was already working steadily on the Ugg boots article in July-October 2010, and was also very active on the Talk page. On the afternoon of October 20, 2010 Wayne made some edits to the article mainspace, but then left immediately and didn't return for more than four months. We were two ships passing in the night. And for all practical purposes, he had moved on. I was still there. The head-on collision started in January and February, 2011 at the Franklin article, where he was on the other side in a content dispute. In March 2011 he returned to Ugg boots after an appearance one afternoon in October and an absence of over four months, on the other side in a content dispute. In April 2013 he showed up for the first time at any article about American politics: Tea Party movement, on the other side in a content dispute. If I was working on a larger number of articles or involved in a larger number of content disputes, or if I hadn't walked away from Wikipedia completely for about a year, I think it would have become obvious a lot sooner. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
A case could be made then at arbitration...short and sweet with diffs and little conversation. Cases should be present with just the facts...avoid long diatribes about what you think...let the diffs speak for themselves...show the timeline/chain of events. The case should focus on the issue of wikihounding and fringe POV pushing.--MONGO15:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey there. Guess what? Wayne is still Wikihounding me. [4] Remember when he said, "I stopped editing Tea Party as soon as it was brought up" on May 1? Well, he waited six weeks for the heat to die down, and now he's back. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Re Fort Yellowstone
Mongo,
Thanks for the work. it would have never made FA without your guidance. I agree with you that the subject is extremely important. Lots more stuff on yellowstone and glacier to work on. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
@Mike...I have an article I want to get to Good Article soon...it may interest you as its Yellowstone related. I don't know if there are enough comprehensive sources about it to see it all the way to featured level, but we'll see. Will keep you posted.--MONGO04:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Re
I just left a detailed message on the Moose talk page! You're pressing this case awful hard...I honestly can't believe anyone is going to rise to the defense of that map, given how riddled with errors it is. Chubbles (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Just noticed that you reverted a change of mine, where I was adjusting the article lead in line with a rename of the article I'd made. You didn't revert the rename, so I'm guessing that wasn't your objection, but you also didn't leave a comment, so I'm left wondering.
Actually the article has since moved on, before I noticed your revert, as I discovered a better translation on the owner's web site. Could you explain your revert, and do your objections still apply?. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 11:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mount Fury, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Luna Peak (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
Somebody needs to tell him that there may be a federal law prohibiting impersonating the President....he should know better. I'll keep a lookout on YouTube for anything Holder may have uploaded. I think he uses the handle laughinghyena.--MONGO15:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
The clicking you hear on your phone is the Spanish Inquisition; nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition to use modern electronic monitoring techniques. Acroterion(talk)18:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
That explains it. Its odd that so much was made of some generally small amount of wiretapping, eavesdropping and whatnot under the Bush administration, how he was infringing on civil liberties and whatnot, but now this expanded issue is reveiled and the press is much less enthusiastic to scrutinize it. Its not being ignored, but we're not hearing the outrage that was going on 8 years ago. I am sure that my moniker here is already redflagged at the NSA, FBI, CIA and a half dozen agencies that don't exist since I'm residing in a well known teaparty stronghold and must repent! Surely since I'm here, I must be one of THEM--MONGO20:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
OMG...sorry to any British talkpage stalkers...Jones epitomizes the term Ugly American...how embarrassing! I guess I now need to watchlist the Bilderberg Group to see how much conspiracy theory junk is showing up. I'm surprised that Jones didn't make more of the Andrew Neil and Rupert Murdoch "relationship"...kudos to Neil for his frankness about Jones being the worst person he has ever interviewed! Funnny.--MONGO16:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
There a quite few Brits who think that all Amercians are like this!! (Well, apart from you and President Obama, of course). Yes, he is funny, for about this long anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
And my impression of your country and its inhabitants is the opposite...my impression is that things there are kindler, gentler, more respectable, safer, more civilized and better educated. Hence the Terrorist Attack in Woolwich on Lee Rigby seems so completely out of the norm for the UK...I might not be surprised here, but it was a shock to see that there. Rest assured, only about 80% or Americans are like Jones! So there is hope yet...not much but some small glimmer of hope.--MONGO16:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I thought you might be interested that I plan to expand this article you created, possibly as a DYK but as part of my attempt to improve all the US State Highpoints articles.--GilderienChat|List of good deeds23:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks...sounds like a good plan...I went and added a location map and a few points and made comments at the talkpage.--MONGO03:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 16
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.
MONGO trying to master new touch screen portable device...makes more mistakes than usual...combination of large hairy hands and dim wits makes things harder for MONGO to understand.--MONGO14:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Haha, MONGO not alone in having that problem if him looks close enough at others edits. Happens I suppose to editors of a certain vinatage, certainly to me. Ceoil (talk) 08:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Ceoil knows that bishzilla is bankrolled by serious business, and serfs like myself and MONGO have to figure this shit out for our selves. As such we beg for mercy. Ceoil (talk) 10:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
MONGO take ever wise advice of the zilla seriously to avoid serious consequences...I might be of later vintage but still too young to want to become dinner for Jurassic critters.--MONGO16:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
MONGO blushes uncontrollably! Coolest award in Wikipedia history! Much time and effort in devising award...crafted solely for the MONGO...There's many a man has more hair than wit so I shall continue to work on the wit and make sure the hrair is in its place. Many thanks!--MONGO17:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Poor and content is rich, and rich enough Some tubers, fresh leaves and no hunters makes for a happy MONGO.--MONGO23:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Precious again
refuges of natural wildlife
Thank you for taking us on hiking trails to wildernesses areas, such as Grand Teton National Park, to countless forests, lakes and glaciers, with a sense for the relation of people(s) to nature, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (26 September 2010)!
Thank you Gerda...still at it...working on stubs for the next national park FA effort...but have to get an old FA back into shape by updating the refs and have a bio I want to take to GA soon. Have a great day!--MONGO21:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Its an odd thing that as long as I lived in that region and even participated for well over a month in the Yellowstone fires of 1988, that until this past Saturday 7/29, I had never heard of the Blackwater fire. I stumbled upon the information inadvertantly and was also surprised no article, not even a stub had been written yet so I started the article...then the next day an even worse loss of life happens in Arizona. Kudos to you as well for seeing we needed the article on Ten Standard Firefighting Orders...that was quick work on your part. Thank you for the barnstar!--MONGO22:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I did not realize you wrote it before the Yarnell fire! I live in national forest in Colorado and Arizona, so I'm thinking a lot about wildfires lately. The Blackwater and Mann Gulch fires bracket an era of firefighting that led to the formation of the Ten Standard Firefighting Orders and many other advances in safety and technique. Blackwater is the major turning point for wildland firefighting techniques in the Western US. A surprising missing article.
Can you get this article on the main page for Do You Know? The process looks complicated, but it would be timely. --AfadsBad (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what the time frame is for "new" articles to appear on DYK but thought that it might be too much right now since the Yarnell fire is spotlighted in the In The News section...I might ask a more experienced editor with DYK to see if he will add it tomorrow.--MONGO23:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
You might be right, too much on fires, and I don't know the rules, but I think the historical interest in this fire is high enough to make it very interesting. --AfadsBad (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I'll come up with what they call a hook for the DYK and see if I can con a buddy into nominating it...the DYK nomintion process isn't user friendly I don't think..least not to me...in my 8 plus years here I have only nominated a few for DYK. Really appreciate you're quick generation of the fireorders info and I guess we can include the watchouts (18 of them) in that page as well...will get to it this weekend if not sooner. I also just added several more images to the Blackwater fire article...wanted to keep them historical so they're all black and white.--MONGO00:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Good, especially because it has pictures and might be able to lead the section. Good find on the backpack hand pumps; they are mentioned a lot in the literature about the fire. I am getting ready for my summer field session, so I probably won't add much more, a little here and there, but that's why I tried to put some good sources in for others. --AfadsBad (talk) 01:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd be glad to nominate it. The article got 1617 page views yesterday, and I suspect they weren't all part of Bishonen's copyedits. Got a hook you want to use? Acroterion(talk)01:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
@AfadsBad....we haven't met before ands it's been a pleasure working with you...thank you for your edits....look forward to more collaborations with you. Acro....I hoped you were watching...hehe...how about "...that after the Blackwater fire killed 15 firefighters in 1937 the U.S Forest Service started the smokejumpers program...." Or simply that the Blackwater fire killed 15 and injured 38 firefighters in Shoshone National Forest, Wyoming in 1937.--MONGO02:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Acroterion! This was fun, MONGO, to add something in support of a well done article, and to see it all come together with a couple of editors each doing their thing. I will check out what else you are working on some time, and see if I can contribute. --AfadsBad (talk) 03:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to stick my nose over here and let you know that when I heard the news of this weekend, I thought of you and your work on the Yellowstone article. Risker (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Risker...I know the vast majority of firefighters go their entire careers and never have a major mishap. In 1994 I saw a helicopter crash and in 1996 I witnessed the crash of a Secret Service cargo jet on Sheep Mountain just outside Jackson Hole, Wyoming[6]...I should be thankful that neither myself or anyone I knew personally that died on a fire or major accident. So odd that of all the millions of acres that burned in the Yellowstone region in 1988 that no one of the tens of thousands of firefighters and support personnel that were there that season died. The situation in Yarnell seems almost inexplainable...the reports when they come out will be somber reads.--MONGO00:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
RfC draft
Hi, I'm just letting you that I have removed a comment you posted on one of my user sub pages as I felt it was off-topic and you had missed the objective of the draft. You are welcome to comment there, but please do not use it to air any concerns about adminship or bureaucrats in general or anything that is not directly related to the draft. There are other places you can do that. Cheers, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
My comments were spot on...The notion of having crats doing something they were not elected to do aint going to fly. Just because they will lose one useright doesn't mean we turn around and give them a new one that they were never elected to do. Thought you should get some feedback before you take this proposal live, but I see its by invitation only...Cheers,--MONGO01:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
You still appear to miss the purpose of the draft which is not expected to attract general comments on its talk page; anything like that can be expressed on the RfC if and when it ever goes life - that's what it's for. The invitations are deliberately public, so anyone finding them is welcome to provide their feedback. If they do, they are encouraged to read it carefully in order not to miss the explicit objective. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I'll let you and they hammer out how you want to word it and review it if you open the Rfc. I'm opposed to giving crats the ability to read consensus to desysop. I feel that there are extremely few admins (none standout) that have repeatedly misused their tools or positions that have kept their userights.--MONGO01:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
That's your opinion, and I won't argue with it, but it's got nothing to do with the draft, or eventually asking the entire community to express their opinions on such an idea. I'm not even saying whether or not I personally favour such a solution, but I do feel it's one that the community should be given an opportunity to deliberate upon. I don't care either way if they reject or accept it. So let's leave it at that. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Kudpung...I know you're a great person so we'll just say this is one situation where we're talking past each other.--MONGO02:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I amended numerous unproven claims about an on-going legal case, which seemingly disregarded the talk page's: 'Important notice'.
How is your edit any less guilty of POV than mine?
Beingsshepherd (talk)Beingsshepherd
You think (one of) the assailants is now a "suspected assailant", because there is a legal charge of murder in place against him? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
No, in that event his status would change from presumed innocent to legally guilty. Beingsshepherd (talk)Beingsshepherd
No one is saying they are guilty. But its clear we just report what the reliable references say and in this case, the references all refer to them as the suspects and/or assailants and that they have been charged and arrested. They don't say alleged or suspected as an antecedent word. We can continue this at the article talkpage...but not sure what else there is to cover.--MONGO17:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
No one is saying they are guilty!? Were you laughing as you wrote that?: ' Two assailants, later identified as Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, drove a car at Rigby, knocking him to the pavement.[23] The assailants then attacked and killed Rigby with knives and a cleaver, and attempted to behead his body. ' Beingsshepherd (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd
Beingsshepherd, if you cannot understand that Wikipedia just reports what the sources tell us, then I can't help you. Do you think we made the story up and then the news got their information from us? Please read about Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources...--MONGO18:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Then you should have no problem with citations of mainstream media sources, which name the men as 'suspects' (as the article incongruously does). Beingsshepherd (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd
I have the article page watchlisted...take the article discussion there. I'm not going to keep explaining the same issues over and over on my usertalk.--MONGO02:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
...and it's not policy compliant to remove it unless there's a personal attack or private data in it, and makes us look excessively censorious, etc. Please leave it alone... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
George...read the top of the page...I am notorious....the comment and all other comments by that IP look like dramamongering....I don't see any substantive article work. Grrrrr....--MONGO23:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Dear me, George. Do you have any reason to suppose my note wasn't enough for MONGO, and needed piling on? Or that he's too green to know about policy? Shall I send my good friend Darwinbish to your page to explain all about how it's rude (she may have a better word) to tell seasoned users stuff they already know? Especially in the case of notorious users. Cassandra at the peak of her insanity (crazytalk) 23:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC).
Cassandra: What, I don't know Bishzilla?
It wasn't piling on, so much as starting to separately respond and then noticing you had (the subsection title fooled me initially) and combining, before I edit-committed.
Mongo: I know, but the tagging others do as to "little to no substantive edits" for comments like that is less drama-inducing than removing them. Removing them escalates drama rather than reducing it, IMHO. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
George: You don't know Cassandra, if you think you can hide in Bishzilla's pocket! <an intemperate rant on everybody's as well as the project's imminent demise supervenes in hexameter, quickly removed as tl;dr.> Cassandra at the peak of her insanity (crazytalk) 23:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC).
Meh...its a trolling IP...somebody explain to it that all we need is the link to the post, not a frickin entire regurgitation of the comment.--MONGO01:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mount Degenhardt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mount Terror (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
How weird. I blocked him 7 years ago...most would have created a new username and moved on by now. I guess if his contributions are sound in other venues as he claims there isn't any reason for the account to remain blocked...I guess someone would have to watch him. I can't even remember what the infractions were.--MONGO13:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MONGO 3 was less than a year ago actually...it wasn't very pretty but I think a number of people misunderstood some comments I had made in the months prior to that Rfa so they commented accordingly. Extra tools would let me be a bigger participant during the week as I do most article editing on weekends when I have sufficient time to do the necessary research. Tools would help me work on some of the off and on backlogs....but the title of administrator means nothing to me...if I decide to run again I'll do a self nomination.--MONGO13:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the note on my User Talk page. In the ArbCom case for Tea Party movement, I've presented evidence of the Wikistalking, including the statement by User:WLRoss on May 1, "I stopped editing Tea Party as soon as it was brought up," and then returning to Talk:Tea Party movement, on the other side of the content dispute once again, in the middle of June after the heat had died down. If you have any evidence to present, or comments to make regarding the proposed findings of fact I've offered the Committee here, you may wish to provide "comments by others." Also there is a motion to just page ban everybody — the good, the bad, and the ugly — for six months and hope that some uninvolved editors will show up and reach consensus during those six months. Discussion of the motion rapidly moved into polite discussion that was predictably characterized as "bickering." The comments and discussion start here. regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't like the motion but it's an easy way out since, in defense of the committee, this while mess is pretty difficult to see who is right and who is wrong. I did try to follow the issues but the fact is that I need like 12 hours to get up to speed to make a coherent comment on the matter and right now I don't have the time. However, the editor in question is well known to me and has been problematic now in at least 4 different articles...so any further misuse of this website by him to promote fringe viewpoints is going to force us to put a stop to it.--MONGO18:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the editor in question has successfully Wikistalked me and is effectively homesteading on a series of articles where I started editing before he did. As a result that series of articles is a train wreck. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Some articles just simply have little hope of ever getting good. Polarizing topics just attract POV pushers...it's the nature of the beast. Wikipedia salvation, if there is any, can be found by selecting topics you find personally appealing that have few if any controversies surrounding them.--MONGO15:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Sort of...glaciers mountains and things like that are usually pretty benign so even though I am active in a few controversial areas such as articles related to 9/11 and some discussions, I have a zone of retreat where I can actually get something done. That's not to say that all controversial topics have zero chance of improvement...ifs just that for your own sanity it's really best to keep things in perspective and help out in other areas that generally lack lengthy antagonistic discussions.--MONGO17:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi again, other than thanking you for the appreciation that you showed me, I wanted to address something which I had forgotten. I forgot to verify the sources and do a quick check on its factual accuracy (Not that it's needed, I just want to give it a try). I'll give you the feedback here itself maybe within a day or two, do you want me to? You can say no since surely users more familiar with the topic/sources are will do it anyway in any nominations.
Also, wherever you want take it from there, whether GA or FA, I'll keep a close watch too. I would like to see what has been overlooked or even better, if it gets pumped up to a GA. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I archived the peer review but feel free to run through anything else and post your findings at the peer review and I can address them from there. I plan on taking the article to Featured Article Candidates so I know we will see some discussion about the references then.--MONGO19:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Well done in getting the Blackwater fire of 1937 article nominated, saw how you worked hard for it and got support! I was following it and got first-hand experience of the FA nomination process, learnt a lot especially what all was overlooked in the Peer review. You sure deserve a break, great job! Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much....tea would be good right about now. I have yet to get an article to featured level without the wise suggestions and copyediting from editors such as yourself....the best part of the process is the editors one meets along the way. I try to contribute to another featured level submission as a copyeditor or reviewer whenever I nominate something I have been the primary editor on...this seems only fair. But when someone such as yourself shows up to do a peer review or to work on a good article or feature article candidate out of the blue, then thats pretty cool...kudos.--MONGO18:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! While I am an admirer of the ever hungry Bishzilla....I want to at least give you a running start before she gets your scent....--MONGO19:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
What are you talking about "jacked around"? He's clearly responding to my previous question, which I fixed. If you want me to start a new section for those questions then say so without leaving a rude comment summary. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
A half dozen editors don't agree with you...his response was to you but also to the concerns overall which may explain why he didn't indent his comment.--MONGO17:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
For your contributions to bring Elk (estimated annual readership: 519,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! -- 16:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:
If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Now thats a nifty award and thank you for developing it. Elk was an article I was going to do a little update on as far as the refs go, right after I finish a different one that is even more dated. It nice to see the article I worked on get that much traffic!--MONGO23:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I owe you another one of these! This just fell a bit short of the Million, actually. Sorry they're coming piecemeal; I'm simply wandering through Wikipedia:Lists of popular pages by WikiProject and seeing what's highly trafficked.
Hi Khazar! This one belongs to User:Mav more than me...he brought the article to FA long ago then a few years later I expanded it two-fold and took it to FARC to make sure it kept it's FA status...but his effort was the original one. Maybe he and I deserve shared credit?--MONGO15:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't readily see a public notice to the clerks to add all those names to the case. They may have done so by email. Not sure what they see as cause to add your name to the case. I see you rationally stating your opinion but that is all. I may have to make proposed remedies but they're going to focus on the issues not the named parties. I don't know if the committee is going to keep the workshop open long enough for me to make some decent suggestions regarding BLP and gender recognition.--MONGO04:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
NFL
Hey MONGO, so you've been commenting on a number of different threads on stuff having to do with 9/11 when conspiracy theorists want to change things to usually support their own beliefs, but that isn't what brought me here. I am not sure if you are an NFL fan, but I am a huge one. I wanted to know the other day what current head coaches in the league have won a Super Bowl ever in their career, not just as a head coach. None of this information was on one page, so I decided to make one, the first I have ever attempted, so if you got a minute and can look at it and make any suggestions before I submit it that would be a big help. You can see it here. I'm working on adding a couple pictures. I'm having trouble trying to figure out how to position the tables on the page so they are next to each other rather then above and below each other. Please let me know. Thanks!Zdawg1029 (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
You have plenty of references...it would be better to convert them to citation templates. It appears authoritative and I would add as many images of the coaches as possible. Not much of an expert of tables...if you search around at similar lists you may find a format that meets your needs....--MONGO17:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. Because I was bored, I started going through and I made an additional table of current head coaches that have played in and lost Super Bowls as well just in case it is decided that it would be relevant. So I got everyone that has won one and lost one on the page. One guy was saying that it doesn't seem like a useful page and that "what if a coach retires tomorrow, do we take him off the page," to which I replied that while coaches get fired every season (retiring doesn't happen often), it usually only happens in the couple weeks following the season, so there isn't a constant shifting of coaches that would make the page inaccurate and in need of constant updating. The majority of people that I asked said it was an interesting list, so I'm hoping it gets accepted. What do you mean by converting the references to a citation template though? Do you have an example I can see? I can usually figure out how to do it myself if I can see the page source. Thanks.Zdawg1029 (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not an issue with the references...using just the url is fine so long as it is referenced...later you can add the citation template to complete the references...one example is shown at List of states and territories of the United States which was brought to featured lists level by Toa Nidhiki05. I don't see why you can't move the article to article space as the article sits now.--MONGO19:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay thanks, I'm going to do a few more things to it in a few days when I get time and then submit later. Thanks for the help! (And down with truthers)Zdawg1029 (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
So I basically finished the article. It needs to have a couple pictures added to it and a couple other things, but the content part is all there. I've gotten some mixed responses. Some said that it wasn't needed because all the information is on the individual coaches page, but more people said it was interesting and worth it. It isn't true though that all the info is on the individuals page. I saw quite a few that listed that they worth with the team during that season but didn't mention they won the Super Bowl that season. I have seen so many random lists on Wikipedia that take info from other pages and group it together if it has something in common. I mean would it be a wildly popular article? No. But would it be interesting? Yes. Is it accurate? Yes. I just don't see why it shouldn't be added. What purpose does it serve? Well the whole reason anyone gets in that league is to win a SB, so it's nice to see what coaches have that "fulfillment". So I submitted it and hopefully they accept it. Zdawg1029 (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I can submit it, but I'm new to this...why not just copy paste it into article space and send me a link? I still see its up in a draft format.--MONGO20:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm a little confused. Copy and paste it where? I did hit the "submit draft" button on the page and it says on the bottom it is pending review despite the fact it says it has not been submitted at the top. But what should I do again? Lemme know please. Thanks!Zdawg1029 (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Me too...I see now at the bottom, "This may take over 3 weeks. The Articles for creation process is very highly backlogged. Please be patient."...hum...I'll look at the review later today and see fi I can speed it up.--MONGO18:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay thanks for the help, I appreciate it. I'm just really curious as to if they will accept it or not. It isn't the end of the world if they don't, but I can't think of any reason why they wouldn't.Zdawg1029 (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Huh, I have not seen that article before. But still, my argument is just what you said, that list shows who has won as a head coach while this one shows who has ever won one, and lost one if found relevant. I agree with changing the title to that though, I was thinking the same thing. Is there a way to change the name at this point?Zdawg1029 (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
If it was already an article I'd just move it...not sure how to do so now, unless you simply take down the article and repost it with the new title.--MONGO01:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Well they declined it for the time being only saying I needed to add sources to the "Super Bowl Loses" section and then it would be good to go. Which I was thinking about doing but the sources I would use for the Losing section I had already used in the Winning section, so I didn't add them thinking I didn't want to double the sources. So I guess I will make that change and from what they said it would be fine.Zdawg1029 (talk) 02:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
That's a decent list for a first attempt...you can of course just create articles directly into article space since you are a registered editor. Another option is to work on a new article in your sandbox and then copy paste it into article space once you have it the way you want. Nice job.--MONGO03:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
So because it is 9/11 related, I figured I would bug you about this one as well. I was scrolling through the pictures on my phone and I forgot that when I went to the American History Museum here in D.C. a few weeks ago, I saw the video camera that was used by Jules Naudet that captured the only good footage of Flight 11 crashing into the North Tower and I took a picture of it. First question is do you think it is even worth adding to the Jules and Gedeon Naudet article, and if it is, are we allowed to use a picture I took from inside the museum? The picture itself is decent enough, I actually have two.Zdawg1029 (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I think an image of an image may be a copyright issue...let me ask someone who knows better than I.--MONGO00:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
You took a picture of the video camera, not of an image captured by the video camera? If thats the case I'm still not sure, but assume it may be okay...I just asked someone else so lets see what he says.--MONGO00:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes exactly, as weird as it sounds, it is a picture of a camera, wow that sounds weird, but it is the camera that caught infamous footage, it's like a picture of the camera for the Zapruder film.Zdawg1029 (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Ha! Interesting. I was a lot more infatuated with this camera then my friends were, they didn't seem to pick up on the significance of what this particular camera had filmed. I thought it was worth adding the picture somewhere on here if we could, but I wasn't sure if just a picture of a camera was significant to anyone else.Zdawg1029 (talk) 00:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Glad I asked an expert! Very illuminating. So, to expand on that, let's say I took a picture of a statue, as I did on those bronze items in OMaha, but then had to have them deleted...was that because they were not housed in a public facility or was it because they were too recent?--MONGO00:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
So a picture of a picture is not okay...these issues are unfamiliar still to me...one would think I might have grasped it better by now. I assume that uploads to en.wiki and Commons follow the same copyright policies since the servers are in the U.S.?--MONGO02:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
A picture of a picture is a derivative work and is not okay if the underlying work is protected by copyright. Uploaders are generally given the benefit of the doubt as long as they make a reasonable effort to comply with the guidelines and don't become abusive when a deletion request goes against them. Differences: En.wiki permits fair use, but Commons does not. Also, Commons is more international in its viewpoint. Freedom of panorama is permitted in many countries, but not the United State. --Walter Siegmund(talk)04:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminders and crash course in image copyright issues....hum....I better not quit my day job.--MONGO16:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay so I caught up there that he said my picture of the exhibit (the camera) was okay, so second question is do you think it is worth adding? I think so because as I eluded to before, it is the equivalent of the camera that Abraham Zapruder used to capture the JFK assassination. The footage that this particular camera captured is a very significant moment in US history. If it is good enough for the American History Museum, I think it is good enough for Wikipedia. Thoughts?Zdawg1029 (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay where should I upload it at? I tried doing it this morning but was a little confused, first I was on Wikipedia then it said to try Commons instead, so where exactly should I go? It was asking me a million different things to upload it also.Zdawg1029 (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
If you haven't yet, just open an account on commons....and use the bot there to help you...send me a link and I'll make sure it has the correct categories...--MONGO17:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know why I didn't get your post above. But anyways I figured out how to upload them, it was easy, I am not sure what I was doing before, I must have been in the wrong place. But here are the links:
An article that you have been involved in editing, Fort Niobrara Wilderness, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Ammodramus (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Mongo. I was a little confused by your "oppose" comment in the paid editing policy proposal. The purpose of the proposal is to curb paid editing. Now admittedly it's weak and wholly inadequate, and I'm beginning to see the whole thing as an exercise in futility. However, what confused me was that it does purport to regulate or limit paid editing, even in a weak way, and the people voting oppose have generally seen nothing wrong with paid editing. Hence my curiosity. Thanks, Coretheapple (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you mean. Let me say that I agree with you 100%. My personal feeling is that maybe we should just abandon all efforts at regulating conflicts of interest and put a disclosure on each article to the effect that content may have been added by paid editors. Overall I am in accord with you that the proposal is far too weak. Still, I did support it in an earlier form as I felt it was better than nothing, but you're right, it is an acceptance of paid editing and that is just plain wrong, unless greatly curtailed in a way that is anathema to most editors. Coretheapple (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if there is any way to monitor/administer whether someone is paid to edit and even if there was, exactly what to do about it. I just think the website should be clear that it isn't condoned and is discouraged or even maybe more forcefully than worded than that. I don't like to pooh-pooh what are very reasonable efforts to try and corral various situations such as this one.--MONGO01:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that I've come around to your way of thinking on the proposal. SlimVirgin's rationale was also persuasive. Appreciate your clear-headed thinking on this, though I'm burned out on the general subject and feel in general that it needs to be dealt with by the Foundation. Coretheapple (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I try to be brief in comments since no one reads lengthy posts...but sometimes I'm not as clear as I wish to be. On Jimbo's page there seems to be some decent discussion about the paid advocacy thing. Jimbo seems to be about where I am on the matter. I concur with him that just because we can't stop something, doesn't mean we should allow it...the problem is what to do about it. Maybe a case by case examination will be necessary. I'm also going to examine what User:SlimVirgin's et al proposals look like...and I have't ruled out what User:Jehochman is proposing either.--MONGO15:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
It's impressive even when viewed on my cell...tonight I'll look it over on a bigger screen. Wondering how you managed to get a chance to fly over that part of the park....--MONGO13:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Very facinating...you have both upper and lower Saint Mary Lake, even Lake Sherburne at top...and the entire upper Saint Mary Valley all the way to Logan Pass. Going to the Sun Road is easily seen too...Nice job! Also a decent visual on the town of St. Mary...--MONGO23:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Main Page appearance: Blackwater fire of 1937
This is a note to let the main editors of Blackwater fire of 1937 know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on November 6, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk·contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 6, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:
The Blackwater fire was caused by a lightning strike on August 18, 1937 in Shoshone National Forest, about 35 miles (56 km) west of Cody, Wyoming, United States. Fifteen firefighters were killed by the forest fire when a dry weather front caused the winds to suddenly increase and change direction. The fire quickly spread into dense forest, trapping some of the firefighters in a firestorm. Nine died during the fire and six died afterwards from severe burns and respiratory complications; 38 others were injured. More U.S. wildland firefighters died in the Blackwater fire than in any incident since the Great Fire of 1910; the death-toll was not surpassed until 2013 when 19 firefighters died in the Yarnell Hill Fire. Firefighters in the first half of the 20th century used mostly hand tools to suppress wildfires, and all gear was carried by the firefighters or by pack animals. Weather forecasting and radio communication were generally poor or nonexistent. After the Blackwater fire, better ways to respond to such fires were developed, including the smokejumper program in 1939 and the Ten Standard Firefighting Orders (a standardized set of wildland firefighting principles) in 1957. (Full article...)
Interesting...I guess it just got put there by default as I never saw a discussion...but that works for me...cool beans!--MONGO23:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
If they are new to you, can you think who else might like to know about them? (John Naughton, Richard J. Evans, others) I saw A Quest For Knowledge in the history of 9/11, but you might know who has the desire for the academic point of view. I'm afraid I shy away from the conspiracies of conspiracies like I shy away from pictures of smallpox victims, so I don't know who would be interested (and aren't burnt out). Shenme (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. Personally, I am not bothered if someone believes in the 9/11 CTs...I just don't like it when they try to force such issues into the articles that detail what really happened. It's an interesting analogy from the one blog about how 9/11 CTs sidetrack us from the mission at hand...our article talkpages on 9/11 are generally dominated in dealing with wild talk about the conspiracies and the bulk of these articles can't be improved due to the ongoing distractions which prevent substantive change in a positive way...it's a giant time sap.--MONGO02:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
MONGO: I will ignore your playfully threatening web banner. (I think it distracts from the purpose of Wikipedia.) You deleted an addition of mine to the article, Collapse of the World Trade Center, calling it a "conspiracy theory." My addition, under "Other Investigations," was:
"Although the NIST report states that the agency "did not look for evidence of explosives" being involved in the World Trade Center catastrophe, a team of chemists and physicists headed by Niels H. Harrit of the University of Copenhagen published in 2009 the finding of the pyrotechnic material nanothermite in dust samples from the World Trade Center site.[1] The editor of the publication at the time was Marie-Paule Pileni, an international expert in nanometric materials."
Can you please explain to me what is a "conspiracy theory" about that? Just as the NIST investigators, I think you have taken the abscence of explosives (better called "pyrotechnic materials," because they are not loud) as a *premise*, and sought to explain the rapid collapse of the three WTC buildings soley by other factors. You and others refuse to question your initial assumptions, calling any other assumptions out-of-hand "impossible." There is nothing conspiratorial about asking a scientific study to question its assumptions.
I would prefer that you UNDO your deletion of my material instead of me.** Add to it or modify it if you must.
Yes, the scientific integrity of Bentham Science Publications has been called into question. The article World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories cites an article in Library Journal by Norman Oder (footnote 11), but I have read this article and it has nothing to do with Marie-Paule Pileni's reasons for resignation as editor. See Neils Harrit's interpretation [2].
The information I have added to Collapse of the World Trade Center does belong there under the subheading, "Other Investigations." Please allow other people to examine your premises if you won't.((comment was signed but syntax-bug means I'm not sure by whom))
Post your argument on the article talkpage and see if there is agreement for your addition.--((comment was signed but syntax-bug means I'm not sure by whom))
Hello. You have a new message at Hike395's talk page.
talkpage stalker swoops in to say that I modified one of the HTML tags in the Harrit-cite above, the markup-syntax was broken and that interfered with my own comment below. The tildes above were never fixed either, I removed them to avoid further damage, please see view-history if you are not sure who said what. Correct syntax, to avoid such bugs in the future, is <mytag> stuff </mytag> ... note the position of the slash. Computers are annoying sometimes, sorry about that. :-) Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
canvassing for ArbCom
Hello Mongo, noticed your suggestion that Acroterion ought to run for ArbCom. I'm in agreement. Can we run a political draft campaign, and test the waters? WP:CANVASSING seems to apply to content-disputes, not to arbcom elections, but I've never taken an interest in arbcom-stuff before this year, so maybe you can guide me on what's Good and what is NotGood in these sorts of scenarios. My suggestion is that we put an appropriate notice[7] onto your subsection of Acroterion's talkpage, and then ask all they people they've helped or been nice to or otherwise assisted, to come over and leave a supportive comment.
This is biasing consensus-on-Acroterion's-personal-talkpage, of course, but the *real* test of the actually *important* consensus -- assuming Acroterion can be convinced to run for a seat -- is whether or not they *get* elected, which is of course a decision that will not be made on their own personal talkpage. Is inviting like-minded people to the draft-Acroterion-discussion, after which conceivably the same folks may or may not then later participate in the actual !voting of the actual ArbCom election, going to mess with some sort of anti-canvassing taboo? Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
The best are oftentimes the most unlikely to run...and while they would be an example of the ideal candidate, I know Acroterion has zero interest. It's not a violation of canvassing to make a suggestion to someone that they run for arbcom or admin, but I don't want to be involved in an active recruitment campaign.--MONGO15:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Sure, and I respect that you might not want to be actively-out-pounding-on-user-talkpage-doors, WP:REQUIRED applies of course. But if I was interested in doing such a thing, and I were to go visit some people I know working on harrier jump jets with me at the moment, and drop Ac4arb messages on *the talkpages of my friends* ... suggesting they visit your suggestion to run, over on the Acroterion-user-talkpage... is that WP:Okay or would it be WP:VeryNotOkay? Same question, about posting over at wikiProjectMilitaryHistory, where Acroterion has lots of friends, but I don't happen to know anybody.
While I understand that it is taboo for Acroterion to wp:canvass for themselves, and also seems to be taboo for anybody to canvass for voters of a certain stripe, sending them to the arbcom-elections-page... my ask-my-friends-to-convince-Acroterion-to-think-about-running 'campaign' seems several steps removed. That makes it a bit of a grey area, and lacking some explicit yes-that-is-okay guidance, I'd err on the side of caution. So, do you have knowledge of okay-ness, for me to pursue such a thing, even though you aren't interested in pursuit yourself personally? p.s. Keyboard for typing, not for gnawing! 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Acroterion is most definitely not interested and cannot be talked into it...lets leave him be...thanks. If you can think of potential candidates other than him and you want to suggest they run then there isn't any rules against that...but the nomination period is nearly up.--MONGO00:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
keyboard difficulties
Well, not to violate WP:NPA or anything, but I noticed Bishzilla bragging about using a keyboard the size of Wisconsin, or something. Didn't want you to feel left out. Perhaps you should contact this corporation,[8] and see if they produce a special-edition version with MONGO-sized keycaps? Might need to make sure the hardwood they use is sustainably sourced though. Hope this helps, and don't let that big ol' lizard get you down. :-) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
As the reference is a government website and the edits contained no information about any persons living or dead, please explain why you reverted the edits for an alleged violation of BLP[9] Also explain why you added content not in the source provided after being informed it was not supported. Wayne (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
In light of your history of misuse of that page to violate BLP and promote fringe nonsense, which you also did at the Kerry and Kay Danes page, I find it impossible to AGF that your edits in such areas should stand.--MONGO17:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
In other words you can't find any BLP violations with the edits. You cant revert reliably sourced edits simply because you don't like the editor. I remind you of WP:NPA, I was the one who requested that the Kerry and Kay Danes page be looked at for problems and Kerry Danes thanked me for my work there and while the Franklin page did have BLP problems I never promoted any fringe theories there as you well know. Wayne (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
My inability to AGF regarding your edits or saying that I can't AGF is not a personal attack. I will have time this weekend to trim the article substantially and we can reexamine your contributions there again. My emails from Kay Danes do not collaborate with what you are claiming, btw.--MONGO16:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
You need to read the Danes Talk page. Kay Danes requested some changes, I made some she wanted and told her that for other requests not supported by sources that I'd "seek advice regarding what Wikipedia can or can not say" which I did here where I even admitted I needed help on WP policy, she replied "thank you for what you have been able to do here." I never took part in the Talk page discussion and made no further edits to the article. In that discussion nobody claimed there were BLP violations regarding the Danes as there was nothing negative about the them in the article, there were some BLP problems regarding other people in the "Background" section but that was irrelevant as the Danes were not mentioned there at all and the subjects were deceased. Jimbo deleted the "Background" section per BLP and later deleted all content but the lead saying that Kay Danes concerns should take precedence over COI and that the Danes' innocence was not made clear enough but that this material could be replaced via consensus if written more clearly. Making repeated derogatory comments about my participation in any article to discredit me is a PA. Wayne (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes....Jimbo Wales blanked most of the article you had messed up to make it BLP compliant.....NuclearWarfare blanked most of the Franklin article you had messed up to make it BLP compliant. On 9/11 articles, I used to remove your conspiracy theory messes all the time...I can assemble the diffs if you want to tame a dance at an RfcU or at arbcom...I don't think you'll like the outcome. Any further article discussions need to take place on the article talkpages as I have them watchlisted.--MONGO18:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I see you reverted it again. What do you mean by the revert comment "impinging on a collective is still a BLP violation"? The edits simply say what the Foster Care Board did and what laws the Legislature passed as a result and did not mention any persons at all. Wayne (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Attack of the pedant
Hello there,
Regarding your comment on the Jclemens arbitration request - actually, it's "core tenet".
Hey Mongo. You might not been aware, but your comment goes beyond the 500-word limit that is allowed for each commenter at any Arbitration case request. However, we want to suggest you that instead of reducing your statement, use bullet points for the timeline of events, if that's okay with you.
Mongo, thanks - my goal is to get the big four--rainbow, cutthroat, brown and brook trout articles up to GA status then start pushing for FAC. --Mike Cline (talk) 11:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I won't step on tour toes with those as I did a bit with the Fort Yellowstone article...but will mention that keeping momentum is a good thing...one might take another of the articles you mention to GAC but return to the last one promoted to GA while the story is still fresh for the FAC push. Rainbow Trout is in excellent shape already...it's close to FA now.--MONGO14:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I can begin to see where you're coming from with the claim, but... I can't make a sockpuppet duck test judgement, I didn't know 24/7 that well. Looking back at his history isn't good enough.
Can you lay it out at an SPI or at least in better detail here?
@MrX...you're right...but I thought the SPI was still open. The template however automagically adds the category to the page. Secondly, I can and will remove any harassment and trolling done by that user on Arthur's page.
@Georgewilliamherbert...a half dozen folks are working on the sock investigation offsite. The initial conclusion is that MilesMoney is StillStanding-247...who may also be a previous ban evader. If you want the details I can email them.--MONGO23:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
About 4 accounts all edit from the same place it seems...the checkusers want behavioral evidence and that just takes longer to put together. Its not like they showed up to work on articles about butterflies or a mountain....they're all just POV pushers on political articles and related areas. They are what makes the website suck...I prefer dealing with teenage vandals frankly. Least the kids that edit Pokeman articles are earnest and sincere.--MONGO05:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm generally an exclusionist, especially in BLP's so when I see any editor arguing incessantly for the inclusion of negative junk in our bios, edit warring for such things and fighting everyone that disagrees with them, then it's obvious to me that we are dealing with someone that is incapable of working collaboratively on article improvement. In a way, wasting time tying to pin down which ban evader they are isn't necessary since we have the diffs that clearly show they need to be told to play elsewhere.--MONGO17:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
just parking above for no real reason...its rudimentary compared to what we can do now...
[10]....yeah yeah right...those are the same lies the moron above said right before he was blocked....least SEVEN was smart enough to cover his tracks better but this fool is too stupid to know when to stop giving me multiple tells...
Best holiday gift in Wikipedia history!
This is Darwinbish happily looking forward to seeing MONGO open the box.
Season's greetings from Santa and her little helpers
Darwinbish! It's been many moons since you last posted here...MONGO like gifts...but MONGO is ah, somewhat perplexed by grin of Darwinbish...hum. oh well...probably fine...--MONGO02:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Whew...nah...my hair is a little frazzled but MONGO need haircut anyway...was starting to look like hippie MONGO. Great gift BTW...maybe give same one to JUMBO Wales?--MONGO17:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much Cas! MONGO never have such a drink...must try but have to avoid glassware store afterwards due to probable tipsiness after effects.--MONGO12:24, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I really think you should file a case with the arbitration committee. It's not like we'll be the only ones at the dance...we'll have lots of company and you'll have maximum attention. I don't see how you can resist since you've apparently been stalked and are surrounded by liars...it's the best way to put a stop to the pain.--MONGO00:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, my advice may not be worth much, but since all these other editors are stalking you, and they're liars and they are interfereing with your ability to edit constructively, I think you need to put a stop to all the harassment you're having to put up with.--MONGO00:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Possible opening statement for abrcom case...feel free to adapt or alter to suit your desires!
MONGO big bad meanie...he enterferrin with my afforts to edit constructionally...he stalking me and he is an liar two...somebloody pahweez help me get this big meanie off mah back!!!! I am an newby editer hear and I wants ot be a good Wikipedia editer but this Mongo mean person is makin me wanna up and quit. I shouldent haveta feel like I'm bein stalked on this webcite all the time having this persen going around and lying bout me all the time and all. Its enterferrin with mah sleep and I had diarehha this morning due to this big bad meanie. He has said I should be banned and all I have done is edit constructionally and I aint had no arugments or nothin yet this mean person wants me bannned just cause hes mean. He's the menest man I ever met anywheres ever.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MONGO (talk • contribs)
NO..I refuse..you better file an arbitration case...I was just trying to help you out is all, since you think filing cases is my "thing". You don't have to copy my opening statement verbatim of course...you may have your own ideas about all this harassment and stalking and lying you're being subjected to. An editor with your contributions history should be respected, admired and set as an example for others to follow....not kicked to the curb like some darn troll.--MONGO01:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Exactly! well not really exact since troll is but one word, so its not really words unless we add something like obnoxious or something in front of it. How about, "not kicked to the curb like some darn obnoxious troll"???--MONGO01:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
