User talk:MONGO/Archive11

User:C-Liberal at Capitalism

S/he's back to inserting this stuff into the lead that even Ultramarine has agreed is incorrect. Specifically, it puts in language defining capitalism by complete absence of government regulation. It's perfectly fine for a Libertarian, or whoever, to think that's an ideal, but turning the definition of capitalism into that (thereby excluding every society that has ever existed) is extremely misleading. It's not 3RR yet (twice three times in the last few minutes, with some not-quite-identical versions another 3-4 times; I think that last try was more than 24 hours ago); but it's really not something that is fit to stay. I wonder if you think this is worth short-term page protection again? LotLE×talk 01:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering the same, and posted a request for semi-protection, given the strong possibility of sockpuppet editing. [1] 172 | Talk 06:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but who is using a sock possibly?--MONGO 06:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing more than circumstantial evidence. Still, I suspect RJII. RJII made nearly 1,200 edits to the article. With that level of activity, it is probably hard to let go. (RJII was banned indefinately around a week ago after he/she/they admitted the account was shared. RJII had been on verge of a one year ban by the arbcom anyway.) 172 | Talk 06:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

C-Liberal (talk · contribs) has almost 50 postings, so semiprotection won't keep him/her from editing. I'll continue to monitor. Did Lulu get C-Liberal's edits cleaned up?--MONGO 07:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Lulu cleaned them up... I know C-Liberal's passing the threshold. Still, semi-protection may at least discourage future potnetial socks. 172 | Talk 07:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see you put in a request...I'll semi-protect it then, since you guys have been doing the editing and know what's going on.--MONGO 07:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"Vandalism" warning from suspected sockpuppet

Take a look at User talk:DejahThoris, there is a vandalism warning from User:Nancetlv who is apparently a suspected sock puppet of banned user User:Israelbeach. Since this is the case, and since there has already been an objection by another user on the talk page that the "vandalism" warning is not warranted can you as an administrator take off the warning from the user's talk page?--Jersey Devil 03:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

An odd edit

See here. :) -Zero^Talk 08:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Fidel Castro and Teemu Ruskeepä

User:Teemu Ruskeepää has ignored many, many requests that he cease promoting an extremely unpopular "talk page restructuring" on various Cuba related pages, notably Fidel Castro. Despite warnings from myself, other users and admins that his behaviour is potentially disruptive and may lead to a block, he has continued unabashed, adding confusing lengthy polls to each talkpage addition. He is materially obstructing much needed work on the page, which is a view held by all, and I believe the patience of the many has just worn out. May I suggest an editing embargo on Teemu, or even an exploding cigar?--Zleitzen 09:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• No, just deport him to Cuba. Wahkeenah 12:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ping

I like once in while to remind you that even tedious wiki-gnomes like myself do article work. ^_^
brenneman ^{L} 02:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Happy Independence Day

Hi MONGO, I know we haven't always seen eye to eye in the past but I wanted to say I enjoyed your special user page very much. Maybe one day my country (Scotland) can declare its own independence from England! I know, don't hold your breath... Enjoy the holiday, --Guinnog 05:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you...will do my best. Happy editing!--MONGO 06:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

RFA question

I've been away from my computer, so couldn't respond sooner. I'm glad to see that the matter seems to have sorted itself out, and I'm sure it is happy to rest in peace. Best regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Rfa

I'm sorry if I overreacted. I understand the frustration you have with such sites, my reaction was influenced by how upset that content makes me, as I think was yours. No hard feelings. pschemp | talk 04:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, I need your help

Mongo, I need help from an administrator. I realize that you don't know me. I am a retired engineer who has been active in Wikipedia for the last 6 months as you can verify on my User:Mbeychok page. This will take quite a lot of explanatory background, so please bear with me.

First, the help I need concerns the Legionellosis and Legionella articles. About a week or so ago, I spent quite a bit of time re-arranging, re-writing and expanding parts of those articles ... to make them more coherent and more Wikified without changing the substance of their content at all (because I am no expert in that field). The expansion that I contributed was all related to how to maintain and control cooling towers to prevent their contamination with the Legionella bacteria that causes Legionnaires' disease.

Then a newcomer to Wikipedia, User:Noigel2000, started making revisions. He is the owner of a number of websites and Yahoo Group forums, most notable of which are [2] and [3]. They are a strange mixture of newspaper reports, excerpts from reference sources, personal opinions of User:Noigel2000, and images (some of which are quite weird). This is a direct quote of his from his own User talk:Noigel2000 page: "Some call me a Legioneela Advocate, Others a Legionella Nut or Legionella Fan some stronger than that".

If you will read items 5 and 6 on the Talk:Legionellosis page, entitled "Minor alterations" and "Minor alterations (more)", you will see that I and User:Pzavon disagreed quite strongly with some of his changes. As part of that dialogue, here is another quote from Noigel: "Same as this place its all click click click, no point really, spend a couple of hours on my pages and you will learn everything about LD", which in effect says that he doesn't value Wikipedia much and that his web pages are better than Wikipedia.

As another result of his revisions, the two articles ended up with more than ten links to various pages on his website ... so I deleted a number of them although the two articles still include multiple references to his website. Some are in the External links sections, some in the Images sections, some in the References sections, and some are imbedded in the texts of the two articles. In effect, the two articles are being used as a billboard to direct traffic to his websites.

In retaliation for my having removed some of multiple links to his site, Zoigel then deleted whole sections of the Legionella article which I had to subsequently revert.

You lie on this point, I never deleted your parts of your article in retallition of you deleting my links. I just cant see why you want a page on legionella and legionellosis when its the same, its you that admitts its not your field, so go bye byes its better that way, and me thinks your here under several other names as well, go back to your own field of work mongo take a look at both pages ..do you really need both

--Noigel2000 14:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved in a revert war with Noigel, and therefore I am asking for your help to get him to modify his behavior. But before you do anything, please take the time to:

• Scan his websites at links [2] and [3] above.
• Read all of his User Talk:Noigel2000 page to get a flavor of how he behaves.
• Read items 5 and 6 on Talk:Legionellosis and also readTalk:Legionella.

Thanks in advance. - mbeychok 18:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, thanks for your help and I'll be sure to let you know if he keeps acting up. - mbeychok 20:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I thought I would comment on this, you are nuts mbeychok, seems you can delete things but I cant, go cry in your soup, and as for my pages every search engine brings them up in the first 10. I dont need this place to direct people to my sites, I just need the truth told here, something you fight shy of, and i will act up, what a stuffing little cry baby you are , you put wrong information on a page and then cry when its taken off. take a pill better that way - Noigel2000 13:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah shucks is he that greedy, but still theres plenty left for everyone. A whats your name again, how came your outbreaks go from 1976 then the next is 1999, you missed a few go to my sites

http://www.q-net.net.au/~legion/Legionnaires_Disease_Position_Statement.htm or http://www.q-net.net.au/~legion/Legionnaire`s_Disease_CONTENTS.htm

would put them in myself but you would have a cry as you did not do it yourself, as for only newspaper articles and alike seethis page, The whole french governments official article on the outbrak at Norox, translated into english by me so as uninformed folks like you can read about it http://members.dodo.net.au/~jamgreen/legionellose_france.index.htm

or pop along to this place on spain, fill yourself in on the outbreaks http://www.q-net.net.au/~legion/legionella.legionela.spain.htm

have a good read, and shucks rubbish my pages thats a no no, I'm a Advocate, my mouth has to be big, oh well ban me then who cares, just hate little mummies boys that have to shout for help Mbeychok opps visit this one the official report on the outbreak in 1996 in Alcala De Henares http://home.iprimus.com.au/matgreen/Legionnaires_Disease_Alcala_De_Henares_English.htm. Translated to english by me or see this one http://www.q-net.net.au/~legion/Legionnaires.Disease,Spain.alcala.htm

I even went to Alcala De Henares in 2000 to help the folks in the fight with the local council on the number one tower which caused the outbreak, I always try to visit outbreaks sites There is an exception to every rule links back to my sites should be allowed, its not a commercial site

oh well back to what i do best

--Noigel2000 15:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, if someone is handing out nuts, watch MONGO closely: He'll hog all the cashews. - brenneman ^{L} 13:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah shucks is he that greedy, but still theres plenty left for everyone. A whats your name again, how came your outbreaks go from 1976 then the next is 1999, you missed a few go to my sites

http://www.q-net.net.au/~legion/Legionnaires_Disease_Position_Statement.htm or http://www.q-net.net.au/~legion/Legionnaire`s_Disease_CONTENTS.htm

would put them in myself but you would have a cry as you did not do it yourself, as for only newspaper articles and alike seethis page, The whole french governments official article on the outbrak at Norox, translated into english by me so as uninformed folks like you can read about it http://members.dodo.net.au/~jamgreen/legionellose_france.index.htm

or pop along to this place on spain, fill yourself in on the outbreaks http://www.q-net.net.au/~legion/legionella.legionela.spain.htm

have a good read, and shucks rubbish my pages thats a no no, I'm a Advocate, my mouth has to be big, oh well ban me then who cares, just hate little mummies boys that have to shout for help Mbeychok opps visit this one the official report on the outbreak in 1996 in Alcala De Henares http://home.iprimus.com.au/matgreen/Legionnaires_Disease_Alcala_De_Henares_English.htm. Translated to english by me or see this one http://www.q-net.net.au/~legion/Legionnaires.Disease,Spain.alcala.htm

I even went to Alcala De Henares in 2000 to help the folks in the fight with the local council on the number one tower which caused the outbreak, I always try to visit outbreaks sites There is an exception to every rule links back to my sites should be allowed, its not a commercial site

oh well back to what i do best

Goethean (talk · contribs)

Now he is going to different articles I have contributed to and reverting my contributions (dostoevsky). I had to get a phd'ed editor and member of the neoplatonic community to correct his revert war on my content for plotinus (aka zeusnoos). Now he is going to other articles I have contributed to and either reverting or doing "edits". He is also complaining that I am reporting his conduct. This along side insulting other editors AKA personal attacks, this is a pattern of disruptive behavior. LoveMonkey 21:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Plotinus edit is [4] on the talk page he compares me to nazis. Also he just committee one edit on the Vladimir Lossky article I contributed. He removed information THAT DIRECTLY CAUSES DISTORTIONS TO THE MESSAGE OF THE AUTHORS OWN WORKS.I am worried about contributing other article because they will be revert war or put up for deletion. Here are other edits Essence-Energies distinction [5]. As for Dostoevsky I literially put the references in the edit. His books Diary of a writer and The demons. LoveMonkey 21:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If you will not help me to stop him from reverting out almost every contribution I have made, then please refer me to someone that will. I don't have time to contribute and then fight this person over every word. LoveMonkey 21:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is this person allowed to use profanity insult multiple editors and revert war multiple editors, engage in distruptive conduct (by deleting peoples contibution and putting their articles up for deletion) STALKING editors and engaging in deragatory and inflaming conduct and you can DO NOTHING? He just showed again in the derogatory comments he left on my talkpage that there is no working out a resolve either be a doormat or leave is his message. When will something be done? LoveMonkey 22:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. LoveMonkey 22:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protect Political philosophy

Wanna? There's an addition of this weird irrelevant name over there, always by an anon, but different addresses. It had been happening for months, but infrequently (every week or two), in the last day the vandal has increased volume quite a bit. I actually just wrote 172 about the issue: User talk:172#Advice on Political philosophy; not sure if the acceleration is connected in any way. I'm pretty sure semi-protection solves it, since no named editor is so silly. LotLE×talk 02:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hi MONGO! MONGO, if you are having a bad day, or think that i am troling, then don't read the rest of this message and just erase it. Otherwise, i have a honest question. Considering that you belive 100% on the government version, how do you explain news like this? peace. --Striver 08:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I looked over your link and the sublink from that to World Trade Center United Family Group, and nowhere on their website do they have one mention of a government coverup. Do you pay money to Alex Jones to be able to listen to his programming...just curious.--MONGO 09:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No, actualy not. So in short, you belive his making stuff up? --Striver 19:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT a political forum and/or a soapbox.--Jersey Devil 20:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Striver, when people experience great trauma in their lives, they may be angry and the U.S. Government is an easy target. To be honest, I think it's awful this guy lost his son, but to think the U.S. Government would be behind it is insanity. You do realize that Alex Jones, Steven Jones and a lot of others that have websites and publish books are looking to make a profit, don't you? In all liklihood, this fellow that was on Alex Jones show did the United Family Group a disservice monetarily with such wild speculations...they should think about replacing him with someone that is in better control of their faculties.--MONGO 06:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Image gallery

I noticed that the images in your gallery don't display properly. I have a version using the same coding at User:Guinnog/gallery and wonder if we can figure out why neither of these galleries works properly, with a view to fixing them. Thanks if you can come up with any ideas. --Guinnog 11:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

They seem to be fine on my browser..(IE)...but as far as understanding the way it's coded, I wouldn't have the foggiest...my userpage design is due to the excellent work of Phaedriel, so she may have an idea on what to do. I have zero formating skills when it comes to this kind of thing.--MONGO 11:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I will ask her. I am using Firefox and maybe that is the problem. --Guinnog 11:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Could be a bug also...see if you can find anyone else with a similar setup that isn't using IE.--MONGO 12:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently in the middle of annoying all my friends by asking them to look at it and see if it works out, and what setup they're working with... Thanks for taking the time to help. I stuck a few more pics up if you're interested.

What's this about the cashews? --Guinnog 01:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Free iran

See my response. --CBD 12:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

A new userbox you might like

Hi MONGO,

I couldn't resist making the following userbox after reading the attached link. After being insulted on numerous occasions by trolls I decided to fight back the best way I know how -- with a witty userbox! Feel free to remove this from your talk page if you don't appreciate the humour. = )

Cheers,

 Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  06:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

WP: Policies & guidelines This Wikipedian is proud to be a “Bureaucratic F**k”.

I can appreciate that. I really don't care about their website, since they are obviously trolls. What I don't like is the fact that they aren't even funny! It is such adolescent childishness, I decided really quickly that I wasn't going to bother with them. What they don't understand is that prior legalities aside...anyone can be sued...all you need is the financial resources, a lawyer and a court that will hear the case...litigation is expensive and I doubt any of them have more than a few bucks to rub together...it doesn't matter what prior laws were decided...if a good enough lawyer decided to he could shut them down and sue the crap out of those that knowingly allow libellous misrepresentations to perpetuate...rights to privacy are other issues as well. Worse yet, some really easy digging and the major players there are easily exposed...I was amazed at how stupid they are about their own personal information in some cases.--MONGO 06:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

MONGO,

Can you please cross out any comments that have been addressed as they are causing me grief to the point that I might withdraw from the nomination. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

ED links

I don't know why they made a whole article about you and it's not my fault. I think you're just upset because there's an article about you.

Also somebody else made a link to it on Jimbo's Talk page, which you've left up (it's the user box one). DyslexicEditor 13:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It's already gone...I was going to delete myself later. I don't care if the website exists, I do care about us using key pages to mention them and Jimbo Wales page is key.--MONGO 18:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If you guys are referring to my userbox, I've already removed any reference to it from Jimbo's talk page. However I'm requesting a deletion review of the Userbox but I am willing to address some outstanding concerns which I've noted here. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  19:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Rabbit Green

Hi Mongo, I couldn't help noticing that you deleted my article on "Rabbit Green" considering that it sort of disappeared. You stated that it was "Patent Nonsense", can I ask why. All the information in it is perfectly valid and, as far as I can see, a detailed explanation of a concept which is becoming increasingly popular in Sydney, similar to "emo". I admit that some of it may appear that it was written by a two year old however it is merely stating the facts, nobody has actually seen a Rabbit Green and the article attempts to describe what one would look like based on what others have described it to be. Remember, just because you haven't been exposed to something doesn't make it nonsense.

Cheers

Mr Facts 01:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You've obviously been back to this page and haven't replied to my comment. I'm assuming that your deletion was a mistake and am reposting the article

Cheerio

Mr Facts 05:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it wasn't a mistake and wikipedia is not the place to have articles that are hoaxes, or at the very least, so completely nonnotable that they cannot even be referenced.--MONGO 11:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Please please please give me some time to respond before you delete something just because you haven't been exposed to it. There is no reason to doubt this article, and if you do walk into any Norwest School and ask what Rabbit Green is, I'm certain you'll find at least 3 people who know what it is in each school.

I'm going to post the article again, and I would ask that you at least go over this with me before callously deleting it.

Mr Facts 06:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Netscott

I believe an admin would have to make an adjustment to an editor's User Page, not an editor, particularly one that is embroiled in a debate at Category:Anti-Semitic people with the same editor. Thank you Porky Pig 13:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I can appreciate that...it may have been retalitory...did he ask you first on your talk page, before removing it? I mean, that's not mandatory, but it's the polite way to do it. On the other hand, when you blanked part of his userpage, and then posted a false vandal report, that was definitely retalitory. Just try to not put fair use images up on your userpage and you two stay away from each other for a bit.--MONGO 14:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The editor User:Nescott did not suggest on my user talk page and I deemed it as an attack. The more mature way to have handled it would have been to contact an administrator, then I would not have objected. Thank you for your input. Porky Pig 14:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

No retaliation on my part... I just happened to become aware of this user's Fair use image violation after clicking on their user page from a discussion surrounding the propriety of adding a disclaimer to Category:Anti-Semitic people. See this talk. (→Netscott) 14:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I figured as much...no worries.--MONGO 14:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, please be advised that User:Porky Pig is likely a sockpuppet of permanently blocked editor User:SirIsaacBrock based upon editing topics/style, editorial summary comments, etc. Please note usage of the word "Cordially" relative to a discussion involving this category here on User:Zoe's talk page as compared to here on User:TexasAndroid's talk page. Unless I can convince admins of this, I'll be opening a WP:RFCU case shortly as I build my evidence. Thanks. (→Netscott) 16:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This is now on WP:ANI. Thanks. (→Netscott) 17:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not the editor User:Netscott is accusing me of being, would you please stop this person from attacking me thank you. He has posted a bunch of stuff at a webpage on wiki. You can understand the mentality of the person I am dealing with now. Thank you Porky Pig 18:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussing articles at +cat

Would you please provide me with the wiki page that has guidelines for the discussion of articles within a +cat. I believe the policy is to discuss the matter at the articles talk page, rather than the +cat talk page, but I am unable to find a reference at wiki. If there isn't one, would you consider adding one? Thank you Porky Pig 17:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Editing

Thanks for the reminder re: the changes I made while not logged in. I was remiss in not doing so ( I use many different computers because of my work, and sometimes forget, or don't take the time, to do so). Anyway, thanks again and I'll keep your reminder in mind. Levi P. 02:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I did not include an edit summary at the time I made the edit (I'm new, sorry) and attempted to correct that but was unable to. How would you recommend I do so? Or is it alright since I addressed the matter on the talk page? I guess I'm just wondering what would be the proper way to correct my mistake. Thanks for your help. Levi P. 02:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Need a couple of favors.

Please do the following for me: Semi protect my userpage. delete the image Image:Karrmannaustinhealey.jpg Thanks! Karrmann 07:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Done abakharev 08:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Polar Bear-baiting

This article was recently deleted. It should not have been deleted, as it was factually correct including citations. Is there a way to recover the deleted article ? I did not save it to my hard drive. Thank you SirIsaacBrock 14:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I can recover it, but it was brought to a vote and the vote was to delete the article, so I won't restore it. See:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polar Bear-baiting--MONGO 14:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into the matter. I do agree with some of the comments, but none of them warrant the deletion of the article. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 14:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, you are very helpful :) SirIsaacBrock 14:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Baiting

Hello Mongo,

It seems User:Hipocrite has tagged the following baiting articles Lion-baiting Monkey-baiting Human-baiting and Rat-baiting with a delete tag out of spite. It there a way to remedy this type of poor behaviour ? SirIsaacBrock 17:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You could cite reliable sources for the articles, refrain from removing cleanup tags and instead clean up articles, and focus on the encyclopedic tone required for an encyclopedia. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment - With respect, the quoted information has citiations with sources and dates provided; the sources are over 100 years old. I don't believe they would be copyvio. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 18:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Tone which has made the articles seem less descriptive of the acts and more an exciting group of anecdotes of questionable relevence, and secondary sources. Primary sources are not generally acceptable for encyclopedias. Please see WP:RS. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Well, I'm glad you were able to convince yourself of my innocence.

Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"Climate Change"

Fight the alarmist media! Global Warming Hoaxers and Alarmists are lying to YOU!Hoask 04:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem kind -- can you help?

Being a new Wikipedian (May 2006}, I nominated a stub high school article for deletion on July 11: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent-Meridian High School. Posts are still being made as of today, some attacking my motives and integrety, even though I have retracted the nomination for deletion twice.

An excerpt from the comments on the page tells be why:

Comment User:RJHall just posted a notice on at least 20 different user pages (including mine User_talk:Metros232 - " rel="nofollow"> alerting people of this discussion using the member list at WP:SCH. - Metros232 16:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yup I did. The delete High School discussion is a recurring theme in AfD, and I was hoping to use the latest rallying cry of the deletists (the "failed" WP:SCHOOL policy) to prompt a new discussion specifically about High School notability. Thanks. — RJHall 22:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't reproduce the code of exerpt (above) here very well (the links work though), but if you could call a halt to this I would really appreciate it. The people posting continue to attack me and obviously have not read the preceding comments as the Meridian High School article has been improved considerbly since the nomimation and merged with Meridian School District according to the comments on the page.

Isn't this against WP:SPAM - Article 3? Please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent-Meridian High School.

It's very intimidating, violates the policies that Wikipedia states it has, and gives me dread. I had no idea that schools were a hot-button issue. I feel this whole posting is increasingly showing bad faith. What more can I do? Is there a place I can appeal to? KarenAnn 13:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. If I am being oversensitive and too wimpy, let me know. I'm trying to get tougher -- I just didn't know people could be so openly mean. KarenAnn 13:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I can post a reminder to those that have been spamming if you wish

I wish you would, as I think such experiences drive well-motivated novices away from Wikipedia. And I promised on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent-Meridian High School that I will never touch a school page again, and I mean it. I just was clueless, else I never would have stepped into that minefield. KarenAnn 14:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not going to nominate any articles for deletion again. I have withdrawn from many articles and activities that I used to enjoy (like Cuban-related articles after the Teemu episode and all the subsequent arguing that is still going on at the expense of any progress on the article). I'm too academic and over-educated, and not the right kind of person to be involved with Wikipedia, I think. KarenAnn 14:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

School spam

Thanks and duly noted. I'll see if I can work in the context of the Schools project talk page to work this out. — RJH (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks MONGO!

I'm a forensic psychologist -- something in common!

My profession entails having a high profile and getting the same kind of unprovoked attacks as here. Now it has happened twice in a month on Wikipedia -- just what I want to avoid! So thanks for your reassuring words and suggestions. (There should be a Wikipedia crisis intervention page for new people in shock.) KarenAnn 15:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

silencing dissent?

What the hell is with you removing all my comments from Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks? Is only one side of the argument allowed to be presented there?

I was only trying to suggest a little neutrality, so by removing what I said without reason you've shown that you are willing to abuse your position to push a POV. Damburger 16:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand how someone as ignorant as yourself is desperate to silence those with contrary opinions, but now you are being fucking pathetic. Every time I post something to that page you remove it and are now threatening me with a block merely for voicing my opinion. Congratulations on being a Fascist. Damburger 16:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have experienced this same problem with this same Wikipedia user. The tags on the 9/11 page says its partially protected and that additions should be made first to the comments page rather than the main article. There's a lengthy, sophomoric analysis of American journalism that appears on the comments page, which is way off topic, but it has remained. Even though I had some my additions vandalized, I still respect that others have their viewpoints.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.0.91 (talk • contribs)

The zogby poll has been discussed elsewhere and is a misleading poll...Zogby should be ashamed of itself for even conducting it and the bias they demonstrated with the types of qeustioning they asked is appaling...as far as I am concerned, I'll never trust another Zogby poll again. It's you POV that makes you blind to this very fact.--MONGO 15:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Administrator took mercy and closed Kent-Meridian School early

He did it because (according to my Watchlist) "(being WP:BOLD and closing as keep, nothing productive will come of this, so I'm ending the sarcasm and personal attacks".

The attacks on me were just getting worse. That spamming unleashes vicious people. I mulled over changing my name permanently through the administrative process but it sounded too complicated.

To think that I became invoved in Wikipedia when I realized all I knew were criminals and I needed to get a life, since I am retiring. But now I know I prefer murderers to Wikipedians -- murderers are up front and more civil! KarenAnn 22:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Apology to you for being such a jerk!

A spell of desperate cynicism but I am over it. Thank you for being kind and tactful. All my prior AFD's have been for blatant advertising and I obviously was insensitive about the school issue.

I looked at your articles and wonder if you are from Montana or that generl area. If you are, it is lovely country. I like the space and the visible horizon, although I have been frightened driving at night and caught in empty land between distant towns. I worked on some park articles for a while, not on the scale you have. Lately I've have been helping little places in other countries get their village or temple or tribe web page cleaned up. That's been remarkably interesting since sometimes when I start I can't even figure out what continent they are on. There still are little geology-related articles I come across to work on, or a short explanation of something scientific that needs to be clean up and attached.

Regarding anthropology, the school I went to was very much into Kroeber and I took many cultural anthology courses, not even thinking about physical anthropology and the satisfaction of putting clues together.

So I'll take your advice, work on low key areas of interest, and be more astute. (I think it is something about my name that draws fire. Maybe I should change it.)

Anyway, thank you for all your help. KarenAnn 19:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I was in the middle of nominating another AFD when you bannered me.

Can't resist. Not a school though but an obvious promo. And when I was checking it upon completion, someone had already agreed. The school thing was a fluke. Almost every one I have nominated has been deleted, except for "petal pumping" which I thought was a hoax but turns out to be a bonofide foot fetish, as was explained to me -- but politely. No one got upset! KarenAnn 22:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I didn't mean to be flippant. I have learned never to nominate schools, bands or musical performers, generalized last names, and probably a few other catagories. I usually stick to adverts and try to get them on a copy vio first -- so I am taking in information and becoming more adept, I hope. KarenAnn 00:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You blocked my vandal

Thanks for standing up for the little guy! ^.^ --Pifactorial 09:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

ED article

Just to clarify this, I reverted the Encyclopædia Dramatica article to the version with the old main page picture, then the image was overwritten with the new version you then deleted. I don't see a problem with keeping the old main page picture, and I'm sure enough eyes will revert any attempts to add any personal attacks in any way. --Conti|✉ 14:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

We're pretty confused at the talk page at the article right now as to why the image was deleted outright instead of reverted, and why we're protected now. Care to hit up the talk page for us? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Because others have reinserted the new version with the current mainpage status which constitutes a personal attack on me. I don't have to put up with it here and I'm not going to. I don't give a good godamn damn what a bunch of trash do on that website, but they are not going to import their shit into wikipedia, do you now understand?--MONGO 19:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, as someone who is 100% totally standing up for you - your back is gotten. You should take a step back and have a cup of tea. I know how stressful thing kind of thing can be. I'm certain that Tony S. will do what needs to get done. Walk away for a few.Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thanks...all I ahve asked is that the image of their current mainpage not be reinserted. I don't care if protection is lifted...but the warning stands that if I see that image of the current mainpage put back in, the repercussions will be immediate and permanent.--MONGO 19:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The only way that image will be in the article will be over the dead bodies of many many people here. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

None of us want the "current mainpage" image reinstated, so it's not an issue. You don't have to get so snippy about it, read the talk page comments. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I can see little reason to use this website to do anything more than mention that ED exists. I'll be making sure that the ED article and those that edit it, complies completely with our policies and if it can't, then it will be long bumpy road for those who are trying to use this medium to promote that website.--MONGO 19:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That's all we've been trying to do, don't worry. Don't let one moronic troll get his way. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that person had hoped for page protection, but that was the end result. I delted the image twice and it was then recreated over the older version. I don't think that having a screen shot of any page from that website helps wikipedia have an encyclopedic entry on the website. This isn't about mnaking ED editors happy, it's about ensuring we don't allow our medium to promote theirs.--MONGO 21:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's not a vehicle for promotion, but I do suggest reading over the archives to see where we've gotten from. If anything, a number of editors have been extremely careful to keep things on the up and up given the subject matter. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Protection policy, under "How," number one:

"Do not edit or revert a temporarily protected page, except to add a protected page notice, a link to Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute or Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, or a similar disclaimer about the current state of an article, unless there is widespread agreement that the page was protected in violation of these policies."

I understand you're upset, and I don't disagree. You are, however, now crossing lines that need not be crossed. Please revert yourself. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Banff

I was in Banff National Park once, but it was a long time ago as part of a family trip. (We also visited Calgary and Vancouver on that trip, and I think we might even have seen Mount St. Helens as well. Also, I think we spent a lot of time driving.) I don't think I'd have much to add to the article without having to study up on it.

Actually, these days I'm rather busy working on Minnesota, trying to get it to FA status with some other people from WP:WPMN. (The history section didn't even say anything major about happenings after 1861.) After that, I plan to work on History of Minnesota, which needs some serious help. It seems like the work on Wikipedia is never done. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 22:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

[[I, Kizzle, hearby award MONGO, the Fuck Encyclopedia Dramatica Barnstar, for somehow drawing the attention of a website full of people who think they are waaaay funnier than they really are. The time it took to craft an article that, truth be told, was about as funny as Carrot Top should be worn as a badge of honor. That someone wasted their precious time, of which so little is given to us humans, to try to provoke a negative reaction out of you because of some false perceived injustice that was probably trolling on their part in the first place is proof that you're doing your job correctly :)]]

You might want to look at this

You have a stalker: -- Fan-1967 04:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:your reversions

You are abusing your tools. I suggest you go offline for a while and calm down. You are a good guy but you have a tendency to play on borderline of acceptable behaviour. Don't do that. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Replied on my talk. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I blocked and reverted someone who was mass spamming and trolling some stuff about you just to let you know. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk: Encyclopedia Dramatica

With due respect, I think you’re taking this whole Encyclopaedia Dramatica thing too far. Is four edits to a talk page in under a minute [6] the norm? Take a breather, rather than hammer recent changes. ~ IICATSII 07:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I was correcting my own typos...now you engage in personal attacks elsewhere, no surprise.[7]--MONGO 07:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I did it!!!! I did it!! This is almost as good as my liberal cabal membership. --kizzle 07:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't insulted you, I stated that you could handle this case with a little more decorum and that several wikipedians have articles there (yes I have one too). I admire your merits, however I still believe you need to take a breather from this until it blows over. ~ IICATSII 08:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Check User

Hi, can you maybe do a check user for me? I suspect that User:Zapatancas is using the name User:Hagiographer to avoid his ban on editting José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero.--Jersey Devil 11:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Your revert at Monad

There will be no "hashing it out on the talk page", as you put it, so you may or may not want to re-consider your edit to Monad. I have very little interest in that article, and only cleaned it up in passing as I have cleaned up dozens of disambiguation pages. I have pointed LoveMonkey at WP:D, but he obviously has a POV to grind, and I'm not going to follow up further, since there are literally thousands of poorly constructed disambiguation pages on Wikipedia that I can work on when I'm not RC patroling. -Harmil 13:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Background

What's the deal with Hardwick? You archived, why is he all hot and bothered about it, and what's up with his allergy to the word "troll" as an inexcusable personal attack? Apologies for not doing the digging through histories thing. Thanks much - KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The Whole Encylopedia Dramatica Thing

Sir, I mean no offense when I say this, but I implore you to please take a breather, evaluate the situation, and realize that you are not a neutral party, and should not be proposing the article for deletion. Please, keep an NPOV, and do not harass users, as per Wikipedia Policy. --Jmax- 23:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops... I mis-read the deletion page. I apologize for not getting my facts straight. But either way, my point stands; you are not a neutral party and should not be discussing or contributing. --Jmax- 23:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. MONGO's voice should be heard, along with the others. --rogerd 23:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Why ....

Why are you so fascinating to people that they take all their time and energy to harass you and such? I don't get it.

By the way, I'm being heavily encouraged to do a rfc on the school spam guy. But I don't think I would achieve anything useful by doing so. I would like to bring up for discussion that turning a genuine discussion into a political issue by labeling my nomination as " the latest rallying cry of the deletists" and internal spamming for votes is innately wrong -- but I would probably end up having a page written on me on that Dramatica site that you are having a problem with.

How does a guy from Montana warrant all that attention? KarenAnn 23:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Have a cold one

Hi there MONGO, I see all this ED rubbish is causing you stress, which you certainly do not deserve. I hope things improve, best not to worry about that lot (not that you are). Anyway drop me a line, hope things improve for you. Stay cool. All the best -- Banes 01:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It isn't worth the stress. It should be past your bed time anyway (aren't you on Eastern time zone?), I know it's past mine and I'm in Central. Guettarda 07:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I realise that's easier said than done... Guettarda 07:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see, yeah, I probably got your localities scrambled (Ryan's page is on my watchlist so I see bits of your conversation with her). In that case, you're probably anything but sleepy. I sat down to work on a manuscript around midenight - I've now wasted two hours on WP. But yeah, you sounded stressed about the debate. It makes sense to ensure that the article adhere's to policy, but right now I am mostly amused by the drama being generated by the ED affair. Maybe it's intentional ;) Guettarda 07:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I do

have an email address as you describe. KarenAnn 10:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I just tried it and it doesn't seem to show up, even though it did a few days ago and I have received email through it. And it is entered on my preferences. Hum . . . one of those technical things over my head. ~~

O.K. I works now. A box got unchecked accidently, apparently. KarenAnn 10:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Accusations

Hi Mongo, thanks for your work on Wikipedia! A few months back, I accused someone of sockpuppetry, and later found out I was wrong. I was fairly embarrassed, and felt pretty bad about it, too (the user was really insulted). May I suggest you give yourself a very long cooling-off period before you post such accusations? Perhaps you are fairly sure about User:Bouquet, but weren't you also fairly sure about User:Samsara? My experience has been that it's best to never make the accusation unless you are fully prepared to do so in the proper forum, and with the requisite proof. Like invoking Godwin's Law, it's one of the nastiest available tactics you can level against someone around here; and like a loaded weapon, you shouldn't present it unless you're prepared to use it. Vague allusion to sockpuppetry is a lot like waving a gun in the air to scare someone, I think... Just my $0.02, because you seem a very reasonable editor to me. Eaglizard 12:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh? What did I post? Interesting that you have suddenly appeared on my talk page, accusing me of posting any evidence anywhere. You trying to cover up for someone?--MONGO 12:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Me

Yep, most years the GOP sweeps in Merrimack, but hopefully this year will be different, the town election saw every single incumbent of any significance lose. Then again, it was a conservative backlash against the "RINOs", but I think I can spin it ;)

I voted to delete the ED article, those people have been jerks to me too, so don't feel alone there, albeit nowhere near what i've heard you've been through.

I'm going to try and slowly dip my toes into the water of Wikipedia again, it's just too cold right now for most article space, but I might start swimming again depending on the circumstances. Either way, thanks for all your friendship and please let me know if I can help you with anything that's in my capability to do. Karmafist ^p 13:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello

I was passing by, and just dropped in to say a hello. --Bhadani 13:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I need your help again with User:Noigel2000

Mongo, please read the latest diatribe by User:Noigel2000 at Talk:Legionellosis. Please help. I think he needs to be banned. - mbeychok 15:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

---

me thinks its me that needs help MONGO lets get down to some brass facts

We have two pages, one legionella the other legionellosis, A person looking for information on legionella comes across the page legionella, reading this article all of a sudden i come across heeps of information on cooling towers..Controlling the potential growth of Legionella in cooling towers== and many links to guidelines of cooling towers, this is not the information one requires when searching for legionella, and then all the nonsense on Aerobic count, wheres all the info on legionella...help thats ok go to legionellosis info should be there, oh no bloody nora more information on cooling towers,Aerobic counts and guidelines. All this information on cooling towers and guidelines ahould be on a seperate page or on the cooling tower page not on any legionella or legionellosis page When people search the net for information on the disease 95% of people search for legionnaires disease, never legionellosis unless its the french legionellose 5% or less search for legionella. I can back this up by giving you access to my counter info on my pages which tells me what search engine a person comes from and the search term they use So i popped a page up on Legionnaires' disease as the information hould be, just i have to work on it a bit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legionnaires%27_disease

Go read and see if its the info you need on the disease, all information taken from my pages no, links back to the text, only a link back to the image as requested by wilkie

Wilkie must have people that check up on pages, can you arrange someone with a little insight on legionnaires' disease, and of course do you want to read info on cooling towers or the disease take a look at all the pages, lets get rid of the junk have a great day

--Noigel2000 07:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Rptng03509345

I just got a rather long email from this user stating (in several pages) that you have abused your position. Since I don't know who this person 'really' is, why they are emailing me, and what they want me to do, would you care to shead some light on the matter? Thanks! Ian¹³/t 16:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

A lot of people have been getting emails about me...it is being done by trolls creating sockpuppet accounts and temporary email addresses to spam admins and others around wikipedia. Examine the links and you'll see if you examine around a few of them that I have not broken 3RR, not done anything aside from tried to ensure the encyclopedia drama article follows our polices regarding reliable sources and isn't a vanity page. The AN/I is strewn with debris from this nonsense, and a number of other editors have been reported already to 3RR. A total of about 5 acknowledged admins from the encyclopedia dramatica website have voted keep on the Afd about their website, along with numerous editors with less than 50 edits total, a few that only recently returned to wikipedia to wikistalk me and vote keep there...it is a mess.--MONGO 16:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I for one am shocked!

That's all very well, but how about the first group of five links in the e-mail? Your vandalous reversions? Yes, you may well look sheepish, MONGO, how could you? I see you have reverted an edit to my very own page by community-banned User:Thewolfstar, how do you know I didn't need to read that? And you reverted Jimbo's page twice--not only removing a link to ED, but actually reverting one of our most trusted users, User:ComplainingAboutAdminsGetsYouBannedAndYourTalkPageFrozen. [8]. Don't you know that kind of behavior is vandalism according to WP:VAND? Yours disapprovingly, Bishonen | talk 19:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC).

Yep, it's raining Shumuckythecats, Bluaarvarks and spineless moronic trolls from the sky....it's the end of the world as we know it!--MONGO 21:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, please examine my edit history before calling me a spineless moronic troll. This is a baseless personal attack and I am offended. It's pretty hard to offend me so that's quite an accomplishment. If you see my user page, you'll note I'm pretty thick skinned and am usually humoured by flames and vandalism.
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. SchmuckyTheCat 18:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, I would hardly call Bishonen a spineless moronic troll. Esteffect 21:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't of course...I was agreeing with her...she is being facetious...(kidding, in case you misunderstand me again) and I was joking back with her. Bish and I know each other here, so I know she is kidding, and I'm sure she knows I am as well.--MONGO 21:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You didn't get one? That does leave you in an exclusive club. Even I got it; it is the first peice of Wikipedia spam I have ever received. I treasured it for about six or seven seconds this morning before I deleted it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I actually had one forwarded to me...but not being on their mailing list was most upseting...darn it. I've been pouting now almost all day.--MONGO 03:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Be bold

Please continue to do what you feel is right.

I, for one, find the conduct of the trolls laughable and more than a little pathetic... mostly because I'm not a target. When you're the target, it's a lot less funny. In any case, please keep on being bold and 'doing what's right'. It's appreciated by many, many editors who are not in fact socks. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you...I've stepped back a bit...we'll see what nonsense they do next. But it is laugable to me too to be honest...I'm amazed that they think that my immediate and perhaps bold decisions to protect myself and this enterprise are somehow egregious misuses of "power"...I consider it conteracting the actions of trolls. None of those...not a single one...that is actively and hostily engaging in attempts to keep the ED article have produced any substantive works of accomplishment as far as wikipedia is concerned. Though some are far worse than others, their continued insistence that the article be kept means they endorse the trash that is posted there on wikipedians, and I can see no reason to trust a single one of them. My actions were not just about me...I always try to defend all editors here from harassment.--MONGO 21:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"I consider it conteracting the actions of trolls. None of those...not a single one...that is actively and hostily engaging in attempts to keep the ED article have produced any substantive works of accomplishment as far as wikipedia is concerned."

This is another attack. Please quit. I have written policy enforcement pages, driven questionable essays to guideline/policy status and made thousands of article edits. My contribution history stands as a positive refudiation against any charge that I've not made any substantive work of accomplishment.

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. SchmuckyTheCat 18:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Heya, just dropping a line to let you know I got one of those emails too, detailing the scandalous behaviour of yourself and sundry other ROUGE ADMINS. All I can say is, stay cool, keep up the good work, and don't let the bastards grind you down. --Stormie 22:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...as I mentioned above...I may not get over my state of depression for not getting one of these emails...I may even have to go in for some therapy as I hate being left out. Pooh:(--MONGO 03:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Saddam and al-Qaeda

Hey MONGO, can I ask you to return to the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page? I realize you have suggested that neither side will be happy with your proposed changes, but my sense is that both sides would be happier with that than with an endless back-and-forth on the talk page. I think your input there was both useful and level-headed, regardless of when I agree or disagree with you, so I hope you haven't abandoned it. Thanks!--csloat 02:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No, mainly real busy at work and dealing with some new found friends here. I'll have alook tonight and will try to do what I can.--MONGO 03:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion please

Hello MONGO, consider this spam if you'd like, but I have only contacted one other person. I saw your name mentioned in an AfD. I don't want to spoil any neutrality by saying too much, but would appreciate it if you found some time to look over a straw poll I started today on WP:POLL#Articles. I was hoping to get a "broader input", but that doesn't appear to be the results. Thanks. Ste4k 06:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

ED AfD

Please check out the new additions on the talk page. You've been asked there to comment on several options. rootology 15:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

my ban

"I say, you don't suppose this is one of those bad apples, do you?"

"It does look rather elistic; we'd better get rid of it. And please stop touching me."

—JDoorjam Talk

Last month you banned me for 3 days for '3RR' from the 9/11 article when we both know (and anyone can check the history) that I made damn sure never to break the 3RR rule, simply because you disagreed with me. I understand that people like you take Wikipedia to be your personal playground, and you'll probably delete this, but I just wish you'd think for a bit about the harm you guys are doing to the project, which really had a good chance at first. Simply looking at the discussion archive of the 9/11 article you can see new editor after new editor coming in and being completely shut down and all their contributions reverted simply because some admins are intent to keep the article showing only one point of view. And it's not even a defensible position, when people try to say that such an article, with dozens of archives pages, doesn't even warrant a simple DISPUTED tag, which is all I wanted to add. Since I'm probably wasting my time here I won't write any more, but hopefully someday Wikipedia will get rid of the bad apples and be a great place for knowledge again, instead of the troll forum with elistic admins it is now. Elfguy 17:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You were blocked fro 3RR for 24HOURS...not three days...get your facts straight next time...[9]--MONGO 21:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Transparency in blocking

Can you provide some more rationale for these two blocks: [10] "uploaded png image that is blatant personal attack, sleeper account" and [11] "sleeper troll account". I am not an admin, I do not see contributions to deleted articles or images. Looking at the user histories, I cannot see either account uploading images or any rationale to being sleeper accounts. Both appear to be very casual but honest editors. In fact, I once questioned Keystone23 and the response was "don't bite at newcomers". SchmuckyTheCat 18:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason you don't see the edits in which they uploaded the PNG is becuase once it is deleted, the edit disappears also...get it? [12], [13], [14]...the last one was the old PNG which was re-edited with the new png image...In fact, I can find zero evidence that you "once questioned" Keystone23...anywhere...[15]...look at the editing history...no edits for 7 months, after all of them being on Jan 4th 2006, and, lo and behold, a vote for the last time the ED article was up for deletetion March 28, and then the PNG image harassment, and another vote of the existing Afd for the encyclopediadramatica....don't come to my page and spread lies...JeremyJX makes not one edit in 7 months and then "magically" reappears to post personal information about me...wake up.--MONGO 21:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to be so hostile. I do "get it" that you see edits that normal users don't. I said so as the second sentence as I'm trying to AGF. If Keystone23 uploaded an attack image that has been subsequently deleted, I will take your word for it. (fyi: [16] is my previous interaction).

I'm still not buying it on JeremyJX. It's a lame edit but with the history of good edits that single one is not perma-ban worthy. In the future, you might consider asking another admin to review it before being so willing to hand out bans. SchmuckyTheCat 21:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's get one thing straight...are you or are you not an admin at ED?--MONGO 21:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Last one is simple: Don't go around posting personal details of Wikipedians, especially admins. --kizzle 18:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any personal identifiable information. The org in that edit is the largest employer in the United States, there is nothing there to actually identify someone. A year ago I was hit with 3RR because I removed information on name and direct employer, and also removed web links to attack pages with name, address, workplace email and phone against a wikipedian. So what kind of double standard are we perpetuating? Compared to direct employer and address of workplace, the edit appears rather minor, though probably in poor judgement. Certainly not justification for a permanent block. SchmuckyTheCat 18:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI: it was MONGO who first bragged about revealed who his employer was. — goethean ॐ 18:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You're a troll, obviously...stop trolling...you were warned by myself and others not to post attacks on your userpage, so have a nice day.--MONGO 21:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

New page crashed my browser

Looking through the new page list there is a user Sei-jong who is creating trouble-making pages.

1. 16:01, July 20, 2006 ‎Zachary hutchinson (hist) ‎[0 bytes] ‎Sei-jong

[17] is his list of contributions. On there is a page: CampKidwell

   * 16:02, July 20, 2006 (hist) (diff) Zachary hutchinson  (top)
   * 16:01, July 20, 2006 (hist) (diff) Zachary hutchinson
   * 15:52, July 20, 2006 (hist) (diff) Camp Kidwell
   * 15:49, July 20, 2006 (hist) (diff) Camp Kidwell

That page has a link on it: www.campkidwell.org that totally smashed my firewall. So much so, that I had download a newer version and reinstall it (after talking to my broadband Technical Support}.

Those pages should be removed so others won't be as idiotic as I was and try to go to that site. (His other pages were attack pages. He puts in a person's name and then writes adolescently bad things about them.) KarenAnn 21:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

One of his articles was blank, had no links so I deleted it. The other one was one sentence with a unlinked external link, just an ad, so that's gone too.--MONGO 22:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! It was the unlinked external link that caused the problem. (Of course, I had to try it.) I had put a speedy delete tag on his attack articles -- but I didn't know what to put on this one. The speedy delete process is an on-again off-again thing. Can't count on it. KarenAnn 22:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm done.--Jersey Devil 08:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Look at the history before you speedy delete something.

I see you speedy deleted the article Île-de-France (province). If you'd bothered to look at the history, you'd have seen that the text of the article was deleted on that same day, either due to vandalism or to an editing accident. The article in its complete form, while still a bit stubbish, was certainly not a candidate for speedy deletion.

The power to delete an article is a serious one. You should make sure that you know what you are actually deleting before you do so. I've restored the article. john k 01:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Server lag, didn't show me any links or history, and all I saw was the following...[18]....maybe it needed cleaning up but no history or links were observable to me due possibly to some server problems we had.--MONGO 05:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Ile de France stuff

Even with the server problems, one ought to be careful about such things. (Especially if, um, you were aware that there were server issues). john k 17:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. I suppose no harm's done, since I restored it. john k 22:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

letting you know

Please don't be offended by this (for speedy deletion now). I am not trying to upset you or anything, just letting you know, you're not the only one. Hardvice 07:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Protection request

Hi, I was wondering whether you could protect this page - User:Daniel.Bryant/GraalOnline - because the mediation submissions are finished, and now I (the mediator) will go off and deliberate. In this time, I want to minimize a war of words. Killfest2 ^(Talk) 10:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't tamper with deletion reviews

Please stop tampering with deletion reviews. I made no personal attacks and merely noted the process by which the article was deleted, which is perfectly consistent with how deletion review works. Stanfordandson 17:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

RfC filed

Mongo, I've filed an RfC for you to respond to based on some of the personal attacks that you delivered and failed to apologize for during the recent drama. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO (second RfC) SchmuckyTheCat 17:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Can I sign the barnstar above? Based on the diffs in the RFC I'd say "good job". Guettarda 18:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should modify it with a section for Endorsements? KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"Buddy"

My apologies if you were offended. I was not trying to be rude - merely familiar. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism

Thanks for checking in! The article history seem to have stabilized, thanks to your efforts earlier. 172 | Talk 05:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Need an assist

Please unlock and add Category:Wikipedia navigation templates to {{commonscat}}, so it's listed with the rest of the family (see the cat). Thanks for the Speedy-D earlier. // FrankB 06:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Done...hopefully I got that right.--MONGO 07:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

NYC locations for photographing

Hi MONGO! I'll be back from the beach and in the city for a week or two starting next week and would like to try to face my 9/11 demons and help WP at the same time - which street addresses or specific locations/features would you like me to shoot? I'd be glad to go out 'on location' (even if it's just down the block) for a WP photo shoot! :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Help, please!

Hi, I recently created the article Comparison of Windows and Mac OS X. As you can see from the original copy (actually the second was the original, the first was me hitting save page instead of show preview), that I had worked long and hard on opening the article.

A day after opening, user Alistair McMillan proposed it for deletion. I feel this is rather outrageous, especially because comparing Windows and Mac OS X is a much more widely-regarded topic then a Comparison of Windows and Linux... Either way, the article has had a rocky beginning, but with proper editations I'm sure it could be a great one.

I also have recieved much shunning from Mr. McMillan, for he seemed to sort of treat me as a less intelligent individual, being extremely snobbish toward myself (I can often make mistakes such as forgetting to sign), and it seems his judgement is based on a bias and shouldnt be well noted.

I am only 14, and do much work throughout the summer: so I cannot spend a long time on protecting/enhancing my articles; so I'd be very happy to see some help & support.

Thanks alot,

--Alegoo92 03:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:FAITH, hope and charity

Hi Mongo, since you've come right out now and said that your initial response to my attempts to introduce CD in the Collapse of the World Trade Center article was to assume that they were made in bad faith (if "he must be nuts" can't be interpreted that way I don't know what can), I thought I'd come over here and take particular exception to the way you've been treating me. I know you get a lot of praise for being a direct and merciless editor, but if you go back and look at the discussions we've been having I think you will see that your contributions could have been a good deal more constructive. There was nothing to indicate that I was what I turned out to be: namely, someone who would put up with your rude behaviour for the sake of a better article. Your actions risked driving someone away who would have made a useful contribution to the article. You consistently misrepresented my views and refused to address the actual suggestions I made: that is, you responded to me as though I was making claims for controlled demolition (when I never once did that and repeatedly corrected you), and you proceeded early on on an assumption about my background political views (CT, government culpability), which were not only false, but irrelevant in the way I framed the suggestion and pejorative in their insinuating tone. The best example, here, is the first one, which is also, since nothing else is at this point known, the clearest example of a WP:FAITH violation. First, I explain why I think CD is a useful baseline collapse mechanism to have in mind. Next, you try to summarize my views by saying, "So in a nutshell, you believe that the U.S. Government is culpable?" The question mark clearly indicates a rhetorical question. The intellectual tradition that I come from, and Wikipedia seems at least in point of policy to participate in, is founded on the interpretative "principle of charity", especially in first time encounters. The idea is to read a collection of utterances in such a way as to grant them maximal coherence and truth. You didn't do that. The words "controlled demolition" made you "feel like" shouting "you're nuts", and your actions were in effect to do that in all but the letter. As you now know, people like you (or people like you have until now pretended to be) don't really put me off. But people like me should not be required to make the sorts of improvements that have been made to the Collapse of the WTC article. Other rhetorical postures must be viable also. Since I will be around from now on, I'd appreciate it if you laid off the heavyhanded, presumptuous, impatient and uncharitable bullying. Let me deal with those who might insist on writing claims about CD into the article from now on. Only if we acknowledge their curiosity, and assume their good faith, i.e., only if we treat each other as Wikipedians, can working on the article be pleasant work. Your dog fights are not a source of hope in this regard. With all due respect, --Thomas Basboll 10:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I defend the proven facts, not hypothesis's. Anyone, who tells me that there is any chance of controlled demolition, even in just some mildly passing manner, is going to get a raised eyebrow, at a minimum from me. I pretty much treat the notion of controlled demolition on 9/11 as the biggest insult one can have on the U.S. Government and many, many of it's people. Otherwise, my comment wasn't a personal attack, unless of course, you are here ultimately to POV push controlled demolition. I made it clear, I see no reason to have nonsense in the article, yet you expanded it and have it written in such a way that it looks like it was dismissed by the experts soon after it was first brought up...almost as if this now leaves room for expansion upon that theme, maybe even opportunity to further discuss the matter in article space. Any rational, sane human being would have known it wasn't controlled demolition the moment the first plane hit the north tower at WTC. I cannot imagine how CT could ever be a useful baseline collapse mechanism to have in mind. You're editing a controversial article, so if you make utterances that appear to me to be controversial, then, naturally, I am going to treat them as with differing degrees of circumspect. What exactly did you expect?--MONGO 12:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Guys, after many, many months of arguing, we are finally getting the article into proper shape. Lets not fight about it now. Self-Described Seabhcán 13:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Seabhcán. I guess it's because I've really only been arguing about this for a week, getting nothing but flak from Mongo the whole the way, that I decided to come over here. I think this is more person-oriented than article-oriented, but certainly not PA territory. As best I can make out, these are issues of WP:FAITH and WP:BITE, values which the "experienced" Mongo decided to set aside because of his preformed opinion about CD ...

Not CT, Mongo. I said controlled demolition, not conspiracy theory, is a baseline mechanism. That is certainly plausible from a layman's perspective (as the newscasters made clear on 9/11, when it was all they think to compare it to) and it has now been given a modicum of plausibility event by Bazant, even Sunder is more respectful of people who worry about controlled demolition than you are. You continue to treat the very idea of CD as an immediate accusation of government complicity, when it could be an accusation of ordinary treason aimed at as yet unknown, unnamed elements working for al-Qaida, but on the inside; and even this I haven't suggested. You have (don't tell me this unintentional) now called me irrational and insane (as you hinted earlier) since I didn't "know it wasn't controlled demolition the moment the first plane hit the north tower at WTC" (whatever your basis for saying that may be).

You didn't treat me with circumspect, Mongo, but disrespect. I expected a modicum of respect and got bitten. As it happens, this won't effect my work on the article, but that doesn't justify your behaviour. It took way too much effort to make a much needed and completely NPOV change to the CT section. And it greatly soured the work on the rest of the article. Be, I don't know, "happier", Mongo.--Thomas Basboll 13:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, CD, not CT...as I said, controlled demolition is the path of ignorance, and yes, anyone who is mislead to believe that controlled demolition was in anyway a part of the scenario, is ignorant...that is of course, not the same thing as calling someone stupid. Furthermore, I do not think your changes to the section on controlled demolition are indeed NPOV. I think they present a foothold of nonsense in the article which can easily be misconstrued. Your seeming desire to link in the 9/11 Truth Movement indicates to me that you are familiar with their "work"...but they are just one group of many that profess, without any basis in factuality, the "hypothesis" of controlled demolition on 9/11...in that, I think they are either ignorant or stupid. I don't know what more can be said on the matter. You have to understand that I am first and foremost a man of science. I support only what has been properly peer reviewed by those that could do an effective cross examination of the material...then we can add that information. I have basically left your edits alone, so I really don't know what you're disturbed about...I haven't been rude to you in the least...and I have every right to question where you're coming from.--MONGO 16:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, according to WP:FAITH you have every right to ask me where I'm coming from, not to question my good faith (or sanity, or knowledge, or intelligence). I can see you're not going to give any ground on this, so I'll leave you be. I think you are wrong about the CD section, of course. You are both wrong and working without any firm basis when you suggest that I have some brute "desire to link to the 9/11 truth movement". It strikes me as the right direction to point people who want to pursue the demolition option. Science is full of hypotheses the pursuit of which led to important discoveries even though they turned out to be false. You are a man of a particular kind of science at best. Finally, the reason you have left my edits alone is not, I trust, because you're being nice to me, but because they're good edits. Just as I've left your edits alone because they were correct, not because I'm being polite. Doesn't seem to be much call for that with you. See you around.--Thomas Basboll 18:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

An apology

Hi Mongo - I've started going through the glacier-stubs, shifting them out and marking location-geo-stubs on them, and it looks like I owe you an apology. The majority of the articles do still have geo-stub templates... I'm sorry I accused you of deliberately removing them. Any that were removed must have been done accidentally - it wouldn't make sense for you to have deliberately removed them from some but left them on all the others. Apologies. Grutness...wha? 14:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America Newsletter - July '06

The Indigenous Peoples of North America Portal The Indigenous Peoples of North America Portal has been established, as a starting point for those wishing to learn more about the subject, with information and links on a wide variety of issues. It also contains news regarding the continent's various tribes and nations. It's a graphically pleasing site, and everyone is encouraged to check it out. Home Page Reorganization The project's home page has a new design, featuring tabbed subpages on participants, templates, articles, categories, and the to do list. Article Classification Move The Article Classification lists have been moved to their own subpage due to size. This is a sign of progress in the ongoing work of this project. New Talk Page Template The project's talk page template has been updated, along with the classification system, to include the assessment on the talk pages of the articles that have been classified and assessed.

Balance As the Project reaches its first six months of activity, the great effort all of you have invested in it has turned the vast information available on Indigenous North American topics from a deorganized cumulous into an excellent and easy to consult database. Although much work is still in order, few WikiProjects are able to obtain the amazing results we are proud to show today. To all of you, thank you and congratulations! What You Can Do to Help The assessment of articles within the scope of the project is still an ongoing process. We need people to help in this who are not contributors to the articles they are assessing. Also, there is the ongoing need for identifying and cataloguing articles that fall within the scope of this project. As of today, nearly 1,500 have been identified within the Project's scope. Signed by Aaron Walden & Phaedriel - 15:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

About Mr. President

Why did you reverted that users sumary of Presidents life and career? Maybe because its all sooooo true?

Ice Cold 20:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well,since hes blocked,I figured its right to show people why hes been blocked for(if Im wrong,then I apologize and you can delete it from his page,or I can).But if hes really block,then I think it should stay

Ice Cold 20:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

OOOOO,dont get it wrong,I added it with explanation in Serbian,because Boris is my friend and I know him.I will put it back,and he can remove it if he mind,but you can ask him,I know him and he`ll be glad to see it.Please leave it on that talk page.Thanks. Ice Cold 20:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What I ment to say was: this other user that I put it on his user page,it was wrong(since he isnt blocked .....yet).On the other side,Boris Malagurski ,its different thing,since I left it in his talk page and I just want him to see it,but he can delete it later.

Thanks agains and dont worry,Im not trying to vandalise anything.

Ice Cold 20:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

A particular kind of science

I think we can agree that whether we take each other seriously as people or intellectual powerhouses is quite beside the point. I respect your work here, and disagree with you on a specific point, and a general attitude. I've explained to you (as suggested by WP:BITE) why I took offence at your impatient and uninformative dismissals of my proposals. And I've gotten nowhere. As far as I can tell, the particular kind of science you champion, amounts to incessantly referring to peer review rather than inquiry, imagining that there are forms of evidence that obviate discussion, displaying an enormous contempt for lay opinion (and an enormous intolerance of lay ignorance, even on difficult subjects) and emphasizing educational background when your scientific ethos is drawn into question even a little bit. (All I was saying is there are differences of opinion about what science is. It's not any one thing to be "a man of science".) Also, you imagine that there are brute facts (televised ones, no less) that make certain conclusions immediately irrational, and certain lines of inquiry and conversation wastes of time. That's something else we disagree strongly on. But I think if we both bring our best sides to this article, there's a chance we won't make a mess of it. All the best to you, Mongo.--Thomas Basboll 21:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The example from the guideline you mention is the Earth article, where the comparable point of view is the "flat earth hypothesis", if you will. Now, the Earth article is admirable in its summary of that minority position:

A 19th-century organization called the Flat Earth Society advocated the even-then discredited idea that the Earth was actually disc-shaped, with the North Pole at its center and a 150-foot (50 meter) high wall of ice at the outer edge. It and similar organizations continued to promote this idea, based on religious beliefs and conspiracy theories, through the 1970s. Today, the subject is more frequently treated tongue-in-cheek or with mockery.

In terms of scientific foundations Round Earth vs. Flat is at least "an order of magnitude" stronger than Gravity Collapse vs. Controlled Demolition. And yet, the Earth article playfully details the competing view (it even provides the dimensions of the wall of ice). This is because it does not feel threatened by it. We are getting there.--Thomas Basboll 21:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

(I'm not sure if this posting to each other's talk page is the right procedure, but I'm sure you'll let me know.) Two quick points: first, I have never called your ability to distinguish good from bad sources into question. On the contrary, I have stuck to using sources you approve of. Second, "Remember, our motto — and our invitation to the newcomer — is be bold. We have a set of rules and standards and traditions, but they must not be applied in such a way as to thwart those newcomers who take that invitation at face value." (WP:BITE). I know there are a lot of rules that I don't know yet. But those rules are not Wikipedia. Or at least I hope not. Wikipedia is a bunch good articles that result from interpreting the rules.--Thomas Basboll 21:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think there's a longer discussion there. We can move it to the talk page of the collapse article and see what people think. I don't approve of bringing the people who died into this in the way you do.--Thomas Basboll 21:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

A thought about glacier stubs

Hi again Mongo - I've had a thought about this glacier-stub business. Although a stub for the glaciers themselves might not be such a good idea, geology-stub does need splitting up. Would an {{ice-stub}} or similar be useful, for the geology of glaciers and ice ages and for terms relating to glaciology? I notice quite a few of them among the glacier stubs (things like ice tongue and nivation). I'm pretty sure there would be no objections at WP:WSS... Let me know on my talk page and I'll suggest it there. Grutness...wha? 05:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it will help with the split of the geology stubs, so it may be worthwhile anyway. As to removing the glacier-stub templates, yes, I'm slowly working my way through them. I'm double-checking with your new WikiProject category, and there are a few which don't have the WikiProject message on the talk page, so I'm leaving them until I've done the others. Grutness...wha? 11:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mongo - yeah, basically what I've done is I've made a redirect to geology-stub called glaciology-stub. I've proposed it as a completely separate stub at WP:WSS/P, and it looks likely to be accepted, but it makes sense since I'm cleaning out the glacier stubs to make the redirect now and add it to articles - it will be a simple job to switch it over to a completely separate template when (hopefully) it's agreed to and will save having to re-stub everything twice. BTW, I've also added a TOC to your new "Articles of the WikiProject" category. Anything you can do to help? Well, if you like you can double-check you haven't missed adding the Wikiproject template to any of the glacier stub talk pages (the couple of left-overs in the Cs and Ds don't have the template) - and if you feel like changing glacier-stub to glaciology stub on any of the articles about general terms and the like (e.g., the ones starting "Glacial..." or "Ice...", that would help too! :) Cheers, Grutness...wha? 12:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Good work :) Grutness...wha? 09:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Esaborio At it Again

I notice you blocked him for 24hrs for reverting the World War Three Article, but he has done this in other places and continues to do it today. [19] [20] [21] [22] Here are four edits made by him and the IP account he admitted was his at the sockpuppetry case brought against him here. He also exceeded 3 in the WOT template: [23] [24] [25] [26]. ~Rangeley (talk) 00:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Please...

Pls check you mail, dear :) Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 13:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Ctwdidognom

You've recently indef-blocked this user for "trolling, nothing more", when his ONLY edit was a request if someone checked their email. How can that be a perma-blockable offense? At the moment, he has an unblock notice. You may want to look over this. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 10:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Comeon, get with the program...the editor has a total of three edits...the first to an editor asking him to check his email after I blocked for being either permanently banned Daniel Brandt or amorrow, or at the very least, a meatpuppet of one of those two...his second edit was to his userpage and if you hover your curser over his "edit"...it's to the http://www.example.com link title link that was always used for vandalism purposes all over the place...and edit three is to ask to be unblocked. It's a trolling account.--MONGO 11:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Another point of note - Spell the account name backwards... yeah, it's a troll or other hostile account. Ctwdidognom backwards = Mongo did WTC. I don't call it a bad faith or improper block in this instance (though in hindsight, perhaps a different admin should have blocked, but hey, life ain't perfect). Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 22:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Phaedriel 2

I do think that Phaedriel is a real asset to Wikipedia, and I'm sure that the nomination will be succesful. But I am concerned about the image use issue. See this edit, where Phaedriel adds a "fair use" image to user talk space, adding to the fair use in userspace cleanup work. I don't know how reasonable it is to ask every admin to know every detail about all of our policies. I do think that knowing that unfree-licensed images cannot be used in userspace is something like basic image policy knowledge. Perhaps I should just prompt Phaedrial to commit to reading up on Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Fair use and strike my vote, because in the end I cannot say that I am really genuinely opposed to the adminship. Jkelly 18:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

trolling or not trolling?

Take a look at the "NPOV tag?" section. What else would you call that? It looks to me like RonCram is having trouble separating his POV from the balance of evidence - the latter of the two which the article should be presenting.

On my user page I have a section titled "NPOV", wherein I argue:

An article should be disputed in its particulars (the style, tone, accuracy, etc. of phrases, sentences, or paragraphs) on the basis of those particulars, on the basis of the relative significance of info included or not included, or the organization of the article. if nothing of this is disputable, and the article is still found to be "failing" in its general impression, it is by no fault of the article. Indeed, if it were by fault of the article, there would be no way to correct this fault, as all the ways in which the article can be modified without violating policy are listed above.

Furthermore, RonCram obstinately refuses to answer csloat's very legitimate questions. Where can the discussion (if you can call it that) go from there? Nowhere but down - further and further down the page. Kevin Baas^talk 15:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Karwynn block

MONGO, Karwynn appealed to unblock-en-l. In reading the history particularly the specific comments (or lack thereof) on User talk:Karwynn#Stop the nonsense I am concerned that you didn't specificaly warn them that reposting the indef banned editors comments was against policy and a blockable offense. I don't think you described clearly enough what was against WP policy in their actions prior to blocking.

I agree that the comment they reposted is a personal attack and that they should have reasonably known that, but I am not sure that the warnings were specific enough. Their other actions in the recent discussion appear argumentatative but not abusive.

Could you reconsider the warning levels you issued and whether the block was appropriate in light of what they knew at the time?

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 18:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Karwynn followed up to unblock-en-l and is apparently reading this thread. They are claiming that they didn't timing-wise and policy-wise understand why that comment had been deleted and didn't intend to violate policy with it.

I see that you two have a history, but that's a good reason to AN/I and ask for someone else to review and block rather than do it yourself. We've talked about this before, I am concerned that you block people you're involved in arguments with a little too freely.

In this case, reading the actions of the day preceding the block, I don't see Karwynn as having been acting in a disruptive manner other than that particular comment deletion/restoral. Annoying but not disruptive. If you had given them a clear warning on their talk page regarding why that user was now blocked, and that deleting their contributions was per policy and should not be restored, and then Karwynn had done it or something similar again, we would not be having this discussion. You gave them some warnings, but they really were pretty vague.

If K were merely a troll then the zero-tolerance makes sense, but they are clearly making non-troll contributions, and have asked for mediation, a RFC on their behavior, or some other form of input on their recent actions in unblock-en-l. These are, in my interpretation, actions of someone who realizes they have stepped across lines before and that they may have here, but hadn't set out to do so.

Despite your past disagreements with them, assume good faith appears to apply here. At the very least, the situation appears to have called for better / more precise warnings. Had you done that and Karwynn had broken policy after that, the situation would be much less grey.

It wouldn't kill you to spend another 30 sec or minute on writing up detailed warnings when they're to people you're involved in debates with. The more you clearly and unambiguously do so beforehand, the cleaner the end result is if you do end up justifyably having to block due to ongoing violations.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 00:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

steven jones vandal

Hi Mongo. I was wondering if you could do something about B3X11. He has been inserting nonsense into the article all day and has long passed his third revert of the day. Thanks. Levi P. 22:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

He is also removing my comments from his talkpage, and is now up to 7 or 8 reverts in the last 12 hrs. Levi P. 23:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Rangeley

Rangeley isn't. He's pissed that I told him and Kaelwynn to stop arguing about politics on article talk pages. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

History21 is a sock

See this, this, and this. rootology (T) 00:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh, 1000th.

My post to you letting you know about History21's checkuser status was oddly my 1,000th edit. rootology (T) 00:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Amorrow

Please don't undelete Amorrow's work. Do you have any idea how dangerous this user is? Start from scratch if you see the need. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've responded on my talk page the last time you asked me about it. Do you not know what a sockpuppet is? The creator was an Amorrow sockpuppet. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a STERN barnstar. You have been awarded this as a warning that you are doing something right. Please continue. If you do, you may find yourself being severely complimented without further warnings. Award issued by KillerChihuahua, Just zis Guy you know?, InShaneee, Kasreyn, ChrisO, Elonka, Lord Voldemort and Guettarda per this.

Sysadmin userbox

Not a whole lot of contrast with the letters now, if you've traversed the link. Maybe a green pattern is just not the right base color, if we are trying to avoid confusing with WP officialstuff? Georgewilliamherbert 07:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That works. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 07:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

afd

MONGO, i think this needs an afd – dont you agree? --Striver 23:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Cruft Alert

Given your interest in conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, I thought you might be interested in one that was up for review. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks I urge you to carefully examine Wikipedia's policies and rules, and then carefully consider whether you have an opinion on the matter. Your friend. Morton Devonshire^Yo

Montana protected area stubs, etc

The stub guidelines suggest that a new stub type should have at least 60 stubs, so actually I'm coming up a little short with the MT ones, which seems to be the largest possible per-state split by a distance; so I don't think others on the same basis are likely (or at least, imminent). What would certainly work is a {{US-protected-area-stub}}, or a probably better, {{US-west-protected-area-stub}}, etc, (along USCB boundaries, as per the split of Category:United States university stubs and a couple of others done similarly). Per-state templates would likely be uncontroversial, though, feeding into a reasonably-sized common categories. There's at least one country (Australia) that I've suggested splitting out. Existing such discussions are at a couple of places on the the stub sorting prosposal page; please feel free to wade in there if you have any comments, or wish to add additional suggestions. Alai 16:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• In particular, see this block of proposals: I'd forgotten about making most of these. (Perhaps stub-type fatigue is setting in.) I won't be acting on any of these immediately, as the category's no longer quite oversized. I'll also leave a note at WP:PA (which I'd have done at the time, had I but thought of it...). Alai 00:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

images question

Hi... you do a ton with the media side of things for your national parks stuff I noticed, and was wondering what you thought of this section on this article. It seems to me to fall under the purview of fair use for information purposes, given the visual medium involved that the article is covering. What do you think? I've never seen something of this nature on any article before for screen shots, and four seemed to be a fair number to use for encyclopediac purposes. It seems (to me) to be a good idea, just wanted some input. Thanks. rootology (T) 20:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

images from press resources

In relation to the 50minutesFrontCover jpeg that was just deleted - wikipedia used to have a image copyright category called 'press resources', or words to that effect. The image was taken from a press pack of jpegs that have been given license to be used anywhere. Which category of license should I select? Gus Peterson 09:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Block of Giovanni33

Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · count)

I am in no way stating that you were right or wrong on this message. As they say "don't shoot the messenger".

Gio feels he was blocked unfairly. He was warned for 3RR, and hence stopped doing it. Instead he published a prose explaining, in all coherancy with Wikipedia policy, why he felt that the template was not justified. He asks that he be unblocked. Daniel.Bryant 09:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to believe that a week vacation for Giovanni33 is in the best interests of Wikipedia. Personally, I wouldn't argue if someone extended the block to indefinite based on exhausting the community's patience.--MONGO 10:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, have you acknowledged his explinations? About his wife and how he was at a friends house? The claim about his wife as a confirmed sock is pretty vaild, in my opinion - it's not uncommon for people who are in a relationship to share the same ideals and discuss what they have done during the day, which would have ultimately lead to her finding Gio's edits (like my girlfriend, who I'm not going to disclose the username of in fear of being blocked as a meatpuppet). I am inclined to be suspicious about the friend explination, but the current circumstantial evidence which has been used to prove he is a sockpuppet master is a bit flimsy in the light of these explinations. Daniel.Bryant 10:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser confirmed two sock accounts....I'm not inclined to believe that the accounts were his wife's or anyone elses. I have watched this situation for six months and am well aware of the ongoing issues.--MONGO 10:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me for butting in on your talk page with a reply to Daniel, MONGO, but Giovanni was told on 16 and 17 January about the three-revert rule, but kept on violating it, not through error (anyone can make a fourth simply by losing count) but brazenly, taking advantage of our reluctance to report a newcomer. He was told at 12:28 on 23 January that he had reached the maximum amount of reverts allowed. Twenty-three minutes later, Belinda made her first edit (from an IP) saying in the edit summary "rv to better version. I've been following in talk page". She then came to the talk page to support Giovanni, and then registered an account, making a total of five reverts to Giovanni in about four hours, splitting them between her IP and her username. They were both told of the WP:SOCK policy, and urged to read it. That policy explains clearly that meatpuppets are also forbidden. They carried on a pretence of not knowing each other — why would they need to pretend, if they were doing nothing wrong? — until they were caught out. I have no problem in accepting that Giovanni is married to someone called Belinda Gong. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that the person Belinda made all the edits that came from the user account Belinda Gong. There is no reason why wives would make the same spelling mistakes as husbands, for example. And the Arbitration Committee ruled that for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one individual.

Giovanni seems to think that if he can prove that he's married to BelindaGong, that will clear him of wrongdoing. It won't. We all know that Mindspillage and Gmaxwell are different people; that Tim Starling and Angela are different people; that Jdavidb and Carradee are different people. Those accounts have never been used in violation of the WP:SOCK policy. The BelindaGong account was, whether it's a meatpuppet (a wife who joined Wikipedia for the purpose of supporting her husband through votes, reverts, and talk page arguments), a sockpuppet (a husband who registered an account in his wife's name and made the edits from it, with her consent), or a combination of both.

You mention that the evidence is a bit flimsy. There is very strong linguistic evidence linking these accounts. I recently requested a checkuser (nothing to do with Giovanni) citing linguistic evidence. My request was declined on the basis that it was so obviously the same user that there was no need to wasted checkuser time on it. I have never wanted to make the Giovanni linguistic evidence public, because anything that he has been alerted to in the past has stopped with future puppets, but I have sent this evidence to bureaucrats and arbcom members. The report contained lots and lots of examples, with diffs. In some cases the edits have been deleted from the histories of pages because of a stalking incident in April, involving Trollwatcher and SimplePilgrim, who are not suspected of being Giovanni sockpuppets, but the posts can still be read by administrators. The contribution histories indicate that these accounts were created for the purpose of supporting Giovanni, making their way to unrelated articles, which they'd be unlikely to find as brand new users, and reverting for him or voting for what he wanted. So far, nobody who has seen the full report has described the evidence as "flimsy". It's also worth noting that seven of the ten suspected accounts are known to edit (or to have edited) from the same area as Giovanni33. The locations of the other three are unknown, but it's a matter of common sense, given the history as recounted here that RTS (one of the unknown ones) is the same as NPOV77.

And just to correct something that MONGO said, checkuser confirmed one account, that of BelindaGong. The Freethinker99 account was confirmed through these two edits. AnnH ♫ 11:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, MONGO. You've probably seen that I altered your signed post on Giovanni's page. You had linked to an account that didn't exist: User:User:MikaM. I've deleted the page. User:MikaM is already listed. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 14:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

In case you've missed it, this might interest you. (Not that there was ever any doubt!) AnnH ♫ 22:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Image Deletion

hello mongo. i wonder if you can help me. you have deleted an image File:StLawrenceCollege.jpg on the article Ramsgate for what i can see as no apparent reason. the image was released under a creative commons attributation license 2.0. it has been acknowledged on the images page and all the correct licenses have been attached to the page. i can find no record or notes as to why it was deleted. whats happening? KevinCarmody 13:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the speedy reply on the speedy deletion. i looked at WP:CSD page, but i still couldn't find the tags on the ramsgate article or the images page it says should be included about why it was deleted. anyway, if it's copyright violation then i'm cool with its deletion. well spotted mr admin sir. KevinCarmody 14:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

User posting information towards stalking ends

Greetings MONGO, could you take a look at this WP:ANI posting? User Banzai! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has formulated a user page on me and has provided links so that others can search for my personal details. As you've had a similar personal experience could you take at look at this case and see how you might be able to assist in preventing this user from further demonstrating bad faith? Thanks. (→Netscott) 07:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance MONGO. Just so you know I removed commentary of this user and one other user from my user page that included statements that constituted personal attacks (ie: words like "dick", "moron", etc.). This too was part of the reason that I wanted his user page deleted because he restored this commentary. This editor is now approaching status as a troll in my mind particularly with commentary on ANI that includes the line, "I know you were all dying to hear this update." Thanks again. (→Netscott) 08:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Redwood NP

Hi, I just noticed, that "your" article got featured status some time ago: congratulations. I have to check your references and citations to revise mine, where the two versions disagree. Did you really base it exclusivly on internet sources? You don't mention any printed books, besides "Native American Architecture". --h-stt !? 17:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I tend to use primarily web based sources for ease of cross referencing since many people cannot locate the books that are cited...I view articles I contribute to simply as one source of reference and hope that the linked sources allow readers an opportunity to read about certain items in more detail.--MONGO 18:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast reply. I have mixed feelings about online sources. They are convenient, as you can do the research from your desk and as you mentioned anyone can easily verify them and find a place for further readings. But they tend to get changed and moved, so you have broken links or worse, links to pages that say something different by the time they are read. Paper has its merits. And many online sources are much less exhaustive, so by relying on online sources only, you miss occasionally facts that are found in well researched books. For example the first proposal for a Redwood National Park in 1879 by secretary of the interior Carl Schurz. It can be found in the small book "Redwood" by the former chief park naturalist at Redwood NP, Richard Rasp, I happen to have on my book shelf, and that was very useful for writing the german language article. In this case there even is an online source, if you find it credible enough: http://www.shannontech.com/ParkVision/Redwood/Redwood.html from the Parkvision site by Patrick Holleran. And I noticed you use much less images than I did. OK, the german language readers have less of an idea about Northern Califonia, and pictures are useful for that. Furthermore, my article was written for the spring 06 writing contest, and I hoped to make an impact with the optical impression. Well, congratulations again, I like your article a lot. Judging from your user page, I will stumble across you quite often, as I write about protected areas in the Western USA a lot, as you can see from my user page at the German Language Wikipedia. --h-stt !? 19:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I can understand why you feel the way you do about printed word. In the case of Redwoods, the history and basic details, and in fact, much of the article could have used printed sources since not a lot changes there overall, aside from current events issues. I do what I can to only use either images I have uploaded or those from the public domain, such as ones posted by the U.S. Government. Forgive me for not having any mastery of German, but the articles you have listed on your userpage all link to what appear to be excellent work on your part. Your bilingulism could certainly be helpful as there are a number of articles I believe on the German Wikipedia about glaciers that I would like to see translated...I have access to one website which allows me do some translations of text, but they charge substantially for translating large paragraphs.[27]. I'm also flattered that you find the Amercian West worthy of writing articles about for the German wiki...that means a lot to me...thank you. Ich werde versuchen, etwas von Ihrer Arbeit auf der deutschen Wikipedia heute Abend, besonders Ihre Verweisungen und Symbolik überzuprüfen. Hope that translated correctly. Does the German wiki have a protected areas wikiproject? If not, you may wish to join the English version Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas and write articles about protected areas in Germany...we can create a map which can be used in the infobox which would cover Germany or any other country of course. You may also want to use some of the information at the project to start one on the German wiki as well.--MONGO 20:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit shy contributing to english language articles, so far I haven't written anything serious in the article space here. But if you (or someone else) would offer to check on my writings in a timely manner, I would like to offer time permitting translations or as I prefer over translations, to write along a german language text here. Online translations are useful to get the topic of a text, and the general meaning, but they are useless for anything serious. And thanks for your kind words in german, they are almost correct, but higly formal, much more than I would expect in this project (You may have heard about the informal "Du" and formal "Sie" in the german language - in german online communities everyone uses the informal "Du"). In the de-wikipedia we don't have a general project on protectected areas around the world, but a small one especially on protected areas in the USA at de:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt Nationalparks in den USA - despite the name it is about all kinds of federally protected areas, and I am a contributer there. Well I travelled a lot in the western US (if you start as the pacific coast and count to eleven, you get the states I visited so far, plus the two westernmost provinces in Canada). And guess what, I like the place and its people. So it comes naturally, that I write about those topics in the wikipedia - along with greek islands, some lawyery stuff, a bit of french history and occasionally about something completely different. And you know how being an wikipedia admin tends to divert from actual writing of articles. Regarding the infobox, one of us already lifted it from your project, modified it a bit and we use it extensivly. Have a nice evening. --h-stt !? 21:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Smile

Striver has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Three Stooges

Not sure if this is a joke or vandalism by I have rv'd it. rootology (T) 07:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, not following you, just editing a couple of articles I had found from following around some AfDs and specifically the user page of one person who had commented on my talk page previously (Morton), if you're refering to the 9/11 stuff. I simply tried to NPOV per policy a few articles. For what its worth, the Three Stooges thing wasn't appropriate to edit in but it was funny. rootology (T) 07:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you added gomer pyle in as a 2nd edit, which is indeed vandalism--per WP:AGF I assumed the second was just an error or being mischievious. Please stop. rootology (T) 07:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Saw your comment, I'll leave it between you guys... just FYI; I'm pretty liberal, but for for what it's worth I personally believe there was no conspiracy to bring down the towers--I know what I saw happen live with my own two eyes when I saw it actually happen. I *do* believe the government should release every scrap of evidence related to the crash of course--it's hardly going to be a national security interest, really. Any five year old could figure out that if a big plane hits a big building really fast, there will be catastrophic damage... by the way, Gomer Pyle? Amateur. Proper tweaking of someone (were one so inclined) should involve something completely rediculous. Look at my user page, in the actually clever vandal section--leftovers from the Colbert Report mess, but it had me chuckling for nearly an hour. rootology (T) 07:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, many of the documents and imagery are a possible risk to national security. I can't elborate on it any more than that. In time, maybe 25 years, all the info will be made available. Bascially, the WTC towers were built for speed, not integrity and they are not the only towers in this country and in other locations that have similar vulnerabilities. It's better if specific details are not public knowledge and the U.S. government is hardly the most secretive government on the planet. If there had been anything other than what is known to be factual, there is no way it could be covered up by the feds.--MONGO 07:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Now now

Don't go around maligning Gomer [28] -- Samir धर्म 07:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think it'd be funnier if you or Jersey Devil joined :) -- Samir धर्म 07:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  Well, I was going to sign George Bush up...but that might be too silly.--MONGO 07:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I was planing to give a serious answer, but i think ill just take it as what it was: lol. peace. :) --Striver 10:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

lol. yeah, i have seen it :P It was quite entertaining. --Striver 18:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it did'nt hold water in my view :) As for UFO's, let me put it this way: i am not convinced by the evidence of us being visited by a non-human high-tech race. But i find the topic interesting and keep an open mind. However, i do belive in non-human inteligent entities, you know, sicne im religious. How about you? --Striver 18:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool, you see it in a scientific-probability maner. I have more theological view of the issue.--Striver 18:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Bro, even you have to agree that there are better arguements than that presented by the proponents of my view :) --Striver 19:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Mike18xx

You protected User:Mike18xx a while back and he is requesting it to be unprotected - I'm not sure of the circumstances of the protection, though, so I wanted to ask you before I unprotected it. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 17:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is he asking it to be unprotected?--MONGO 18:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFP. Cowman109^Talk 18:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hum....I'll take care of it.--MONGO 18:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni33 proposal

Hi MONGO. Thanks for dealing with the socks that were (or could have been) still at large. I think Giovanni has now come as close as he can come (without losing face) to admitting sockpuppetry. I see no reason to try to force a more explicit confession. The conditions he suggests would, if enforced, make the use of sockpuppets futile. I've made a proposal here, at the Incidents Noticeboard. Also, this section of Danny's talk page gives a summary of this history and contains links to all or nearly all the places where it has been discussed. I'd be happy with an early unblocking, but I think we need to work out exactly what the conditions are that Giovanni agrees to first. Assuming that the sockpuppetry stops, I'd also be happy with removing the {{sockpuppeteer}} tag from his own user page, in order to help him to make a clean start, free from any unnecessary humiliation. If you have time, a comment at the noticeboard would be welcome. I'm hoping to have this sorted out as soon as possible, because I need to go on wiki-break to finish some writing. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 07:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:RECALL

Hi, I think you might find this policy proposal at WP:RECALL relevant, and I would be curious of your comments there and on the talk page. Thanks! rootology (T) 17:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The core of it's just been proposed to be changed by me, if your curious. rootology (T) 20:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Awesome edits

Re: State terrorism by United States of America great edits, thanks for contributing, looking forward to see how this article evolves, any suggest on changing the name? we are discussing this on the talk page. Travb (talk) 05:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Still looking for a definitive definition of what constitutes a war crime at this point.--MONGO 05:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Kelly_Martin

Hi, Mongo! I've filed a request for arbitration which mentions or references you. Haukur 12:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Tony

Sam's talk page has been on my watch list from a previous interaction with him the past week, and I saw that conversation; as for Aaron I've been working with him on the Recall policy (and Cyde did attempt to troll me yesterday). rootology (T) 15:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I will lay off. I guess certain individuals are just rubbing off on me (with their penchant for throwing the word around as easy as I breath). rootology (T) 15:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do lay off. All you're doing so far is convincing some administrators that you are indeed only here to stir up a hornet's nest --Tony Sidaway 16:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I will respectfully disagree with that. Also, my job isn't to please administrators, nor is any other user's--it's to build an encyclopedia. My record if of solid NPOV editing and offering occassional contribution on some Wikipedia space matters in always (attempted) polite (but to the point--ten plus years on the Internets has erased my patience for the silly or inane) manner in spite of the situation. rootology (T) 16:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, speaking purely from my own opinion, I'd say your job is to disrupt Wikipedia. I think your policy proposal (and conduct) are likely to be viewed in that context. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin2#Outside_view_by_MONGO

I took the liberty of copyediting slightly, I hope that's all right. It started as changing "copywrite" to "copyright", then I got carried away - if I overstepped my bounds, please feel free to say so, and I will apologise and restore. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

User:El C/Bbbbbbbb

I meant, onward to press for the implementation of my policy proposals, not try to tackle KM's abusive conduct! That appears to be a lost cause at this time as there are too many admins & arbitrators seemingly prepared to blindly defend anything she does and regardless of how much those who dispute her abrasive and divisive approach might contribute as editors and administrators, probably!. All the best, El_C 09:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

good job

good job on removing that one link on that always use weasel words article. I tried to get it removed from another article, but I failed [29]. Maybe you can get rid of it. Anomo 09:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Answer please

Please answer this, I'm eager to hear your reasoning. Karwynn (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

James Kitching

Hi Mongo, It is obvious that you're a big player in Wikipedia. For the last week I have been trying to find a truthful tag for images on the James Kitching article that do not lead to their being deleted (Please read my comments on Wikipedia image policy on the James Kitching discussion page). From your vast experience as an administrator I am sure this is not a problem. Please let me know what to do. Paul venter 08:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mongo, Thanks for your speedy reply. The images in question were not found on the web through a search engine, neither were they ever labelled "fair use". They were provided at my specific request for use in this article. I don't see how Wikipedia can possibly be sued for copyright infringement. This situation is Kafkaesque.... Paul venter 09:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If you have the permission to use the images and it comes from the person or entity that holds the copyrights, then you must demonstrate that on the upload page of the images.--MONGO 11:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC) Hi Mongo, That's exactly what I wrote when I first uploaded the images. Bruce Rubidge is director of the Bernard Price Institute and he personally emailed the images to me for using with the article. However, deletion followed. Now what? Thx Paul venter 15:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Moby Dick is back on hos harrasment parole

Moby Dick is back. Please see the ANB/I case. I thought you'd be interested as per your past comment --Cat out 11:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have filed a request for Arbitration involving us here. rootology (T) 21:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ho-hum...if that is the way you want to take it, that is up to you.--MONGO 22:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism little issue

Hi MONGO, I wonder if I might get you input or gentle touch back over at Capitalism. The article is what you'd expect, but it's actually settled down remarkably well into something pretty good. The last little dust up in the last day is with our old friend Ultramarine. For some indiscernable reason, she wants to insert this chart she drew about "GDP/capita over time" that suffers from several problems:

1. Completely irrelevant to the topic of the actual article (except I think one is somehow supposed to make a bunch of implicit mental steps that arrive at the mantra "capitalism is good"; I honestly don't even know what those steps would be though).
2. Borders on original research, she found some data somewhere, but the presentation is quirky.
3. The large majority of the 2000 years bar chart shows zeros. She reluctantly explained on the talk page that this meant "no data" rather than "low/zero GDP"; but a chart to show off lack of data isn't very helpful.
4. Many gaping methodological gaps: what is a GDP if there is no nation-state to be "domestic"? If there is no currency to measure it in? No exchange rates? etc. I can sort-of half imagine a variety of wild stipulations one might make to claim such data, but which of the dozen such assumptions is used is by no means known (or interesting) to readers.

Maybe just a nudge about its irrelevance on the talk page would help out. Or a revert if she puts it in again (if Ultramarine wants to get 3RR'd, that's fine). LotLE×talk 15:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Glaciers

Thanks for the note. While I agree there's a clear-cut defintion between ice sheet and ice cap, it seems that ice field and ice cap are analgous (or, in the case of ice field]]) vague enough to combine into one article. It seems the heirarchy, in terms of size, of bodies of ice is:

1. Ice sheet
2. Ice cap/Ice field
3. Glacier

What do you think? Jarfingle 15:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I think the generic ice field is supposed to be spelled as ice field, however, despite this, many official place names (see Juneau Icefield, Columbia Icefield) are officially named with no space. In fact, I think a majority of ice fields in context of official names are spelled without a space. I ran into a similar problem with LeConte. Supposed to be spelled with a space (see Joseph Le Conte), however many placenames (LeConte Glacier, LeConte Bay, M/V LeConte) are spelled without the space. — Jarfingle 16:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

On Capitalism

Yea, I just subst'd the template when I saw it, User:GoOdCoNtEnT or however you capitalize his name delisted it. I don't think he provided much of a reason, that was a couple weeks ago, you'll have to ask him why he did precisely. Homestarmy 17:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

editing protected pages

Hell, I'm still trying to figure out how I edited a protected page...I did drop D67 a note, though, and someone else already reverted my edit. See you on the talk page? -- nae'blis 19:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Aha. Is that the difference between [edit=sysop:move=sysop] and [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] in the logs? -- nae'blis 19:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that's the difference, looking at other protection logs. The wording could be a lot more clear, but it's describing the threshold for editing/moving the page ("autoconfirmed" must be the software's term for users past the 4-day limit). Good to know, and sorry about the confusion. -- nae'blis 19:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I am considering it. I'm waiting on some more feedback from Durin before I make the plunge, but you're the second person to mistake me for having already had the bit in the last month, which probably indicates something... let me think on it and get back to you, okay? -- nae'blis 04:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thought this might interest you

User:MANGO. Someone has already informed them of the close similarity to your user name. I thought of taking it further but then maybe you aren't bothered. Edits seem good, mainly vandalism reverts at a quick glance. --Guinnog 14:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

:-)

Thanks for your compliment and helpful suggestion. I must admit that when it comes to editing on Wikipedia and articles abiding by policy I do tend to become rather tenacious. You should know that I am calm and hopeful that relative to editing on New anti-Semitism (the article currently in contention, which I've stopped editing for the day) the discussion about bringing the article into accord with neutral point of view will be fruitful. Thanks again MONGO. (→Netscott) 18:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Deville's RfA

File:Scarlettanager99.jpg

Hello, MONGO, and thank you for the "solid, hardworking" support on my recent RfA. The final tally was 72/1/0, and I have now been entrusted with the mop. I'll be tentative with the new buttons for a while, and certainly welcome any and all feedback on how I might be able to use them to help the project. All the best, and thanks again! — Deville (Talk) 02:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Seeking extra eyes

Hey there. As the last admin to post on my talk page, I was hoping you might be able to take some time and look over a couple of pages that are kind of perplexing me as to whether they should really exist or not. The articles are Timeline of Controversy at Ave Maria School of Law and the parent article at Ave Maria School of Law. The "controversy" one strikes me as thoroughly unencyclopedic, but an editor said it was pertinent to the other article (that strikes me as borderline as well), so I'm a little leery of getting involved without the thoughts of a "higher power" of sorts. Could you take a peek and see what your views are on them? Much appreciated. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 (talk) 12:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Incredible bit of axe-grinding <url link to ED removed>. Isn't parody and satire supposed to be funny? Morton devonshire 23:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

MONGO

MONGO, is it profesional behavior for an admin to be engaged in this?--Striver 15:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a professional. I haven't put that template anywhere. Stop being Alex Jones publicity frontman.--MONGO 18:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Request help with redirection weirdness

Greetings, MONGO.

We have both taken an interest in Yellowstone. I'm adding some information about geothermal features there. I've noticed a strange redirection related to a page there that I hope you can help me with. (I'm new to the Wiki technical details used here.)

There is a popular feature in Yellowstone named Great Fountain Geyser. (Not to be confused with Fountain Geyser.) Great Fountain Geyser is shown as an item on the page List of Yellowstone geothermal features. However, following that link takes one NOT to a page dedicated to this geyser (as would be expected and is customary for the other linked features) but rather takes on to Geothermal areas of Yellowstone.

In other words Great Fountain Geyser => Geothermal areas of Yellowstone

Further research indicates that a user named User:Cholmes75 has created a redirection.

How does one delete a redirection? (I don't see a control on that page.) What is the etiquete for doing so?

Your suggestion or action would be appreciated.

Thanks, Carl Gusler 19:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to create an article about the Great Fountain Geyser, all you have to do is go to this page and hit the edit this page tab, then remove the wording about the redirect, and then write an article about the feature. I believe the older article that was there about that geyser was simply silliness, and it was instead directed to the gethermal features article, although I don't see any information about that feature in the geothermal article, so maybe a short stub will be an improvement.--MONGO 19:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)