User talk:MONGO

Archives Archive 1 (January 2005 to June 2005) Archive 2 (July 2005 to October 2005) Archive 3 (November 2005) Archive 4 (December 2005) Archive 5 (January 2006) Archive 6 (February 2006) Archive 7 (March 2006) Archive 8 (April 2006) Archive 9 (May 2006) Archive 10 (June 2006) Archive 11 (July/August 2006) Archive 12 (September 2006) Archive 13 (October 2006) Archive 14 (November 2006) Archive 15 (December 2006) Archive 16 (January 2007) Archive 17 (February 2007) Archive 18 (March 2007) Archive 19 (April 2007) Archive 20 (May 2007) Archive 21 (June 2007) Archive 22 (July 2007) Archive 23 (August 2007) Archive 24 (September/October 2007) Archive 25 (November/December 2007) Archive 26 (January, February and March 2008) Archive 27 (April to December 2008) Archive 28 (2009) Archive 29 (January to June 2010) Archive 30 (July to December 2010)) Archive 31 (2011)) Archive 32 (2012)) Archive 33 (2013)

This is the talkpage of the notorious MONGO! Leave me a message if you dare!

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Having slept on things and cooled off a bit, I think the reaction to your !vote was a little unfair. While I still don't fully agree with your reasoning, in hindsight, it probably was not a revenge !vote after all. Hopefully we can put this dispute behind us. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 17:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I withdrew my opposition...I don't expect Wizardman to answer my perhaps pointy questions there, but they are what I should have posted in the first place as that may have better explained why I would either support or oppose. It just so happens that the Never vote was at my Rfa, but the point is as a crat he would consider such a vote a viable one that might go towards a hard consensus count and if so, I don't think he should be a crat no matter whose Rfa a Never vote may be on.--MONGO 17:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey there

How did your RfA go? I was unaware of it. I hope you got your mop and bucket back, there's a clean-up needed on Aisle 6 ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Nope I did not, and never will...but thanks for asking. Have not heard from you in a long time...hope all is well.--MONGO 02:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Apology

Sorry about RFA, my mistake. -- KTC (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem...--MONGO 23:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

People

Infoboxes on "long dead people", you write, are not served well by an infobox. Did you read articles about some? Franz Kafka, Michelangelo, Maria Theresa, you name them, - that's what I see ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gerda...yeah, they look fine, but I lean towards no infoboxes on bios of that nature since I think the article text can cover the issues. A couple FA's I was the primary on do not have an infobox. I think its a case by case thing and for some reason that isn't based on any policy or guideline, in the case of the Bach article and similar ones, I prefer no infobox. I wouldn't sweat it...nobody gives 2 hoots what I think anyway.--MONGO 19:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I do ;) (care, I mean). I am new to the topic and try to understand. For example why someone phrases "impose an infobox" where I would just say "add an infobox". The sheer mentioning of the word seems to generate strong feelings in some users. Looking at FAs, 2 of the 10 scheduled for April have no infobox, one is a political movement, the other an opera. Did you know that an {{infobox opera}} is in the making? (Look at the example, for fun.) All bios of April have an infobox. - Looking at March: all 10 bios have an infobox, dead or alive. Keep looking! (Did you know that I have a history of fighting infoboxes? "My salad days ...") --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Nobody cares! MONGO just a pawn in the game of life! In order for me to change my mind, I have to have a mind to change!--MONGO 20:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Mind, look at the examples, for a change of mind (or at my talk, for the 1 April DYK) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

(WP:TPS...) Mong and SuperMong, perhaps? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The "MONGs"...are my cousins from across the sea...dim of wit but stout of heart.--MONGO 20:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Saw a movie about them not too long ago ... had Clint Eastwood in it. Was actually pretty good. "Get off my lawn!" I've felt like that around here a time or two. Antandrus (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Old Friedrich Wilhelm was only a lowly Number 10 (or was it even lowlier Number 5).. but he gets a booking all the same: [1] Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Proof of the meaninglessness of being a mong.--MONGO 02:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Here are some cookies for you

	Here's a plate full of cookies to share!
	Hi MONGO, here are some delicious cookies to help brighten your day! However, there are too many cookies here for one person to eat all at once, so please share these cookies with at least two other editors by copying {{subst:Sharethecookies}} to their talk pages. Enjoy! Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much!--MONGO 02:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Elliott Knob.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

• File:Elliott Knob.jpg

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 10:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Company Glacier (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bonanza Peak

Dark Glacier (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bonanza Peak

Isella Glacier (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bonanza Peak

Mary Green Glacier (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bonanza Peak

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Boston marathon bombings

Note to TPS'ers...Suspect #2 is Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev....his brother, suspect #1 is dead

Re Fort Yellowstone Images

Mongo,

I don't see any excessive white space related to images for the Fort Yellowstone article on my laptop or Ipad --Mike Cline (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mike....um...neither do I...nor have I ever, even when we had the gallery up. I think galleries are generally considered undesirable for featured articles, we have had some featured articles that have them. There is a gallery of Grinnell Glacier I think in both the Retreat of glaciers since 1850 and the Glacier National Park (U.S.) articles which are both featured. I know the Fort Yellowstone article may seem like it is no longer mainly your effort, but it just seems that way I assure you. The research and body of the article and the message are all yours, and its an important storyline that even this old park ranger that used to work in Yellowstone, wasn't fully aware of. Kudos to you for educating so many.--MONGO 17:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Glacier National Park (U.S.) Was brought to FA by Elkman and I back in 2007 and I updated it in 2010 so it could be on the mainpage that year to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the founding of the park. Anyway, if you look in the section on glaciers, it has a gallery, but not in the standard format. The only real difference of note however, is that gallery is setup to provide a timeline of glacial retreat, showing how Grinnell Glacier has receded over time. So its not really just a random collection of images of buildings.--MONGO 18:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments left at RfA

Thank you for leaving comments at my RfA. This is just a friendly notice that I have replied to them. Regardless of your vote, and your decision to continue this conversation or not, I appreciate you taking your time to vote in the the first place. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Improper RfC closure at Talk:Ugg boots trademark disputes

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wayne (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how I'm involved...will check it out.--MONGO 13:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Wayne...you apparently edited the UGG Boots article after User:Phoenix and Winslow did...the two of you first met (I believe) on the Franklin child prostitution ring allegations 2 years ago. On the Franklin article, much of what you were protecting was fringe material..and it was stubbed out by User:NuclearWarfare...You were also protecting fringe material on the Kerry and Kay Danes article (which Jimbo Wales ended up stubbing out) and many years ago on 9/11 related articles, which is where you and I first met and in which I was one of those keeping as much fringe material out as possible. Now I see you have followed Phoenix and Winslow to both UGG Boots and the Tea party dramafest...thats not good at all. Are you aware of the issues regarding Wikihounding?--MONGO 03:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

If you check the history of Ugg boots you will see that I started editing in October 2010. Phoenix and Winslow edited two days later which would have been the first time that I knew he was also editing the article. Despite both of us editing frequently, the first time we actually interacted was on the Talk page in July 2011 when I replied to a post he wrote and there was no acrimony at all. The disputes first started in October 2011 when P&W objected to using the word "generic" in the article. Most editors opposed him so he posted the most insane personal attack against me that I've ever seen[2] in an attempt to discredit everyone who opposed him. That post was the first time either of us said a bad word about the other in that article. I remained completely civil in answering that post and did not "complain" about anything else P&W said until two days later and that was because he was refusing to accept consensus. You can check the link above for yourself. Being on the same article, treating them civilly for the first 12 months and then only starting to argue after they make an unwarranted attack on you, is that the behavior of a stalker?
I remind you that over 90% of my 911 edits are still in those 911 articles and that the 911Arbcom you filed against me found nothing wrong with my editing. Are you claiming to be a higher authority than Arbcom? Wayne (talk) 05:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll look again at your talkpage archives, but I did not see any evidence I filed either an arbcom case or filed an arbcom enforcement action. Jehochman did...he apparently brought up your edits and I may have commented. It would be helpful if you could supply diffs showing where I filed and also help me see what that "insane" personal attack was that Phoenix lodged against you rather than the link to the entire talkpage archive. Here's what has to happen between you two: either work together collaboratively or be forced into an interaction ban. But I know I can speak for the community when I tell you that this multi-front, multi-year antagonistic relation between you and Phoenix is growing tiresome. It should also be of note to you that disruption of articles isn't limited to article space...the worst POV pushing is usually in talk pages...and that sort of thingn the promotion of fringe stuff greatly undermines the ability of good fatih editors to effectively improve any article.--MONGO 11:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

My mistake, it was filed by Jehochman. That investigation also looked at my talk page posts and found them reasonable. This is P&W's specific post, even you must admit that I never claimed Bush had prior knowledge. Wayne (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay...its always best to not get personal about other editors and Phoenix went overboard in that comment. What we need to do here is figure out a few things. Firstly...which one of you is or are either of you stalking each other. Secondly, if you two are showing up at places where the other is active with the sole purpose being to pick a fight, it needs to stop. Thirdly, if you can't stop, then the community will make you do so, either by way of an interaction ban, topic bans or other restrictions. So what do we have to do here...both of you know the way forward that is best to each of you and the pedia. Perhaps if you avoid the Tea Party articles, Phoenix will avoid the Ugg Boots articles...I don't know if that's a fair trade to both of you or not. Think about it.--MONGO 16:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

If you check the editing history of Franklin child prostitution ring allegations you will see that Phoenix and Winslow made his first edit to that article in January 2011, over three months after I first edited Ugg boots so I couldn't possibly have followed him from the Franklin article to Ugg boots. We had no arguments at Ugg boots until October 2011 after he made that post. He has since brought up the stubbing in every single unrelated content discussion. In regards to the Ward Churchill article, I edited the page in April 2009. P&W first edited it in April 2011. In regards to the Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin articles, I did follow him but was justified in doing so. P&W had argued on the Franklin talk page that because the Tarpley and Chaitkin articles both claimed in their leads that they were conspiracy theorists, the Franklin article could say the Franklin accusations were also a conspiracy theory because Tarpley and Chaitkin both supported the accusations. I then went and had a look at both articles...and found that P&W himself had edited both articles hours earlier to include the claim, so I tagged both edits requesting cites. Other editors reverted both of P&W's edits the next day as BLP violations. P&W is leading you up the garden path about stalking. The real problem is his bringing up the stubbing of the Franklin and Danes articles and my 9/11 editing to discredit the editors whose side I take in disputes and which you keep helping him with. This has been brought up before three boards but all that happens is that an admin tells him it's a personal attack and that he is not to do it again. Then he keeps doing it. It was so blatant during the RfC that I thought he would be finally warned at the very least but again he gets away with it. Wayne (talk) 08:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This isn't about who edited first...it about which one of you if either of you are following the other around the website. Now if he's adding material, especially to BLP's that needs a reference and you're simply adding citation needed tags, then that's not really an issue. The bottom line though is that you two seem to be at war across several article spaces and noticeboards...if you folks end up at arbcom, the arbitrators will look at everyones editing history...and sadly, it only takes a small fraction of diffs to cast a long shadow over even an overwhelming preponderance good contributions. The two of you need to decide what you're going to do to avoid further confrontations.--MONGO 13:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You are missing the point. We were both editing Ugg boots and this was the first time we "met". I was already editing Franklin when P&W turned up there. This was after we edited Ugg boots so definitely no following anyone on my part. Did P&W follow me to Franklin? It's possible but unlikely. At the Tarpley and Chaitkin articles I tagged unsourced edits he made to those articles specifically so that he could cite the Tarpley and Chaitkin biographies to support a Franklin edit he made, so that doesn't count as stalking. The result? No stalking by anyone. Wayne (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Let me repeat...The bottom line though is that you two seem to be at war across several article spaces and noticeboards...so the two of you can either disengage or it will only get worse.--MONGO 15:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I stopped editing Tea Party as soon as it was brought up. The Ugg articles are the only ones we both edit. I created the article so how can I not edit it anymore just because someone doesn't like me and decides to disrupt it. P&W's very first post on this article accused it of "trashing Deckers" and avoiding mention that Australian companies are "obviously mimicking Deckers" boots. There would not be any warring at all if he didn't make personal attacks. Wayne (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

MONGO, the sequence of events was fully detailed at the ANI thread, which has probably been archived already. I was already working steadily on the Ugg boots article in July-October 2010, and was also very active on the Talk page. On the afternoon of October 20, 2010 Wayne made some edits to the article mainspace, but then left immediately and didn't return for more than four months. We were two ships passing in the night. And for all practical purposes, he had moved on. I was still there. The head-on collision started in January and February, 2011 at the Franklin article, where he was on the other side in a content dispute. In March 2011 he returned to Ugg boots after an appearance one afternoon in October and an absence of over four months, on the other side in a content dispute. In April 2013 he showed up for the first time at any article about American politics: Tea Party movement, on the other side in a content dispute. If I was working on a larger number of articles or involved in a larger number of content disputes, or if I hadn't walked away from Wikipedia completely for about a year, I think it would have become obvious a lot sooner. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

A case could be made then at arbitration...short and sweet with diffs and little conversation. Cases should be present with just the facts...avoid long diatribes about what you think...let the diffs speak for themselves...show the timeline/chain of events. The case should focus on the issue of wikihounding and fringe POV pushing.--MONGO 15:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Re Fort Yellowstone

Mongo,

Thanks for the work. it would have never made FA without your guidance. I agree with you that the subject is extremely important. Lots more stuff on yellowstone and glacier to work on. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Congrats on the FA! PumpkinSky talk 00:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.--MONGO 04:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

@Mike...I have an article I want to get to Good Article soon...it may interest you as its Yellowstone related. I don't know if there are enough comprehensive sources about it to see it all the way to featured level, but we'll see. Will keep you posted.--MONGO 04:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and have some pierogi!

Pierogi Award

Thanks for your support of my RfA. It didn't succeed this time, but that's no reason not to have some nice pierogi. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)|} Re: I just left a detailed message on the Moose talk page! You're pressing this case awful hard...I honestly can't believe anyone is going to rise to the defense of that map, given how riddled with errors it is. Chubbles (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Arbitration case "Race and politics" opened An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 21, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 01:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)