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.
Thanks guys. For all basic purposes I retired on June 7th. I also self imposed a ban on anything related to American politics and that would include 9/11 related articles, even though three of those I helped bring to Featured Article level. I'm still unsure if my efforts to update Retreat of glaciers since 1850, another article I helped get to FA would be seen as a compromise of that ban. So, since my main efforts to work on my old FAs all have some tertiary relationship to American politics or history, not sure I can see much point in spending my little precious free time around here.--MONGO22:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
We all have pressures on our free time. But I would urge you to reconsider your decision yet again. Your edits and contributions have been a beacon on Wikipedia. By all means take a break, but do not "retire", you are far too important to the project to do that. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
David, it's definitely cool beans you think highly of my efforts. However, you're likely in the minority in that perspective. Have a nice weekend.--MONGO23:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
MONGO, I also hope you'll take a break (if you think you must), but not too long a one, and come back refreshed. You are a useful contributor to the project (I've been especially impressed with how you handled the conspiracy types at the 9-11 articles....), and this project will definitely be the worse for wear if you depart permanently. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Only, 9/11 articles would violate my self imposed ban. However, your support is appreciated.--MONGO16:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Dang, sorry to see you go man. Definitely got the short of the stick. Amazing how some editors can hang around and do all the crap they want, but the good guys get hung out to dry. ToaNidhiki0519:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Life isn't always fair or just. I think the arbitrarion committee did what they thought was best, but I reserve the right to disagree with their assessment. Nevertheless, I self imposed a year ban from politically charged topics and that includes 9/11 pages.--MONGO23:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks but...
I wasn't doing it just to be nice. I meant it. BTW I took a break from WP for about a year and it was definitely a good thing to do. If I may be allowed to speak frankly, as for the original matter, consider that your "friends" can cause you more trouble than your adversaries by egging you on when they would better serve you by counseling restraint. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
All I know is comment on content not contributors. If we do that, it greatly reduced the chances of having a sanction placed against you. Many may feel that having the arbitration committee admonishing an editor is no big deal, but I disagree. The committee is elected democratically, so if they represent the community, then it's the community that wanted me sanctioned.--MONGO16:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, Ubikwit might disagree with you on that as at least one arb wanted him site banned and he was topic banned. Getting to my comment below, the case would have fulfilled it's promise had it left individual parties out. A three month agony caused me little return but a desire to simply walk away altogether.--MONGO17:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment
The arbitration committee passed an admonishment against me 9-3 but two of the three opposing that did so only because they felt it was too weak a remedy, the other simply because they felt discretionary sanctions for all would be sufficient. I narrowly avoided a topic ban from all American politics articles post 1932 only due to two arbitrators switching their decision to oppose. The wording of the topic ban was that it would be 18 months before I could appeal, which I would have never done, so that is the only reason I have not gone forward with vanishing. Nevertheless, I will go on record that the case in question would have been better utilized had the committee simply concentrated on laying down the law on everyone engaged in battleground behavior in said articles, so that future flareups could be contained more forcefully by independent administrators, or at arbitration enforcement. This sort of enforcement provision worked exceptionally well in 9/11 pages and elsewhere. Mostly though, I have limited time to dedicate to what really matters, which is to save my old FAs from losing their status, so unless I can regear and solely dedicate my extremely limited time towards that endeavor, I cannot see any reason to contribute here.--MONGO17:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Take a break for a month or two
Give the drama a miss, pull down the RETIRED banner, and just take a month off and see how it feels. ArbCom merely slapped you on the hand for poor table manners because they have to do something when they take a case. It's certainly no reason to go on a hunger strike. If after a month away participation at WP doesn't feel worthwhile any more, then take another month away. And if it doesn't feel any different at that point, THEN put up the retired banner and turn off the lights for good. A better suggestion, probably, would be for you to give contemporary politics a miss and to work on something else. There is an enormous amount of work to be done on 19th Century history and politics and it is pretty fricking fascinating once a person gets into it. So: don't overreact and don't paint yourself into a corner. best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I commented on your arbitration, Mongo, because it was all such nonsense. We let felonies go by but try the misdemeanors. I take a hard line on incivility and very early on participated in the incivility noticeboard. That board was removed because there was indifference toward incivility, as it is not a high priority on Wikipedia. That is one indication of the hypocrisy at work here. Your arbitration helps explain why Wikipedia is in danger of going out of business, as Andrew Linn's New York Times article explored today. Mickey-mouse hectoring, no attempts at fairness. In your case, you were treated like a child, not an adult making positive contributions to the project. Carrite's recommendations are correct overall and I think you are well advised to follow them. I can't understand why you would absent yourself from the one area that interests you the most. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks guys. Look...civility is policy and I admitted at the case page that I probably deserved a civility warning, although their wording on the admonishment sort of aligns with that. My argument before and during the case was that firstly, why not just amend a prior case and secondly, why single out just two editors. The truth is I am much sidelined due to real life issues anyway, but a public chastisement to compliment an already disheartening personal situation makes coming here and dedicating myself at the intensity needed to update my old featured articles too much additional work and stress at present. I do appreciate both pieces of advice and support and thank the two of you.--MONGO17:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
We will miss you
O Notorious MONGO,
The work on controversial topics can be quite tiring and stressful, but it's worth it. I don't look at American politics much, but you did great work on other topics as well, and that too will be missed. Of course you are free to retire whenever you want, but don't feel that you're permanently banished. bobrayner (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. What little time I do have will be geared solely to working on old featured articles...and that looks like it will be very hit and miss.--MONGO23:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Silverbacks unite....
There are not enough Great Old Ones left. Take a break, sort your trouble, but I for one would be happy if you come back, even if our political views are essentially orthogonal... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
On most social issues, I'm progressive...on fiscal issues, I'm conservative. Being conservative on such things as how to combat climate change doesn't mean I think we should do nothing...just that my faith in something as disorganized as the U.S. government to fix anything makes me reluctant to give away my tax dollars for a nearly zero sum gain. On the flip side of that, a trillion bucks to fight less than 10k enemy combantants is probably the worst investment (not counting the 9000 lives lost post 9/11) the U.S. ever made.--MONGO23:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I wrote "orthogonal" for a reason - my politics are hard to classify on the US "progressive"/"palaeolithic" spectrum (though you can probably guess where my sympathy falls ;-). But I am adamant that (generic) you don't get to chose the facts to support your politics but rather that your politics must be designed to cope with the facts. That kind of post-modernist nonsense used to be on the left, but now it has also infected the right, and with a more deadly strain, as the right tend to apply it not only to social sciences, but also to hard sciences. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Climate change is a fact. Even if one had no understanding of the chemistry, only a fool would deny the evidence provided by repeat photography showing glacier retreat. While I would like to believe that some of this retreat is because of natural things, the science indicates that most if not all this retreat is due to us. This retreat is tangible, in our face and should be easy to grasp even for those that are "skeptical". The retreat rate post industrial revolution is so rapid that nothing else really explains it.--MONGO00:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Fish fry
Dear Dr. MONGO, as a non-practicing, non-licensed, non-trained, non-attorney, I advise you to take the advice of Prof.Dr.rer.nat.user.cook.etc.et al. Stephan Schulz, above, and take a short break if need be. However, please be advised that there are only six short years left before 9/11 is twenty years past and that wretched hive of scum and villainy (truther <cough> articles) needs an enema before said date (and a general house cleaning of the good articles now that certain impediments seem to have gone by the wayside). I.e., Bigger fish to fry. Regardless, hang around. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC) So this baby seal walks into a club...
Hard to believe it's been that long. I gave up thinking the 9/11 attacks article could be brought up even to GA. A Quest For Knowledge made a superhuman effort but it was demoted shortly afterward.--MONGO06:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
TDA's block
Just a note to say that your comments had no bearing on TDA's block. I was aware of the breach and had decided to take action before you posted, but yesterday was rather busy with arbcom issues (as you might have perceived). Thryduulf (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I thank you for informing me of that. He and I have previously had disagreements so my original post there was as I wrote it, that he should consider removing the comments to avoid a block. I wanted it to be clear that my suggestion was just a reminder, not a warning in any way.--MONGO18:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm delighted to see you back. I hope you didnt take the small slap on the wrist too badly; its no secrete that wiki eats it own, and is no place for the thin skinned, which you certainly are not. You have such a strong record of article creation, dedication and integrity; spats like this come and go. Onwards. Ceoil (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Why thank you Ceoil. I'm back in limited capacity and already slightly diverged from my primary objective which is merely updating my old FA works...some of which are nearly a decade old...that is turning out to be almost more work than they were to originally bring to FA. Peace!--MONGO17:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Especially the one I am working on now which is 120k bytes and has 140 plus refs. Its almost overwhelming....it was promoted to FA in 2006.--MONGO20:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I didnt mean that I think your articles have depreciated, more I was lamenting the passage of time. In fact, you took "Yellowstone National Park" to FAR to ask for input; that stands out as a mark of character. Ceoil (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
No worries! I knew you meant the time that has gone by. Yellowstone NP actually needs another update as that FAR was also long ago. Slowly but surely I'll be double checking refs on my old FAs but the formatting may be a mess since citation bot is apparently no longer working.--MONGO23:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Goddamn bots, but wouldnt worry too much; your articles are first rate. Hope you dont mind my poking about; an interested reader and I hold you in high regard. Ceoil (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Likewise Ceoil...I am more than happy to have anyone with your skills willing to help keep articles first rate. I just wish I had more time at present to fix things.--MONGO01:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Unarchiving on Arbitration Enforcement Requests
Hey MONGO. Occasionally, the archival bot makes a mistake and archives a request that isn't closed- I've seen it happen before in the page history. In these cases, I think it's pretty acceptable to manually unarchive it so the request may be formally closed. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 09:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey single purpose account (well, sort of single purpose, aside from your odd infatuation with DHeyward)...the bot is programmed to auto archive if no comments are made...so go complain to whoever set up the bot and stop stirring up bullshit.--MONGO09:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
My issue isn't with the bot archiving it- I had unarchived it, and the problem was solved. My issue is with your edit warring to keep the request off the page. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 09:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
What part about stale don't you get? The bot auto-archives! What is your fixation with DHeyward? Do you understand the policy regarding HOUNDING?--MONGO09:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
No one has commented on the case in several days..I have no idea what the time threshold is before it auto-archives. No admins seemed to be interested in taking it further. If I can negotiate an interaction ban between you two, would you agree to that? You could still discuss text issues in articles, but no longer accuse either of wrongdoings or participate in thrads at noticeboards about one another.--MONGO10:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I think you're hounding DHeyward...and that's just truly sad. No one commented on the thread since July 1. I assume the bot archives after 4-5 days...which is ample time for everyone to get out their voodoo dolls and start sticking pins in them, but they apparently didn't do that. See if Gamaliel wants to reopen it. I'm still more than happy to negotiate an interaction ban between you two.--MONGO10:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! I wasn't going to touch it and upset esteemed long term and highly useful editors like PeterTheFourth...whose contributions to Wikipedia simply cannot be matched.--MONGO20:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Specific list of articles on Zeitgeist for sanction
Hey, I asked over on ANI but to second that here, if you could help make the specific list of articles the proposed sanction should apply to I would appreciate it. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you
I know that this is probably the least of your thoughts right now, seeing as how long your chat page is, but, as for some reason my discussion for the topic of 9/11 is not working, I just wanted to make myself clear on one comment I left on talk.
For the 'heading picture of Osama bin Laden,' what I meant is for mobile. On mobile Wikipedia, when you're searching, that is, each article had a little picture beside it. 9/11's is of Osama bin Laden, not the towers, and I thought that seemed out of place. On an article about him, or about who was behind the attacks, it of course would fit, but why is bin Laden's head the picture for the article on 9/11? Did his head hijack the planes (that sounds like some political thriller novel in the making. Hmmm... ideas for an author)
Again, sorry to bother you, but I think that one edit was not to someone's satisfaction and they banned me, for some reason, from editing 9/11 related articles. Iheartthestrals (talk) 07:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I switched to mobile and see what you mean but do not know how to change that icon...the page view in mobile however has the same image layout as in the desktop version. You were reminded of discretionary sanctions but from what I can see no one has banned you from any 9/11 pages.--MONGO09:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't know. Every time I try to post on the talk page for 9/11 articles it doesn't go through. Hmmm, the mystery of bin Laden's head. Sounds like the eighth Harry Potter novel. OK, I won't bother you anymore :)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iheartthestrals (talk • contribs)
Belated (talk page stalker): Iheartthestrals, I just wanted to tell you that a ban from editing certain articles or topics never prevents you from editing them; the ban just says you're not allowed to edit them, and will be in trouble if you do. Ban's aren't technical, they're moral/social. Only blocks can prevent you from editing, and they always prevent you from editing the whole of Wikipedia (excepting only your own talkpage). It's not possible to block somebody from editing only certain pages. So, in other words, neither a ban nor a block can be causing this. Anyway, when admins ban or block somebody, they let them know about it. So what is causing the problem, then? I've no idea. Helpful, aren't I? Hope it's resolved by now, and bin Laden's head hasn't put a curse on you. Bishonen | talk21:21, 2 August 2015 (UTC).
Hi MONGO. Now the dust has settled on the Maya civilization FAC, I just wanted to say many thanks for taking the time to sourcecheck the article, and for supporting its promotion - after an epic haul it made FA at the weekend. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 09:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi MONGO. Atsme was not blocked for the "revenge PRODing" - and the content dispute on the species/genus fish thing is not the issue either. Please do read the block notice and the links there. I understand your kindness in reaching out to her, but there are longer-term issues that the block is addressing, and this block is an opportunity for Atsme to perhaps finally hear the community's issues with her approach to things. In my view, an unblock would not be good for her, nor for the community. That's my perspective; happy to discuss if you like, or not. I won't belabor this, for sure. Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello MONGO. The revenge PRODding of those articles was the straw that broke the camel's back, but, as Jytdog also says, she wasn't blocked for the PRODding, but for this. As for the catfish articles both articles that have been to AfD have been quickly closed as speedy keep (#1, #2), and there's an overwhelming support for keeping the current system, with a list for each genus plus a separate article for each species within that genus, and I'm absolutely convinced that Atsme isn't going to be able to change that system, with or without your support. Thomas.W talk19:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog and Thomas.W...I understood the block rationale and was merely trying to see if she understood my stance in support of stand alone articles, even if they only have one reliable reference, I support stub and short articles since I am generally an inclusionist. I just thought if we could at least get her to understand why stubs are okay, we could move on to the other issues.--MONGO21:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, MONGO. It's not about stub articles, the PRODs were a revenge for me having an opinion she didn't like at ANI. So it's better to stay away from her talk page now that she's blocked, as I have done, there are more than enough people making unneeded posts there as it is. I'm not an ichtyologist, BTW, my only connection to that subject area is that I created a bunch of fish articles after being asked to translate some material into English by a another editor. Thomas.W talk21:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
It wouldn't be the first time I've waded into territory I wasn't completely familiar with...but what I'd like to do is see if we can save her. She has done good work in the past with a couple FAs and more GAs. What about a temporary topic ban or some interaction bans? She has a picture of herself with one of the greatest rockers of all time so she can't be all bad. Can you give me more background as her last block was last year I think.--MONGO22:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The ANI-discussion, which was started by her but ended with a boomerang, tells you what has happened. Before that discussion her path and my path had never crossed. The only thing that can "save her" is probably staying away from Wikipedia during her block, and connect to "real life" again. Getting too involved in something is never good for you. Thomas.W talk22:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm a fan of Bishonen who imposed the block for a month and she said in that thread she would support a three month block but has also since said that she wouldn't fight an unblock. I fully recognize that she prodded your articles and yet this was merely the last straw, yet you say you never encountered her before this incident. I'm not an admin nor do I give up easily on anyone capable of collaborating to bring articles to FA...so perhaps you take a breather and allow me to see what we can all do collectively so we don't lose yet another editor, especially a female one.--MONGO22:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I have encountered Atsme before and I also support her block. Her fish articles are good but I encourage you to read Talk:Gabor B. Racz. Part of the problem with her behaviour there was that she truly didn't see the problems with the article and fought to keep promotional language, COPYVIOs, factual inaccuracies, and OR in the article. On Talk:Kombucha, she fought to exclude adverse effects based on a misinterpretation of MEDRS and NPOV. It isn't just that we disagree on content; it's that she engages in battle when someone disagrees with her, first engaging in unfounded accusations of harassment, ill-will, and bias along with an overall condescending tone, then going to Admin talk pages, and then filing reports (which have all been dismissed). Disagreeing opinions are invariably dismissed as unwarranted and unsubstantiated. She has also engaged in trawling my contributions to find problems as retaliation for comments she didn't like.
She is capable of writing good content by herself but so far she has not been able to collaborate with other editors unless they agree with her. I'm not sure her behaviour should get a pass just because she's female. Ca2james (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Those discussions you link don't paint a rosy picture overall. My general feeling is that all of you might prefer to see her stay blocked at least for the month. I won't beat a dead horse, but want to make it clear that I do not think she deserves a pass because she is female, but would like to save editors if I can and especially if they are female. Perhaps I am being obtuse...but all three of you think I am wasting my time, right?--MONGO23:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Your time is your own and you have a right to waste it (without commenting on whether you are in fact wasting it). The problem is that Atsme has wasted an enormous amount other people's time. I understand where you're coming from -- Atsme does have the ability to do good work. But after 10+ years in this place I have to say that one of the project's shortcomings is the inordinate attention given to rehabilitating people who cause problems, without regard to the demoralizing effects that those editors have on others. All IM(NS)HO of course. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Speaking just for myself, I do think she would benefit from a break from Wikipedia. Her recent conduct was voluminous and full of conspiracy theories which indicated to me that she is nearing a breaking point. I don't want to see her break and I think the time away will help. I'd like to see her editing - as long as she drops the battleground conduct. Ca2james (talk) 00:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback folks. I'll direct Atsme to this discussion and hope she can look at it objectively.--MONGO04:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
A favor
I've written something of which I'm proud and several reviewers have encouraged me to work to promote the page. Would you look at John Hoskins (officer)? I've put it up for A-class review with the MilHist folks and I'd like to take this to FA if possible (I think it would pass GA now, but they don't like simultaneous reviews, which makes sense). It would be my first FA; I did get a featured portal long ago, which is a lot of work, but folks don't seem to respect that achievement. I'd never heard of the subject before last weekend; now I've got a DYK and a B-class from scratch. The story of this fellow gets better every time I find another source. It would mean a lot to me if you could help get it ready for FA review one day soon. Thanks. BusterD (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
There are strong writers associated with that project so they should provide a good review. I might also suggest posting it at Wikipedia:Peer review where I can review it or assist in various areas and review it at FAC, Featured article candidates. I can get involved at any level you wish and will gladly do so.--MONGO05:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Saw that post oh kindest of Jurassic vertebrates! I was planning on updating that article upon completion (if ever) of another update I'm crawling through. I knew they were almost gone in the wild but sounds like this will take a serious grassroots effort to stop.--MONGO21:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks but I think I will pass. @ViperFace: is a single purpose account whose sole effort is to promote apologetics for deviant behavior. I suspect if he persists down the road he has traveled thus far he will likely face a topic or site ban sooner or later. I encourage my talk page stalkers to examine ViperFace's agenda so when his username appears at a noticeboard or at arbcom it won't be a mystery.--MONGO05:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Also...pinged ViperFace not as an invitation to join the conversation here, but so he knew I'm not chatting negatively behind his back, as he was unkind enough to do about me and others here.--MONGO05:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No worries. I am aware that you have been involved with those articles and felt it wouldn't be right to suggest the merger without notifying you. For what it's worth, he has opposed the merger, at least for now, due to continued efforts to improve the existing article. Etamni | ✉ | ✓05:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The issue as far as the presentation is not that the registries or laws should be whitewashed so the reader is misled to believe that they are an absolute good for all, it's that ViperFace wants to do the opposite of that, so I doubt undue weight will be followed with his input. Best wishes.--MONGO05:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I spoke too soon and found he has retracted his oppose to the merger. Well, it's not over until it's over. Anyway, I'm looking for consensus on the idea of merging the topics, but am not married to the idea. If you feel like commenting here on the principle of merging them, I'm all ears (er, eyes). Etamni | ✉ | ✓05:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate your notification and will not take a stand either way on the merger. I started the Adam Walsh article right when the legislation was signed, but should it be merged I will not be concerned. my take was that the article focus, to follow summary style, should concisely detail the act and what it entails, why it was implemented (to consolidate state criteria for registrants into a national level for the sake of uniformity, and to make it harder for registrants to move to another state to avoid registering) and if need be, summary as to the act's shortcomings. ViperFace is determined, no doubt, and has managed to tone down his effort, but his and possibly one other editor were reverted quite awhile back and that's when all this started...[1]--MONGO05:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Those darn Bigfoot sure are pests...scaring campers, stinking up the woods, coordinating the 9/11 attacks(! LOL)...enough is enough...it's time for Bigfoot to go!--MONGO16:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
And Gandalf...who is actually a sub-sub contractor for an agency that doesn't have a name or even initials. Hehee...not surprised by the hobbit connection as they can hide real easy and could have planted thermite undetected. So while they were surely involved directly, Bigfoot (plural of Bigfoot is Bigfoot, akin to Moose but not Geese) these other players won't be incriminated because Bigfoot are the only pawns in the game of life!--MONGO17:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
It was removed based on a discussion between myself and Delldot during the article's GA review. The notable people section is a little bit too subjective in my opinion. Who gets included? Who gets left off? What are the actual requirements? There is also the problem that the list of names isn't really adding anything to the article itself without any mention of why they are included there. In the end, I removed it. --Stabila711 (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
The changes are scientifically justified in light of new scientific evidence. I am an experienced scientist who watched all 5 hours of the 9/11 Toronto hearings. I've now added a book reference of the conference procedings. As for 'warring' - I follow the evidence, as should you. You will see that there have been copious apologies to me from past people more interested in their own opinion that the scientific basis of their opinion. What qualifications do you have that would give you the credibility to overrule the scientific opinion of an Associate Professor making a judgement on the basis of a fresh review of scientific evidence? Have you supervised PhDs to completion? Have you examined PhDs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roryridleyduff (talk • contribs) 18:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Here are the scientific credentials of the conference procedings (taken from the information about the book): "Over the four days of the Toronto Hearings, noted authors and scientific experts presented the best evidence gathered in the previous decade to a panel of distinguished individuals whose opinion on the strength of the evidence should carry considerable weight in the public sphere. The four panelists were: Ferdinando Imposimato, former Senior Judge and Honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy; Herbert Jenkins, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at McMaster University, educated at Oberlin College and Harvard University; Richard Lee, Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at the University of Toronto and Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, previously positions at Harvard, Rutgers and Columbia University; and David Johnson, Professor Emeritus of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Tennessee and former President of the U.S. Fulbright Association, educated at Yale and Cornell. Much of the evidence these panelists heard and questioned during the Toronto Hearings is presented in the opening chapters of this report. Following the evidence, each panelist has presented his findings, conclusions and recommendations based on the evidence." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roryridleyduff (talk • contribs) 18:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I have no credentials...I'm a hairy woodland beast that resides sometimes in a cave and sometimes outside the interstellar medium and therefore have spotty internet access. Hugs and kisses!--MONGO19:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Can I suggest that Roryridleyduff firstly signs his "contributions" and desists from trying to add his conspiracy theories to a factual article. There is already a article for the conspiracy lobby and that is where these fantasies belong. This "editor" has been told numerous times regarding the "experts" he pushes and ignores the vast mainstream professional opinion. David J Johnson (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I got to 2 minutes into the YouTube clip and this guy said the "stories we been told for 10 years are not true"...at which point I then stopped watching...I must be narrow minded.--MONGO02:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I got a little farther than that, but then stopped and then skipped ahead and around a lot. It's the same old, same old. Look at the towers falling, omg, look at the little puffs of smoke! Mr. Occam must have been shaving because his razor was nowhere in sight. I gave up after about fifteen minutes, time which unfortunately I will never get back. Antandrus(talk)05:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Like good scientists we both gave it a chance but we were not swayed. Bigfoot is more likely of a reality. Hence, the easiest explanation is the right one....the more convoluted the story, the less chance it's true.--MONGO06:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
That is not 'good science' - that is utterly deplorable science. Can you imagine me writing to a journal editor saying I reject this article having read only the first two paragraphs? If you want to claim you are scientists you will have to - at the very least - get to the science itself which starts only from about the 30 minute mark. The first part of the video is about the staging of the conference and there is a press report questioning its credibility to which the organiser responds. Do not pass off your pathethic investigation of the video (let alone the peer-reviewed articles that are presented much later in the video) as 'science'. You have no credibility as Wikipedia editors or scientists if you behave this way and should be stripped of your Wikipedia editing powers. Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School 08:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roryridleyduff (talk • contribs)
wow, interactions with Ceoi now grounds for oppose at rfa! I feel strangely honoured I might be codified into scripture. I was actually following Carrite to that ADF, an editor I admire greatly. I was sorry to see I was used against Iian; whom I have had *no* interaction with. Wiki is very strange at times, and certainly bites back. Hope all is well, otherwise. Ceoil (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't understand that reasoning either. He's entitled to his oppose vote by all means, but how your interactions with him might further entrench his oppose against another unrelated Rfa candidate is just odd. Oh well...if he knew your work better Ceoil, I'm sure he would like you. Best wishes.--MONGO02:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
~The Special Wikipedian Tribble Award~ Go forth and multiply, we need more pedians like you!
You're a very special Wikipedian in my book. Being a mindful, considerate collaborator working to improve controversial articles for the benefit of the project is not an easy task, especially considering some of the mine fields one has to navigate in the face of relentless edit disruptions. It's not a simple Tiny TimTiptoe Through the Tulips, for sure. Thank you for all you do and all you've done to help make editing an enjoyable experience. And regardless of what the naysayers say, GAs and FAs do matter. --Atsme📞📧14:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Why thank you for such a fine commendation! It's all in the reliable references...if you have those and follow policies that's usually enough. Its also a bit of a poker game...sometimes you have to know when to fold because you can't "win" every hand even if you know you're right. Best wishes!--MONGO16:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
FAR
I have nominated Banff National Park for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Jarodalien (talk) 00:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you
Thanks for this! Good job restoring that content. I notified an admin about the disrputive editing by 97.126.235.119, but I think he may be off for the night. The IP is like a steamroller, just going into articles and removing content solely because it's not sourced, rather than adding tags (or trying to find sources). But the other big problem is that the IP has only been editing for a few weeks yet is acting like the boss of the BLP noticeboard and marking all the threads resolved. Something needs to be done to get that IP under control before they destroy many articles. Czoal (talk) 06:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I think enough folks will see it as disruptive sooner rather than later. I'd have no issue with removal of actual BLP violations but that does not appear to be what's going on here. It's borderline trolling at this point. Best wishes!--MONGO07:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I was hesitant to use the "T" word, but that's exactly what I've been thinking all evening. But I think the pieces to this puzzle are now coming together very clearly. See my last few comments on the BLP noticeboard. We have a disgruntled editor who used to have an article about themself that made them upset, so they're here to "save" other people with BLPs. And we apparently have a sock issue, also. Cheers. Czoal (talk) 08:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
They just got blocked for 31 hours for socking...not a newbie editor...has too much familiarity with deletion nomination and wikimarkup. That should calm things down for a bit.--MONGO08:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The hope is once the block expires and if they return that they might listen to the advice of numerous editors. Time will tell.--MONGO20:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
MONGO, I am concerned that your wholesale removal of content from the article may, itself, violate policy, in that the content mostly has academic RS (arguably the "gold standard" of RS on Wikipedia), and there is no actual "advocacy" in the portions of the article that you have been removing. I think the sections you want to remove should be explicitly discussed within the article's talk page before they are deleted, lest someone take the position that you are introducing bias and/or a POV that is not supported by RS into the article. I would still like to hear from you regarding where, exactly, an "agenda" or "advocacy" has been introduced by any other editor -- diffs to already-removed content would qualify -- as I simply haven't seen this in this particular article. Note: still on semi-wikibreak, so ping me if you reply here lest I miss your replyEtamni | ✉ | ✓03:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
If you move toward a neutral viewpoint then you get rewarded. SPA's, especially on controversial subjects, are a red flag to most editors. By all appearances you appear to be here to promote an agenda and are using this website to further that agenda...more often than not, SPA's such as yourself end up banned. This website has the core policy of NPOV and I recommend you read that policy and examine your purpose here.--MONGO07:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Since you restored my edits on Jedediah Smith, would you please move this discussion over to the talk page to give background for the RfC, that should have been intiated before the situation devolved to where it did? I don't know how to do that. Thanks. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
@LynnWysong:...I restored those edits because I thought you vandalized the page...I had not looked at the entire page history. I suppose but the other commentator may have to agree. Perhaps you can merely link to the discussion?--MONGO18:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I was ticked because we left the convo at asking for an RfC or an RsN, when suddenly another editor, who had never edited the page before, suddenly came on and reverted the edits in dispute. In addition, the source WIKI that was in dispute was suddenly changed by someone who made a brand new account right after the discussion, and took out all the material that was being discussed. Really hard to AGF. But sure, I can link to the discussion. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
For the Rfc if the other editor responds they can also link saying something like, this has been discussed [here]. I don't think anyone disagrees with the vast bulk of your editsz only a few of them...compromise is key as you surely know. However, since Smith is not a BLP (he's long deceased), there is no urgency for any party to be precisely correct or initially use perfect sources, but should the article go to GAN or FAC that would change. Best to get it right on the first go.--MONGO18:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
"but should the article go to GAN or FAC...Best to get it right on the first go." I have no intention of taking it there. My intention is to improve a lousy article. I ticks me off that it stayed so bad for so long, no one did anything, no one made any effort to collaborate, but user:Jojhutton felt entitled to jump in and revert the minute he saw something he didn't like. And then, doesn't play fair when I objected. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts, but this is a wiki so others may alter, change, disagree or remove things so try to not take it personally. Youtube isn't a reliable source since anyone can upload anything and they can pre-edit it it beforehand...I think you know this already. While you may have no intention of forwarding an article to GA or FA, if someone else does they will have to remove sketchy sources anyway, so why add them in the first place? Smith and David Jackson are interesting characters that could eventually be promoted and it looks overall that you have the ability to see that through should you decide to do so.--MONGO22:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
And to address the You Tube video as a source, I agree, there are sources that should not be used to support the major points of an article. Like the example I used on user:Jojhutton's talk page: if I had made an edit that stated that Jed Smith was an alien sent to earth to wipe out the beaver, then backed it up with a you tube video of a bunch of yay-hoos running around with tin foil caps on making that claim, there might be cause for some objection. But, if a you-tube video can enhance an already well cited assertion, doesn't that improve the article?
What I'm seeing is that people use policy to further their own agendas. They'll sit and hammer you with their interpretation of it to try to make you back away from paths they don't want you to do down, all the while engaging in forbidden behaviors, edit-warring, tag-teaming, admin-shopping, uncivilly throwing out any crazy accusation they can come up with, etc. I think a lot of is because many Wikipedians have a touch of OCD, and are so threatened by a non-rigid interpretation of the "rules" that they feel justified in doing whatever they think is necessary to bring someone back in line. And, that is why I won't participate in GA and FA: I'm not going to volunteer to run through a gauntlet of anal retentive editors; I get enough of that just trying to quietly improve articles. As I say on my user page: "The best (or perfect) is the enemy of the good." As far as I'm concerned, the process takes good, informative articles and ruins them. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Having been both a nominator and a FAC reviewer my personal experiences are that the vast majority of insights towards improvements at that level have been generally positive, collaborative and insightful. I admit one reviewer I've encountered was undeniably arrogant and obnoxious, but that is just one out of many dozens who weren't. I don't personally have an issue on an FAC I nominate if someone points out things that fail to meet a minimal standard. Since no one owns the articles, expect that from time to time someone might, correctly or not, question a source, question the neutrality or the scope or a myriad of other issues. The only way to avoid that scrutiny is to write and self publish your own work.--MONGO04:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, if I were truly trying to "avoid scrutiny", I might do that. However, I submit my original research to journals with specialization of the subject area in which I write, so the implication that I try to "avoid scrutiny" is baseless, both here and in real life. What I try to avoid, is the actions of those who do not act in good faith or civilly, and game the system. Sorry, but I'm a volunteer here, I did not sign up to have to deal with those behaviors, and from what I have seen, the GA and FAC process makes one a target for them. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry...
Sorry if I made you mad. I haven't followed the story, I just saw you edit warring on a hat. Let me ask though, since you have apparently been an admin and then again not an admin, don't you know how it feels to be told "you can't do this because you're not an admin" (especially when, in fact, you can)? LjL (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
It was not a block appeal but instead a question to uninvolved admins to review the issue of whether the topic ban was breached....the hatting editor is not an admin...I was waiting for a neutral admin...I wont get a neutral admin. The blocking admin was not available...hence, the inquiry.--MONGO00:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Got it. Maybe instead of edit warring on the hat you could open a second case with a clearer heading and description so it's obvious to any reader that you're not actually appealing the block but asking for information disclosure? LjL (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Nah..the only person that can answer this isn't currently online...and apparently no other neutral admins want to touch it. The original post was pretty clear I thought.--MONGO00:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Answer
Meh...do people really brag about being Wikipedians on their resumes or LinkedIn?
From what I have read, it is quite common.[4] In the current ANI thread, an editor has made the argument that Neelix has bragged about his contributions to Wikipedia to inflate his authority and sense of importance as a representative to the media. Viriditas (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I guess I was thinking mainly about me. If I could just point to FAs I worked on and say see lookie, I'm impotent. But if they look at the real MONGO (desysopped, blocks...on and off assholery) well...--MONGO22:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Try thinking about it differently. This is the real MONGO, calm, cogent, collected, medicated. :-) The desysopped, blocked, and asshole MONGO is the pawn in the game of life. Embrace your shadow but don't let it overwhelm you. You're a good person; all you have to do is be that person. Viriditas (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Medication for me means lots of food and lots of sleep....if deprived of either in sufficient quantities that can flip a switch. Anyhoo....since my FA work is unrelated to my career at present, I doubt my saying oh, btw, I'm MONGO over at Wikipedia! I can see the room grows silent...pupils dilate...eyebrows raise...the silent button that goes directly to armed security gets pressed...the SWATs surround the building. There is a chance a few are familiar with MONGO...I might find myself thrown out as a security risk!--MONGO00:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank yea Mr. Irondome Sir! MONGO thirst satisfied! Should last me a good long while...unless other hairy woodland beasts think I'm having them over to my cave, which I won't, but must hide it nevertheless.--MONGO23:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
You are welcome MONGO. MONGO been sounding a little low of late. Have courage MONGO! BEER helps to cheer the inner MONGO! Simon Irondome (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
MONGO (talk·contribs·count·logs·target logs·block log·lu·rfas·rfb·arb·rfc·lta·checkuser·socks·rights·blocks·protects·deletions·moves) - Edit tools.
63,718 edits total, 1 automated, 63,717 manual edits. Account started editing 2005. 47.5% to articles, 17.4% to article talk, 1.8% to user pages, 18% to user talk pages, 11.9% to wikipedia space, 2.5% to wikipedia talk pages. Last 500 edits go back 45 days. 22 articles with over 100 edits. 1224 edits to ANI, 219 edits to AN. 1213 pages created, 73 were redirects, so 1130 "real" pages created. 12 featured articles. Is NOT an administrator. Desysopped in 2006, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan Two unsuccessful Rfa attempts since. Last block in 2008.
Your voter guide
Very fine voter guide, little MONGO! All the work and good sense you've obviously put into it makes me feel a little embarrassed about lazily leaving mine all to the socks (with predictable results). Listen to MONGO, people, he's one of our best content contributors. Few people have a better basis for opining about arbitrators present and future. Bishonen | talk16:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC).
Thank you both but many would think that MONGO perhaps wee bit jaded due to past experiences. I looked at a number of issues and I admit to examining Ealdgyth's well formatted stats on the candidates to determine editing history, though much is based on my own observations. The other issues included my support of those with substantial content work, though I made exceptions, past admin or arbitration actions and a few other items. I don't know how many others would consider my opinion trustworthy but I surely appreciate your opinions.--MONGO19:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Grrrr...of all the nerve! Yes, we all want to follow copyrights but um...the image was one of the most important and encyclopedic images on Wikipedia! What is wrong with this place???!!! An alternative is being sought...but I doubt any can be found that will equal the one we've lost. Oh, and even if all you said was "there is an election for nine arbitrators", your guide would still surpass any I could produce...you are Bishonen after all...whereby I am but a mere MONGO.--MONGO16:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah...we're meaning the arbitration election. Much as I agree that Rfa is broken, I gave up on contributing ideas on how to fix it long ago.--MONGO17:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
RfA is broken. It is the only phrase I have learned on WP in 3.5 yrs. I always try to get it in. putting it in edit summaries regardless of context is fun. I have no idea what it means. Irondome (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hey! I noticed you reverted my edit. Now as you noticed (and probably why you reverted) many buildings were taken out. This is because who ever originally put them there lied and they aren't actually 100 m - check it for yourself :) .. Also I think there's no reason the rankings should go, they were great and helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingofWiki (talk • contribs) 21:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I will do so right away :) , the previous refs didnt even give heights, so I think theres a lot of wrong heights. Over the next while I want to fix that page, there is a lot of incorrect information on it.Dovikap : Talk21:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes refs for that sort of information is scanty. I think Skyscraper etc. is a wiki style reference so its probably okay but not ideal.--MONGO22:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
It's only been nearly seven years since it was promoted to featured...glad to see the nearly extinct critter is getting some long needed major attention!
Precious again, your impressive "critter" with the longest image ever - at least that I've seen!
Thank you Gerda...big fish needs big picture. I think this is the longest fish species in the fresh waters of North America. Some are heavier such as catfish. Was just happy to see it get mainpaged out of the blue.--MONGO08:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Indeed mighty Bishzilla...we are the most maligned living fossils on this site and its about time we got the attention we deserve! Bishopod should be pleased too!--MONGO16:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations! - I stopped by to wish you happy holidays, and just now read this post. I haven't read the article yet, but will as soon as I finish this post. I did scan over some of the references that were cited and it was like a walk down memory lane dating back to the early 90s when I was working with quite a few of the good folks in Montana, the Dakotas, etc. I have some underwater footage of pallids below Garrison Dam, if my memory serves, and I also shot some aquarium footage that looks good, too. Good job, Mongo!! Atsme📞📧20:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you @Atsme:. I live in Omaha currently, so with the Platte River just south and the Missouri just east, the plight of the Pallid is well known hereabouts. underwater footage would be really interesting to see! Don't hesitate to share your work if you want...but if you don't that's understandable.--MONGO01:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I have underwater stock footage of sturgeon in the wild that needs to be converted to digital, some of which I planned to upload to Wikipedia. I did manage to get some footage converted and uploaded before my machines went kaput. They need to go in for servicing but I haven't had time. One's priorities change with retirement. 😊 There's a segment of pallid sturgeon footage that I shot at the aquarium in Omaha back in the early 90s, and added it to the Sturgeon article along with some beluga sturgeon footage. At the time, I was working in cooperation with Nebraska Game & Parks, (Darrell Feit), US Fish & Wildlife, and the Army Corps. I'm trying to recall all of this from memory, so forgive me if I get any names or dates mixed up. Anyway, Sturgeon Ancient Survivors was the first feature-length program ever produced (57 minutes worth) and televised about the 7 North American species, (before we knew the status of the Alabama sturgeon). The program aired nationally on PBS as well as internationally. You can actually watch it on YouTube, but you'll have to forgive the quality of the upload: [6]. Atsme📞📧02:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Wow. Youre surely a lot more knowledgeable about these critters than a amateur researcher like myself. I had wanted to update the Pallid article but it wen to mainpage before I could get around to it. I watched your two posted videos at the sturgeon article and will check out the youtube clip here in a bit. Thank you for the links...much appreciated and I think I will post one at the Pallid article now.--MONGO04:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Geography / Geology infobox question
Hi Mongo, I'm planning to make a whole series of wikipedia articles on towns, rivers, and geological formations in Northern Kenya. The formations include oases, plateaus, and sometimes volcanic hills or other structures that are also paleontological or archaeological sites.
I'm not sure what infoboxes are best for structures that are neither towns, rivers, mountains nor necessarily officially protected areas. They are basically geological, paleontological and archaeological sites. Do you have any recommendations? Ideally the best infobox would allow me to load an image of the site, a map of kenya where I can note the coordinates, and possibly list other things like wildlife, geology, etc. Two examples are Aiyangiyang and Karsa, Kenya. -Darouet (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Darouet:! There are many templates available, but they are generally focus specific. In other words, while a protected area infobox template may have parameters that allow for such things as the coordinates, they mostly focus on governing bodies, dates of protection and such things. If your article is primarily about an archeological site, then perhaps use [[Template:Infobox ancient site]][7]. If not a specific archeological/historical site then we have templates for geological features like [[Template:Infobox valley]][8] or a rock formation maybe [[Template:Infobox rockunit]][9]. Another area you might search is at [[Category:Geography infobox templates]][10] which links to more specific infoboxes. In some situations, many editors here prefer to keep infoboxes simple and if there is enough information, instead of summarizing it in such boxes, use article space to do so, where greater elaboration is possible.--MONGO00:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Mongo - between ancient site and rock unit, hopefully I can get some of these. Many of the features fall elsewhere. I wonder if I could perhaps make my own template. -Darouet (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm far from a smart one on templates. I know you can subtract parameters that are unused and I think in the past I have even added some to existing templates. Those that are oftentimes well versed in templates such as the ones you are looking for usually have the template documentation talkpages watchlisted, so you could ask there. Alternatively, you sure could devise your own as we may not have one that works for your specific situation.--MONGO01:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you AQFK! Seems the conspiracy theories are never going to go away even if an average joe in his home workshop can easily show how preposterous most of their engineering arguments are. And yes, I do think Hobbits had something to do with it though...--MONGO00:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree. I've long believed that the primary rationale for most of those conspiracy theories are so someone can make a buck.--MONGO02:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
78.26's RFA Appreciation award
The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26(spin me / revolutions)24:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Best wishes for your Christmas Is all you get from me 'Cause I ain't no Santa Claus Don't own no Christmas tree. But if wishes was health and money I'd fill your buck-skin poke Your doctor would go hungry An' you never would be broke." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1914. Montanabw(talk)
You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.
1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.
3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.
6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
.jpg)
