User talk:MONGO: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:12, 16 September 2011

Online Ambassadors

I saw your comment on User talk:Aude, and thought thats a nice comment, and I clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually approached by another editor who suggested I do the same...I am currently considering it. I appreciate your compliment that you have made regarding my contributions and will take your suggestion under further consideration. Wish you the best...--MONGO 02:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that you would be a great ambassador. I remember you were so helpful with my first featured article; otherwise, it would have been intimidating and maybe I never would have tried WP:FAC. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...there is a University near me that might need a rep. Speaking of FA's...I have one in mind that only you, Aude, CAN get to FA level. It's long overdue...all it needs is your talents and time...and a complete rewrite!--MONGO 03:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please put it on my to-do list. Definitely want to do more FAs. Although first I'm trying to get the Alexis Rockman article to FA status with help of folks at the Smithsonian. That one's been a challenge. --Aude (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'll hate me for it...but as you requested!--MONGO 03:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would be good to have done by 9-11-2011. It's a tough article w/o people more knowledgeable about structural engineering, though can definitely make an effort. --Aude (talk) 03:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI...

Lake Erie is being buffed at the moment, and I am sure the buffer would be happy for some help or feedback...this activity came about as Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTM was reactivated. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will check it out if and when it goes to peer review...tanks for the heads up.--MONGO 05:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(belatedly) the US wikiproject is being revived - I hope it sticks. There are some editors rolling up their wikisleeves and getting stuck in, so it'd be good if they got some help. My experience with US natural history lags way behind Aussie material (both from background knowledge and knowing where to find and how to access stuff). Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its pretty hard to keep people involved in any wikiproject long term but any effort to revive projects like that are great. The one WikiProject I started has but one (me) truly active member and in other projects I am involved in, there is only between 3 and 5 generally active participants. I've watchlisted pages surrounding this and will try to help out as I can, but I am stretched pretty thin...time constraints have me limited to creating stubs mostly and my next FA effort will be commencing as soon as I get some stub work finished.--MONGO 14:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which wikiproject is that? Agree about keeping folks involved, I just try and nurture some drive if I come across it, and if it folds again, then it folds. Trying to get one active de novo just doesn't work....Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Glaciers was my startup...revision history...but even I don't participate in it that much...--MONGO 03:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per women on Wikipedia

I'm not sure if you'll check back at Jimbos' page so I'll copy here:

Mongo. I'd be very interested in discussing this further and in seeing if I can help arrive at solution. I assume that no one took my comments lightly ..(well except for the little joke at the end). Brain function is something I deal with in my teaching, and understanding how it plays a vital in human interactions is at the basis of designing an environment that supports both sexes. I also have a strong interest in how online communities develop and evolve. Thanks (olive (talk) 02:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC))

I just responded at Jimbo's...I am clueless as to how to retain and expand female participation. My interests in article creation is generally a "man's world"...I have had little interaction in my focus area (mountains, glaciers, 9/11 related issues, natural resources) with female editors...though a few may be female, they haven't disclosed their gender and I don't ask...but oftentimes it is obvious in the manner they write, with nuances and more prose in their response...men tend to be more terse, respond with fewer sentences, and slam the door on conversations...this combative arena seems to be a big turn off to many females. So do we need stricter civility policies, better protection from badgering or simply more outreach to encourage more female participation?--MONGO 03:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am about to go offline here shortly, but feel free to respond, only I may not get back for 24 hours almost.--MONGO 03:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The previous discussion on Jimbo's talk page was already linked there, but I wanted to make sure you don't miss it because it was much more fruitful than the current discussion. In my observation, a lot of it stems from a self-sustaining bias. Editors are more likely to stringently enforce content rules on topics that they are not familiar with, or don't consider important to themselves, while leaving the familiar alone. And with a majority male editors, articles that are predominantly of interests to women are likely to come under scrutiny, while some male oriented topics actually suffer from a lack of scrutiny. The NY Times article touches on it, and the toys and children's culture articles are excellent for observing systemic gender bias on Wikipedia. For example, compare the contents of G.I. Joe and Barbie, or Category:G.I. Joe with Category:Barbie (but stay out of Category:Transformers (franchise). ;) Siawase (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the older discussion being more fruitful. I now have had an opportunity to review that older discussion as well as the more recent one and gained some insight into some things that might be causual to this. I have to confess that it is bewildering to me that any male would think this is about affirmative action or that they would be pushed aside to make room for more female editors...I think that, as for example the G.I. Joe to Barbie thing, might be due to a higher interest level amongst younger men as opposed to younger women in the project..in fact, the vast majority of females I have worked with are (at least it seems) more likely to be in their 30's or older. However, having been at the forefront of a number of efforts to protect various editors from offwiki harassment, it appeared to me that the females on this website suffered a proportionately higher level of stalkerish experiences than do the men. In the worst of cases, a few females have had to quit outright due to this. Men usually respond differently to this sort of thing...but not always. I appreciate your input.--MONGO 01:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re your comments

You brought up an interesting point which I'd like to challenge;

From Affirmative action

“

policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, sex or national origin" into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group at the expense of a majority group

”

Interestingly, my conception of "affirmative action" didn't include the "at the expense of a majority" part, and I think I'm going to investigate the wording of that lead to see if it is verifiable. Frankly, I would have said that any policy "that take(s) factors including "race, color, religion, sex or national origin" into consideration in order to" promote "an underrepresented group" is affirmative action; and hence, a "get more women to WP" campaign would be affirmative action.

Regardless, having reconsidered what I'd said earlier, I think I'm a little more inclined to join the campaign. Primarily b/c a 9-1 ratio of women-men does seem a little ridiculous. 4-1 might be acceptable, but 9-1 strikes me as a little too high.... of course, that's entirely subjective. Out of curiosity, what ratio would you suggest was healthy?

P.S. Hope you don't mind me bringing the discussion here. I think Jimbo's page gets cluttered sometimes with silly arguments. NickCT (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the quote you provided from the Wiki article would stand up to any politically correct POV...I'm not an advocate of affirmative action, anywhere, but fully support equal rights. In the job/promotion or college entrance arena or similar, affirmative action was used to increase diversity and bridge the gender gap and I imagine in these cases there are probably some people that didn't get "in" because their group was overrepresented previously...so from their perspective, affirmative action would be a negative thing....the difference here is we don't have a limited number of seats or spots or a steep sided pyramid where but a few "generals" up top are needed...we are all equal in essence since we can purchase more server space relatively cheaply...the potential ultimately exists for everyone on this planet to contribute. I discussed this matter with a few ladies I know, none of them have the slightest interest in Wikipedia...repeatedly, they told me it is for nerds! I'm going to try and get them to better explain what it is that turns them off about the website. I can't say what the right gender mixture should be...that seems unanswerable but I think it would be a better website if there were more females participating...as they may have more interest in articles that are currently being neglected by men. I have also found our female editors to be excellent at the finesse work here like copyediting as well as in dispute resolution...their tone tends to be more gentle, less harsh and in some cases, more introspective.--MONGO 07:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Frances (Glacier County, Montana)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Lake Frances (Glacier County, Montana), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.lakefrancessc.com.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 04:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible....I just checked the suggested page it is from a residental area in South Carolina and the page I just created is of a lake in Glacier National Park Montana! This bot is run amok.--MONGO 04:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a bot message a few minutes ago for a new article on the Fortified Sector of the Vosges where it apparently hit on a mirrored copy of my userspace draft. Given that the article is mostly sourced from dead-tree references in French, it would be quite an accomplishment for it to be a copyright violation. Coren has told me that the bot has trouble with unusual words and perhaps with proper names. Acroterion _(talk) 04:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bot needs to be flogged...bad bot! But that's okay..if it does even a 50-50 split and helps us rid copyvios, then I can deal with that. Thanks for the heads up...hope all is good with you!--MONGO 04:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All's well; I've been working on finishing my attic, building built-in bookshelves. I'll get it done one of these days. Acroterion _(talk) 05:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that is what is sometimes referred to as a Man cave? Just guessing...BTW...are you an admin at Commons?--MONGO 05:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My wife has a large say in the matter, so not really. I'm not an admin on Commons, although I've accumulated a number of permissions. By the way, I have an image of Opal Pool up on Commons for FP; it got an oppose because the colors were thought to be enhanced, as well as the expected (and justified) objection to image noise. Acroterion _(talk) 05:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice image...far superior to any others illustrating the feature...I did a boo-boo at Commons and now have 2 or three weird image files with no images after using the upload tool which assists with Flickr images...I'll get it straightened out...the others I tried all did fine.--MONGO 05:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. Don't know what that ?zz=1 business is on the filenames. I've found it's best to ping an admin directly on Commons to get something done quickly, as the regular queues don't get much action. Acroterion _(talk) 05:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...I was cornfused...so I moved it, then that didn't work so I tried to reupload it...err...well, enough said...all three simply should be deleted so I can start afresh. I don't do many Flickr transfers so it is a mystery to me...--MONGO 05:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<undent>If you feel like writing mountain articles, neither Roaring Mountain nor National Park Mountain have articles, but I did get pictures of them. Acroterion _(talk) 23:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that Commons has an Ansel Adams image of Roaring Mountain, from back when it roared. Acroterion _(talk) 19:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ask and ye shall receive...and I shall add that when I work on it shortly...I think I have a lousy pic of Roaring Mountain myself somewhere...but I won't upload it since it is surely going to be lousy!--MONGO 19:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A little wave across the arb cases

[1] Bishonen | talk 21:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

That sort of thing will never end...so long as the website exists. But as you and others have shown, talkpages reduced to arguing with the fringe and wacky about the same issues repeatedly, does nothing to retain the editors truly committed to making improvements and undermines the chances these articles ever get better.--MONGO 19:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Freedom5000 is gonna be pissed

We are not only not saying that Truthers are wrong... we are marginalizing them so much we arent giving them space in the article LOL The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are dead wrong...and some of the truthers are just trying to make a buck off a tragedy...take the main ring leader for the childish Architects and Engineers for TRUTH...made over 75 grand last year spewing this nonsense to the gullible. These other book writers...all a bunch of opportunistic scumbags.--MONGO 04:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good profile

I love your profile, very intersting and the pictures are great! Keep up the good work as a good Template:Wikipedian. Thanks, Rsteilberg 00:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.--MONGO 02:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chesapeake Bay is the new US collaboration for April..it's a (sort of) wild place...Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Casliber...I appreciate the news but have been concentrating on Grand Teton National Park as of late and related articles to that.--MONGO 14:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mongo

Hello, MONGO. You have new messages at Rogerd's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GRTE

I've started a list of NRHP places in Grand Teton at User:Acroterion/NRHP GRTE. Once I get the coordinates checked and the descriptions fixed up I'll move it into article space at National Register of Historic Places listings in Grand Teton National Park. I'll do the same for Yellowstone, which will be a bit harder with listings in two states and three counties,as well as Glacier, Zion and Rainier. Acroterion (talk) 03:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've started three new lists:

- National Register of Historic Places listings in Grand Teton National Park, pretty much done
- National Register of Historic Places listings in Yellowstone National Park needs a little more work, and
- National Register of Historic Places listings in Glacier National Park needs a lot of work. For some reason, the Flathead County list includes places at Saint Marys and Two Medicine, which are obviously wrong; also there are multiple listings for several places, including the Sun Road, so I need to sort that out. Acroterion (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All that looks great...I'll double check to make sure we have the correct counties...been a busy week at work hence my delayed response.--MONGO 14:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a main article heading to the GRTE article...the pieces are starting to fall into place--MONGO 01:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still planning to do a summary article on historic properties, as opposed to the list format. There's a strong common thread that can be discussed at length with good sources w/r/t the dude ranch/guest ranch trade in the daughter article. Acroterion (talk) 02:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt that much can be written about the history about the structures in all these parks....and the interesting story about the dude ranches which are in Jackson Hole. Hope is I will have the most entire human history sections done by next wekend...then resume the geography discussion and add/expand other sections...the article may be in excess of 125 kbs by time I have completed my research...I still have many refs to add yet just to the history section! I appreciate the trust you and others have that I am trying to slowly get GRTE to FA...but long before it is submitted, I will be working on subarticles as well to ensure it is complete...I was about to Commence a Mountains of Grand Teton National Park list but the GNIS database is offline at present...--MONGO 02:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've started the prose-format article on Historical buildings and structures of Grand Teton National Park at User:Acroterion/Historical buildings and structures of Grand Teton National Park, which will not be entirely confined to places on the National Register; I want to work in the old VC, JY Ranch/Rockefeller Preserve, Signal Mountain Lodge, Chapel of the Sacred Heart, and whatever else might be appropriate. I will probably start a stub on Grant Village in YNP too, since I have some Mission 66-related sources laying around. Acroterion (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked it out...super. That is a story in itself for sure and worthy of discussion...all watchlisted now so I can see the changes. I lived at the Highlands for awhile so had the chance to live in a historical district even. I wonder if there is anything about the Japanese internment camp buildings that were moved to the park from Heart Mountain and put up at Beaver Creek...which is between Highlands and Moose mostly likely at the Old Administrative Area Historic District--MONGO 03:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The National Register nomination, which is a bit scant, mentions that the "addition of trailers and barracks type buildings after World War II has altered the surroundings and district exterior ..." but goes no further. If I can find something about the relocations, I'll work that in. Acroterion (talk) 03:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just remember they were green but I may contact the GRTE spokesperson who I know and see if she has more details.--MONGO 22:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through the Heart Mountain NRHP and NHL nominations, and while they mention that some of the buildings were re-used elsewhere, they don't mention Grand Teton. I'd like to mention it, though, even if they're not there anymore, assuming we can source it. Acroterion (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the summary article into article space, as the swapped blue and red links above indicate. It all needs more work, reference formatting, images, stub improvement and so on, but it's firm enough to live in mainspace while I do all that. Feel free to link to it. Acroterion (talk) 04:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good...you beat me to it. Looking at your NHL and related stubs, they seem pretty comprehensive considering we don't have a lot of reference material to go on for many sites....long before GRTE goes to peer review I intend to at least double check all the stubs and make sure we have them where they need to be, eliminate as many redlined links as possible and add more articles on geographical features.--MONGO 23:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working my way back through the individual articles and expand them, if possible, to at least DYK level. There are a lot of new sources available, but some are still surprisingly hard to reference. After that, I'll go back through the summary article and work it over; it doesn't flow very well yet. By the way, I started an article on Signal Mountain Lodge. We still need articles on Flagg Ranch, Jenny Lake Lodge and Colter Bay Village. Acroterion (talk) 02:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can fix those redlines...give me a week to get the history of GRTE done and by next weekend I will see what I can come up with.--MONGO 22:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to semi-protect my userpage and talk page indef even...the only IP or "newbie" edits I ever see here are some little child reminding me about encyclopedia dramatica or some 9/11 troll...--MONGO 23:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected your userpage; if there's any more talkpage trolling I'll semi-protect here, but one incident isn't enough. Besides, ED is dead, it's successor is being cleaned up and shopped around, so the most recent troll is a last gasp, I think. Our 9/11 trolls are quiet too, apart from one particularly loopy one who trolls the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. Acroterion (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I never understood the internet troll stuff...what a waste of time...how can anyone be so bored? I haven't examined ED in a long time.--MONGO 23:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copyediting...hum...I left a bit of a mess...--MONGO 02:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thanks very much for the barnstar. It's my first, and greatly appreciated. I haven't edited that article in a while, which makes it an even more gracious gesture. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure.--MONGO 02:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me as well. I don't edit in this area as much as I used to, it got rather too stressful. Hut 8.5 11:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understandably!--MONGO 22:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Hey, thanks for the barnstar. I really appreciate it! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly....nice work!--MONGO 22:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'anks for the 'arnstar!

I really appreciate it when I get a barnstar. Thanks for noticing! —hike395 (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, MONGO. You have new messages at ResidentAnthropologist's talk page.
Message added 01:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

RE: Conduct of WLRoss

I have started a Request for Comment on User:WLRoss here. Since you have mentioned his embrace of conspiracy theory on the 9/11 related articles, I hope you will please join me at the RfC. Please post comments there regarding your experiences with WLRoss. Thank you. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mongo, I see you've certified it, but I don't see any diffs showing you have made previous efforts at dispute resolution, or even that there is a dispute concerning 9/11 articles. If those are not added I will delete the RfC after the deadline. Will Beback talk 00:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be patient.--MONGO 00:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the deadline is 22:02, 21 April. Will Beback talk 00:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should also be aware that RFCUs cannot impose sanctions. After the RFCU is completed then you can go to AN or RFAR for those. Will Beback talk 00:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I can't certify it then...I'll just move my comments below?--MONGO 00:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can either add your signature to "Other users who endorse this summary", or add a whole section to "Outside views". Will Beback talk 00:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are my efforts at dispute resolution more clear now (or too long ago), or should I still simply comment as you have explained?--MONGO 00:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute resolution material you added was from years ago, and was already dealt with by the ArbCom. I imagine that more recent dispute resolution efforts would be necessary, efforts made since the last ArbCom case. If there are ongoing problems with that user at the 9/11 pages then AE might be a simpler, faster route. Will Beback talk 01:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not on a witch hunt...but when Phoenix and Winslow mentioned he was having issues with WLRoss on an article outside the scope of 911, it became obvious to me that WLRoss likes to promote/add emphasis to CT's and fringe theories beyond what I had experienced...maybe the place to "complain" is at the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard and drop the Rfc effort?--MONGO 01:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO, you live in Omaha? That's really quite convenient, since you would have relatively easy access to the archives of the Omaha World-Herald. This could resolve several of the points of contention at Franklin child prostitution ring allegations. Would you like to give it a try? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been in the Omaha region since 2000 and that case isn't one I am familiar with...I have very limited time especially during the weeks due to work but can try and fit some research in..give me the tightest parameters you can come up with to help narrow my search...dates, key points and the issues that need attention and I'll do what I can.--MONGO 21:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming the sources

The principal crutches upon which WLRoss and Apostle12 are now resting their fringe theory are a pair of articles from the Omaha World-Herald. They were allegedly "archived" at Nick Bryant's website. I suspect Bryant has added material to one article or both, in his "archived" versions, to lend support to the fringe theory. Confirming sources is not original research per WP:OR, and well within our rights as Wikipedia editors. Here are the citations:

Franklin Panel Faults Grand Jury's Conclusion Archived Omaha World-Herald Pg 1 July 8, 1992 (Cited 12 times)
Dorr, Robert. "Bonacci Gets $1 Million in King Lawsuit." Omaha World-Herald, February 24, 1999. (Cited 3 times)

If you can, please visit the offices of the Omaha World-Herald or the Omaha public library, obtain photocopies of the two articles (probably from microfilm), and compare them with the so-called "archived" versions at Bryant's website, and the material cited and quoted so frequently in the Wikipedia article by WLRoss and Apostle12. These photocopies can be scanned into PDF format and then e-mailed to any interested admin. Thank you for your help with this. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Their offices are close to my work..I'll try and get it done this week.--MONGO 23:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your arbitraion case has come up at ANI

Any comments you have may be insightful on whether the remedies still stand The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New article

WikiLeaks discloses new details on whereabouts of al-Qaeda leaders on 9/11 I trust you know where to add the new information contained in this article? I'm not familiar enough with all the related WP articles to know where to put it all. Cheers. Cla68 (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cla68...seems some info has already been added to the Wikileaks article...and at the new article at Guantanamo Bay files leak....so someone beat me to the punch....again!--MONGO 22:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin child prostitution ring allegations

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Franklin child prostitution ring allegations and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,

William F. Raynolds

Hi MONGO; I nominated William F. Raynolds for WP:DYK just now. Good work on the article. It is informative and useful. [2] Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well..much obliged to you for that...cool!--MONGO 22:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you, this Raynolds guy is a pretty impressive redlink to fill. Good for you. I stubbed the expedition redlink this morning, and that could be featured space eventually. "Low-hanging fruit are gone", my fanny! BusterD (talk) 02:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good..I've been slowly doing a major upgrade on Grand Teton National Park and Raynolds and the expediton he led were redlined...truth is, he seems to have been overlooked since later expeditions were bigger and the Civil War was over...when WSiegmund did the hook for Raynold, the most interesting tidbid I knew about him was about his party crossing Union Pass (which he named) and descending into Jackson Hole...however, I later found out most of the lighthouses he supervised construction on are still standing and then came upon the almost forgotten deal about him and another soldier being the first to summit the highest peak in Mexico...yeah so this fellow did leave a legacy...its nice ot see you're still about as well.--MONGO 02:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Jerry D. Thompson article on "Army explorers as Amateur Alpinists" or some such, which describes three mountaineering expeditions after the end of the Mexican War, including Raynolds's on Orizaba, and two on Popocatepetl. If you're interested I can get you more info. Are you mopping these days? You've put controversy well behind you, and seems you're enjoying pagespace a lot. I used one of your pages as model to Mount Peter (New York). Glad you're having more fun than before. Best to you and yours. BusterD (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! No, I do need to do more mopping and am doing so on the Grand Teton article, but I'm still engaged in 911 articles, am a named party on an arbcom case and recently chimed in on a checkuser case so I'm still "sidetracked" by stuff I shouldn't be. I'm always interested in the early mountaineering stuff especially the first ascents...Raynolds and the other guy had some guts to tackle Orizaba with probably little more than good health, determination and a lot of good luck. That peak is a challenge even today for all but experienced mountaineers. I've never seen the peak, but looking at the topos and the apparent gradients involved, its a wonder they made it.--MONGO 03:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By mopping, I mean adminning. Could you read back through the Raynolds page when you have time? It's near B-Class now, and after I build up the expedition page and move some of the wheat over to Raynolds, I'm going to put the page up for GA. BusterD (talk) 04:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No..I'm not an admin and never wish to be one....I am very happy you have taken the Raynolds page to new heights and support any efforts to get it to GA or even later on as an FAMONGO 13:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also...a there is a Raynolds Bay and a Raynolds Point on an island in Michighan...I couldn't find a ref that says they were named for or by him, but since they are both near the Canadian border, he's probably the namesake.MONGO 14:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Johnson Lake National Wildlife Refuge

The article Johnson Lake National Wildlife Refuge has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Private conservation easement is not notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Zaygun (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Antandrus seems to disagree as do I...but I thank you for adding a ref and making it more notable. I can't believe it has been almost five years since I edited that article...not long after I started it...I need to get back to my older starts and make sure thay all have inline refs...--MONGO 22:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Candygram for MONGO, Candygram for MONGO.

Dear Mr.MONGO I noticed your name pop up several times in a in a previous sock puppet investigation for Giovanni33 and was curious as to whether you could provide some insight into a current sock puppet investigation here. Forgive the intrusion, but this is something akin to archeology at this point and I am looking for users that actually interacted with him previously. Thanks for your time. V7-sport (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check it out.--MONGO 22:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it Mongo, thanks. V7-sport (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I always like Candygrams...and yes, it sure looks like Gio to me...--MONGO 23:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remember how he also used to edit records and music articles? Latin articles? And terrorism? see User:12.170.248.36. Its sony music. Could be nothing and coincidence. Or bear some close watching. --DHeyward (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward...where have you been? We need you! Um...yes, that IP is to Sony but also Brooklyn, least the company IP tracks there and Giovanni33 lived in California, pretty sure...if that matters when logging on at work?--MONGO 02:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I try. It's disheartening to fight the POV warriors that wikilawyer their nonsense. Look at my last few edits and you will see what is frustrating. I don't even remove their crap sources, just reword it to use neutral language and they still complain. An example today, I came to find out what Rick Santorum's views on abortion were (never, or life of the mother, or whatever) - it's not even in his Wiki bio page. Just a bunch of shots from partisan hacks. I was tempted to edit it but what's the point? I know there are good editors here, even ones with partisan views that understand what neutral presentation means but it's overwhelmingly dominated by nutballs that only see this as another campaign website for their ideology. But I try when I can. --DHeyward (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is par for the course. I spent months and months trying to keep ridiculous innuendo out of the George W Bush article...it was clear BLP violations...an Rfc determined it shouldn't belong, so they shipped it off to a side article and linked it...same BS goes on at 911 articles...weasel the CT stuff in and if not, make sure there is a link to it. Some call me partisan, but when Obama was running for Prez and even since he was elected, I don't think I ever edited the article...except to revert vandalism...I don't even watchlist that one.--MONGO 00:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for William F. Raynolds

On 15 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William F. Raynolds, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 1860, William F. Raynolds led the first US government-sponsored party to cross the Wind River Range and enter Jackson Hole, Wyoming? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please weigh-in on this merge

Dave, a bit of friendly canvassing here. Please weigh-in on this merge so I can complete it. Hope all is well up Omaha way. Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin child prostitution ring allegations

This message is to advise you that the Arbitration Committee has declined a request for arbitration relating to Franklin child prostitution ring allegations, to which you were listed as a party. To read the comments made by individual arbitrators in relation to the request, see here. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 20:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ansel Adams photos

FYI - Wikipedia:GLAM/NARA/Ansel Adams donation. Cheers --Aude (talk) 02:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

interesting...how many are currently uploaded?--MONGO 02:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glacier View Dam

Have you ever heard of Glacier View Dam? I hadn't; I ran across it while doing some research on something else, and wrote the article. I had no idea a reservoir was proposed in the park (apart from Lake Sherburne, of course). Acroterion (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

News to me...pretty expansive article and nice. Glad it didn't happen! I know two old dams in Olympis NP are set to be raised in the immediate future, but Sherburne and the Jackson Lake Dam will be around indefinitely. Good job! How about making it a DYK?--MONGO 03:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and nommed it for a DYK; it seemed like an obvious candidate. Acroterion (talk) 04:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Teton Fault

I've uploaded an image of the fault scarp across the base of Rockchuck Peak to the west of String Lake. [3] The shot was taken from the Cathedral Group turnout; I might have another shot from closer range. The scarp is outlined by the band of trees and the sharp change in direction of the debris chute. It's interesting that there are aspens above the scarp and evergreens below. Acroterion (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...I will add it Sunday.--MONGO 05:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will sue in a court of law, retard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.171.65 (talk) 06:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ex-wife! How did you find me here? I'm still broke...and still retarded...so your compensation will be even less this time!MONGO 16:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Protected areas

Hi MONGO, and thanks for your interest in assessing protected areas articles. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas/Assessment before rating articles. If individual protected areas would be top importance than most articles would be of "top importance" and the whole rating would be meaningless. Top importance is reserved for articles covering broad topics such as protected areas. --Elekhh (talk) 03:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been a member of the project since 2005...what could be more of a "Top" importance to the Protected Areas Project than the worlds first national park and the worlds first national forest? So, in your opinion, the "Top" rating should go to an article with the title of National park or similar...?--MONGO 03:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those could be exceptions of course, but is a slippery slope as than the first NP for each continent would be added than the first NP in each country... Indeed I find it would be in the scope of National park to describe which one was the first in the world and how the system evolved, and is in the scope of "National parks in xxx" to describe which NP was the first in a particular country or region. The importance rating of PAs should have the global scope of the project in mind and if all 58 US NPs are top importance than it soon will be followed by the 67 Brazilian NPs and the 685 Australian ones and so forth... than the largest from each region would be considered top importance and so forth... If you still think Yellowstone should be Top, I am OK with that but, pls indicate in the edit summary the reason. Also any suggestions regarding the recently implemented assessment system and other proposals would be highly welcomed on the WikiProject's talk page. Cheers, --Elekhh (talk) 04:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support MONGO. Yellowstone and Yosemite are two of crown jewels in the Nation Park system both because of the areas they protect and because of their role in the history of providing protection for special places. –droll [chat] 06:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also strongly support MONGO's excellent work, and agree that those parks as many others are "crown jewels" and of top importance for many of us. But what's needed here is an objective hierarchy between articles for the WikiProject. In general, top importance articles are a group of 0.1% to 1% of all articles in a WikiProject, which for WPAREAS would be around 10 to 70 articles, let's say 50. That cannot even include all individual protected areas which are WHS. It can mainly include broad topics such as already tagged. As I said I can agree with inclusion of exceptional individual PAs in the category, if supported by objective arguments. Best make that argument on the WikiProject's talk page for transparency. --Elekhh (talk) 06:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC) PS. My message above was not against Yellowstone or Yosemite in particular but the serial tagging of 7 PAs as top importance in 6 minutes, without any argument provided in the edit summary. --Elekhh (talk) 06:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I worked in the french wiki assessement and I think I can help a little. First I know by experience that only three criteras should be utilised for the assessement of the protected areas; the land area, the UICN category and the international recognition, like the World Heritage Sites (WHS), the Biosphere reserves (BR) an the Ramsar sites. In the french wiki we have actualy two parks are rated max, Yellowstone and Everglades, for Yellowstone it is because it's the first protected area of the concept of "national park". It's also a BR and a WHS. For Everglades it's because is one of the rare park to be WHS, BR and Ramsar. --Fralambert (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I wasn't expecting so much interest when implementing the assessment system, so I am very glad. I reverted Yellowstone to Top importance per above consensus. --Elekhh (talk) 03:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The assessment work I generally stay away from but appreciate your efforts...and thanks to others commenting here.--MONGO 02:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

removing my content

Hi MONGO, I really do not appreciate you removing my edit to the 7 World trade Center page without first discussing it on the discussion page. You will see that I did the same before I originally made the edit. The paragraph I altered had several statements that were either entirely false or based on subjective interpretations by laymen. I made every attempt to retain any content that was ACTUALLY verifiable and I was able to add quite a bit of new content, including the sequence of collapse from NIST's final report, which I feel is entirely valid and pertinent to the subject and is certainly more factual than what was there. Every statement I made REDUCED the emotional overtone of the page and was DIRECTLY from the most reliable source on the subject. I feel that it made the section SIGNIFICANTLY better by wikipedia's own standards, and you had better have some excellent SOURCES to argue otherwise. I could easily write an entire essay on just how wrong the paragraph that I altered is, point by agonizing point... please do not make me do this.Smitty121981 (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)smitty121981[reply]

You removed a valid source...the article is a Featured Article...it has been Peer Reviewed and went through a Featured Article Candidate process when it was promoted to that level, so I can't see how your removal of a valid reference was beneficial.--MONGO 20:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes I removed a source - and replaced it with a BETTER source, by wikipedia's own criteria. The reference I removed was a Popular Mechanics article which described the NIST report. A far better source would be to use the ACTUAL report from NIST. Also, wikipedia makes it clear that "academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable source" which makes the NIST report a better source regardless. Why trust a commercial publication's opinion about a report when you can cite the report itself?? The paragraph in question is about the NIST Progress report, so the NIST Progress Report should logically be the reference here.

Also, removing that source was CLEARLY not the main focus of my contribution. My main contribution was to remove incorrect content that is not found in ANY source!!Smitty121981 (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)smitty121981[reply]

Furthermore, seeing edits such as this one and this one on another article that is related to the one we're discussing, indicates to me that you are here to add your own twist to the events.--MONGO 20:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusations of bias are insulting and baseless. The second link above was one of my very first edits to wikipedia, and I thought it was more accurate for the tone of the article to reflect that there is NOT a consensus about the events. When this change was removed I did not fight it because I realized that it would be hard to defend with a source, so I then looked for things that WERE verifiable by source. Leading to... the first link shows that I was updating the article to (once again!) better reflect what NIST actually published. When the wiki article says "At 5:20 p.m. a critical column buckled, leading to the collapse of floor 13" it is WRONG - NIST clearly says that Floor 13 collapsed BEFORE the column buckled. I was merely trying to fix this and add the VERY important line about thermal expansion. The sentence I added at the end is NOT biased but I understood that it might better belong in the article dedicated to WTC7. The fact that you would accuse me of bias based on this edit reveals your OWN bias. Please be more mature.Smitty121981 (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)smitty121981[reply]

And do I get no respect at all for being the one to finally include NCSTAR 1-A as a source on the 7 World Trade Center page, a two and a half years after it was published? Why do you not look at that more recent edit to judge my level of subjectivity?!?Smitty121981 (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)smitty121981[reply]

(MONGO, pardon me for butting in) Smitty, I notice that you've asked both MONGO and Tom Harrison to "be more mature." I'm going to caution you that there's a door you do not want to open here. These are two editors with a lot of experience in this topic area. Your edit that the attacks were "allegedly" carried out by Al Qaeda, and your incredible statement above that "there is NOT a consensus" about the events are really all we need to know where you are coming from: there is a consensus -- indeed more than a consensus, a unanimity from all reliable sources on the matter. Warning: all 9/11 articles are subject to sanctions, as we've had a lot of conspiracy theorists try to twist them the way they wanted, and all efforts have ended badly. Thank you for listening, Antandrus (talk) 02:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EXCUSE ME PEOPLE! Have you forgotten this[4]? I am not perfect, and I chose a controversial subject to start with, but that does not give people the right to gang up on me! This is now the FOURTH time I have been unduly accused of attempting to inject bias and the SECOND time that the threat of sanctions has been waved in my face! I really take offense to this and I have made no personal attacks myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smitty121981 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also butting in here. To everyone: Please abide by WP:CIVIL. This means (a) please do not shout (i.e. in bold letters or caps all), (b) do not try to bully others by issuing vague threats. Failure to comply entirely with WP:CIVIL by one side does not entitle the other side to ignore that policy. Cs32en Talk to me 03:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the friendly reminder Cs32en. Yes, I should have kept my cool. Sorry for "shouting". I just think that these much more experienced editors like MONGO are not treating me fairly. Specifically, I feel that they are biting the newcomer (me) by not assuming good faith. I expect more respect in the future, and in return I will make sure to curtail my enthusiasm. Thanks! Smitty121981 (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)smitty121981[reply]

Appreciate your recognizing the value of civility, User:Smitty121981. Without it, we can't communicate easily. IMHO, the topic chosen wasn't merely controversial, it was akin to jumping in the hot frying pan. Several editors have taken a long and steady responsibility for handling this very hot pan, and it takes a special kind of willingness, as you can see by looking at the arbitration case linked on your talk. Nobody will complain about improvement, but as Featured subject matter, the page is pretty mature and the subjects you raise have largely been covered in previous page discussion. Be aware that contentious edits in this subject matter draw lots of attention from the community. That's not any sort of threat of sanctions; read the arbitration case. If you really want to edit, please consider contributing first in a less contentious arena. That's friendly advice from a stranger. BusterD (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Been busy...sorry for the delayed response...even Featured articles can be improved...I'll work on that this evening.MONGO 16:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to pull WikiProject Wyoming under WikiProject United States

It was recently suggested that WikiProject Wyoming, to which you are a member, may be inactive or semi active and it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. After reviewing the project it appears that there have not been any active discussions on the talk page in some time and the only content updates appear to be simple maintenance so being supported by a larger project might be beneficial. I have begun a discussion on the projects talk page to see how the members of the project feel about this suggestion. --Kumioko (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for WikiProject United States to support WikiProject Nebraska

It was recently suggested that WikiProject Nebraska, to which you are a member, may be inactive or semi-active and it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. After reviewing the project it appears that there haven't been much active discussion on the talk page in some time and the only content updates appear to be simple maintenance so being supported by a larger project might be beneficial. I have begun a discussion on the projects talk page to see how the members of the project feel about this suggestion. Another user has added the project to the WPUS template and I added it to the list of supported projects in the WPUS main project page but before I take any further action I wanted to contact each of the active members for their input. --Kumioko (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My RfC

I never have closed this RfC I posted on myself in June 2007, in part because several of the issues involved have continued over several years. Before I consider possibly closing it (I feel I'm the one who should close it since it was a self-RfC), I was wondering if you would like to reconsider your endorsement of SlimVirgin's summary. If so, please strike through your endorsement. If you still stand by it, please consider adding an additional statement at the bottom the front page of the RfC. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 01:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to strike through but see no reason this has been open for 4 years, so no reason you can't close it. Is it being referred to in another venue?--MONGO 14:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The recent posting of the emails off-wiki in which David Gerard explained his plan to an appreciative Jimbo on how he was going to mislead a reporter looking into his block of that community in Utah reminded me of the RfC. After I reread the RfC, I realized that with the community banning of Mantanmoreland and his numerous, subsequent sock accounts, I probably should give SV and FloNight, as well as the endorsers of their comments, a chance to update their comments and endorsements before closing the RfC. Cla68 (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There were some revelations later after I did the endorsement. I would think you could have the page deleted. For the record, though Mantamoreland shouldn't have socked, he was dealing with Wordbomb...I confess I am not familiar with the content of the email leaks, though what I have heard is that there is some conspiracy theorizing in regards to their true meaning.--MONGO 01:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for WikiProject United States to support WikiProject Montana

It was recently suggested that WikiProject Montana might be inactive or semiactive and it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. I have started a discussion on the projects talk page soliciting the opinions of the members of the project if this project would be interested in being supported by WikiProject United States. Please feel free to comment on your opinions about this suggestion. --Kumioko (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 fac

I'd like to let AQFK nominate September 11 attacks, but if the process needs to get started soon for the 10th anniversary, I can nominate it Monday. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking either of you...actually. I think its better that I have been reserved from editing it since both of you tend to draw less attention. If AQFK doesn't nominate it at FAC by Monday, please do so...I will cease other things I am working on to assist yourself and others in getting the article featured. So far, I think my backing off has been beneficial and less tedious for you and AQFK to get the article to GA level.--MONGO 19:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

--Kumioko (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said something nice about people like you today

Please read my contribution to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/News/August_2011/Op-ed. I was thinking of you and others when I wrote it. Thanks, bud. Thanks for it all. BusterD (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speechless. My experiences are far less personalized than yours...No doubt, there were heroes that day...your friend Frank gave his life to try and do what he could to help those in need...as you mention his selfless sacrifice, it makes me realize that there is little I could ever do to match that contribution. I am appreciative of your sharing this obviously personal and touching remembrance with us.--MONGO 16:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please pass this along to others in the group. Without drawing attention to myself, I wanted you all to to know how much ordinary editing can mean to involved parties. BusterD (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will do that...peace be with you and the families who suffered such horrific losses on that day.--MONGO 17:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

This appalling use of rollback just lost your privileges. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-'m on my blackberry and I thought at first it was vandalism since the editor wrote IAR...its tough to see or edit with clarity on my blackberry, but I tried immediately after to go to Shitwaist's edit and do a revert, so again...this was an accident...did you remove my rollback ability?MONGO 18:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the edit was clearly not vandalism—the very fact that editors can disagree about its merits in good faith is evidence of that—but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, since dodgy rollbacks from phones seem to happen quite a bit. On that note, Wikipedia:VPT#Disabling_rollback_button_on_watchlist might be of interest. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly just read but if a page isn't too busy I make a short comment, yet rarely edit. Thanks for the restoration but likewise, since you and I have been in some disagreements as far as content on the article in question...using your admin ability rather than seeking out a neutral admin at AN/I could be a bad call on your part...it is akin to a block since oit involves using your admin ability. Otherwise, thanks for belieing me on this matter.MONGO 19:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When one makes an accidental revert against policy, one is expected to immediately revert themselves. It's been 11 hours and 30 minutes. I'm still waiting. N419 BH 05:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edit in question wasn't a BLP violation, so what was so urgently wrong about the edit that you had to revert it immediately from your portable device? Cla68 (talk) 05:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about this obviously good-faith edit which you reverted twice? N419 BH 06:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it seems you seem to have a habit of using rollback to revert edits you disagree with ([5], [6], and the revert above, all of which are from the last couple of days), I'm a lot less inclined to take your word on this revert, since it seems you've been using rollback "accidentally" a lot, or you've deliberately used in circumstances where you shouldn't, so I'm re-removing it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to look over those diffs later...I have serious page load issues whenever I try to C thimngs on the blackberry...U should take this sort of thing to n absolutely neutral admin at AN/I..MONGO 18:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin who stumbled upon this discussion via my watchlist because I thanked you for supporting my RfA in 2005, I endorse the removal. You've yet to adequately explain your actions (particularly your failure to self-revert the "accidental" rollbacks). —David Levy 18:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wa slow...but was able to see diffs...looks like I misused rollback...looks like Mitchell misused his admin abilities since we have had disputes in this matter...will assemble the diffs tonight...never good to see an admin seek a way to get revenge or retribution...he should have gone to AN/I.MONGO 18:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're wikilawyering over a technicality (and you're wrong; the removal in no way advances my interests or diminishes yours in any area where we disagree). If you think I've abused my tools, you're welcome to take me to ANI or ArbCom, but they'll tell you the same thing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mongo, this seems to be a losing battle. Unless you use Huggle there is really no practical use for the rollback privilege, especially since Twinkle has a far more versatile rollback function. I'd suggest letting go and then, if you still want to use it, reapplying a little while down the road. It's not worth the drama. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...I could care less about rollback...BUT...yes a couple of the ones I did were accidental and a couple were carelessness...Mitchell should have ytaken it to AN/IMONGO 19:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not reapply when this teapot tempest dies down? We can use you in Huggle vandal fighting, though the risk is that it can make you crosseyed. ; ScottyBerg (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

of and on I did do some vandal patrol...Mitchell...take yourself to AN/I...get feedback on ypour action...we can't have admins misusing their "powers"...you should provide diffs showing our disagreements as well as fiurther commentary you've placed on other pages...MONGO 19:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we will revisit this in another venue...tomorrow...maybe even at arbcom...or an Rfc at a minimum...will sleep on it and notify you tomorrow HJ Mitchell...admins should never use their tools against anyone they have had disagreements with...[7] and we'll show the fun had by all since the issue was stonewalled by surely unbiased collaborators....what a sham...[8]...[9].....

Rubbish. If that were true then I would be invulnerable. Malleus Fatuorum 03:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be...--MONGO 03:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do I? You seem to find my block easy enough to find when it suits you, but not when it doesn't. Malleus Fatuorum 03:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What? you mean your block log? I don't know what you mean.--MONGO 03:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I mean my block log. Malleus Fatuorum 03:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good one...impressive. If admins are in content conflicts with you and later blocking you, they should be desysopped....you might think I'm an asshole, but I believe in equal opportunity discrimination.--MONGO 03:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens I do think you're an asshole. But consider the possibility that you, like me, have fallen out with almost all of Wikipedia's administrators. Are we then immortals? Malleus Fatuorum 03:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to be the whole ass if you don't mind. No, I am expendable..if I left the 9/11 pages, a bigger SOB would take my place...then where would the nutters go? I like admins, I even like HJ Mitchell...but I don't like him using his admin tools after he has had content disagreements with me. MY rollback of that IAR...that is borderline...we traditionally did exactly that since we had 2 Rfc's and the overwhelming consensus was no link at all...period. So I see IAR for the link, I do rollback...same with the other rollback...I only did ONE bad rollback...but HJ Mitchell, he didn't hestitate to remove my rights...he claims he gave me the benefit of the doubt...no he didn't till after I explained. These admins, they gots such bad attitudes...see...I used to be one of them myself ya know. Basic rule of thumb I learned and needs to be made clear again...NEVER use your tools like this. In my life I've been shot, stabbed multiple times, spat on, cussed at, attacked by a BIG dog and almost got into a fight with a grizzly...you think anything on this website is going to scare ME?--MONGO 04:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a very neutral 3rd party here, Mongo ... dude, you have the most bizarre understanding of WP:INVOLVED in the entire world. Nothing you posted here or at ANI holds up that would ever mean that HJ could not perform a removal of rollback. Because of your misunderstanding, I think you've spread some good faith pretty thin around here. Can I suggest you back away from the carcass. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"dude"..."bizarre"...before it was closed to discussion two editors disagree with your assessment as did the closing admin...NO good faith was extended to me and HJ Mitchell, despite his ludicrus, rude and condescending responses aside, is on the opposite side of my stance on the very content issue in question, so you're dead wrong that he wasn't involved and dead wrong in assuming that he was within his rights to do as he did. I'm sorry you have such a bizarre misunderstanding of why it is important for admins to not misuse their powers in such a way.MONGO 11:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm 100% against admins misusing their powers. In this case, and according to policy you're wrong. So here's your only way forward: you either drop the stick, OR you file an RFC against HJ Mitchell. If I see 1 more post anywhere on Wikipedia where you suggest unfounded/unproven impropriety in a place other than an RFC, I will block you for WP:DISRUPTION. Oh, and no, I do not meet the definition of WP:INVOLVED ... I'm merely trying to help both you and the project. Your call. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now you read this amd read it carefully...the closing admin on my AN/I thread closed it suggesting HJ Mitchell should have sought out another admin to do what he did, another admin, Tom harrison concurred, I filed the review as I am permitted to do so to seek further opinion...a fourth editor agreed with my stance as well...I have been trying to see if HJ Mitchell will in any way act politely and reasonably with me in regards to this matter and he is stonewalling even though not everyone agrees with his action...I have a right to ask him at his talkpage in regards to this matter for which myself and other editors see some issue...you show up with threats, condemnation and a brusqueness that is unnecessary...I have been giving him the opportunity to at least show some humility before I decided to take this further...I post one comment at his talkpage today and you're here threatening me...MONGO 14:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you read this and read this carefully: consensus suggested that it might have been a good idea for someone else to have done it, but that nothing was wrong overall with him doing it. This is not a democracy, it's consensus. Consensus was and remains against you. You are provided an opportunity to file your RFC against HJ Mitchell. He does not owe you an apology, nor should you ever expect one. I have not threatened, I warned. You have seriously beat this horse well beyond its carbon atoms. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another admin slapped him with a trout...told him next time to get a neutral admin essentially. So we agree that he should have done this yet he doesn't agree...therein lies the problem. We are here discussing this on my talkpage and well bless you for defending HJ as I think admins should defend each other against what they see as unjustified harassment. You've interacted with HJ before, so I assume you respect his efforts and he respects yours. There is nothing wrong with that...but that should not make you think you can come here and warn me when my recent efforts have been solely to get a community response to this matter and to see how he felt after that and I see he is unchanged in his opinion. Nothing wrong with sticking to ones guns if one sincerely believes they have done no wrong...and nothing wrong with defending another admin against may seem like an inaccurate assessment. My experiences are that Rfc's accomplish little except to create a drama fest and get everyone mad at each other. I don't do forum shopping either...howevern there is another venue that while still drama laden the outcome is supposedly decided by neutral persons. I doubt I'll go that route...so in light that the best I can hope for since I'm not a petty person is that perhaps HJ Mitchell will see the past event and act with more caution (as other admins advised him) in the future...MONGO 16:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you do know that trouting is considered humour, right? Kinda like "haha...don't...hahah...ever...haha...do that...haha...again...hahahahahaha". You were fine to get community input in ANI, nobody doubts that. However, consensus was against you. At that point, you needed to stop beating the horse, and stop harassing HJ, and indeed, stop discussing it OR file an RFC. The measure of a man is in how he moves forward, not in how he looks backward. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes, well aware it was a joke...glad you're here to defend your friend...but in all honesty, now all it looks like you're doing is trying to provoke me.MONGO 16:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Provoke you into what? Being even more of an arse than you already are? That would be difficult indeed. Malleus Fatuorum 16:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no friends on Wikipedia, nor am I a part of any great cabal. I looked at the situation as a neutral 3rd party, as I said from my very first post. My words to you are what i consider to be common-sense advice, and I think that by moving forward the right way a lot of stress will be resolved. It does, however, frustrate me to no end when people don't drop sticks, and/or make up their own meanings for policy (I will say clearly, HJ did not meet WP:INVOLVED), as opposed to meaning has been held as consensus. I'm neither baiting nor provoking, I'm providing common sense reasoning in a calm, polite, helpful manner. Although I edit-conflicted with the above, I'm striking this ... there's nothing that I can say when even Malleus says that it's YOU who are wrong (after all, according to him, ALL ADMINS are wrong) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parking place arbcom: [10] Case study.......

Interested in your thought processes

Can you tell me why this article, which I know you edited, was promoted to FA in 2007 with significant mention of conspiracy theories, but at this article you have lobbied to exclude such mention while simultaneously seeking GA and FA promotion? It doesn't make sense to me and I thought I would ask you to explain. --John (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4 years ago, the conspiracy theories surrounding WTC 7 were a bigger part of the story and even today, the collapse of WTC 7 is the darling of the CTer's like yourself...(remember, you fought long and hard to incorporate more and more CT's into that article...you failed, then were nice to me leading up to your Rfa, in which I erroneously supported you and the primary person that got WTC 7 to FA opposed your adminship)...the CT's are much more intertwinned with the story of WTC 7 than they are with the September 11 attacks themselves, and the article went FA before the final NIST report was completed here...(big file)...it really is as simple as that...and...MY OPINION IS DIFFERENT NOW since the CT's are less, not more prevalent, not that I think I should waste time explaining myself to you...but did so...now explain why you an ADMINISTRATOR of this website feels it is okay to say the following to me at your userpage...for lo and behold, we have this fine display of ADMINISTRATOR fortitude where you call me a POV pusher here: Go back to your ludicrous POV-pushing in your little walled garden, and take your ridiculous threats, racial stereotyping, posturing and bluffing with you. I am not afraid of you, but I have nothing to say to you and do not wish to read your ignorant garbage here. You are not welcome here, as I already pointed out. As you have requested of me in the past, I now ask you to stay off my talk page. Thanks. ( haven't been back to your talkpage...so how come you're here now since you mentioned above that I had asked you to stay away, and used that, as rationale for telling me to not post at yours?)

You seem to have a history of leaving abusive, condescending notes at usertalk...and at talk...you've managed to insult Tom Harrison, A Quest For Knowledge (remember, you called him a liar the other day...nice) and Tarage...surely others which I can gather...lots and lots of evidence.

Here you tell an editor who happens to believe like a fair number of people that you are a POV pusher...in response to him calling you this, you comment at his talkpage: I stopped reading at "POV-pusher" so I don't even know what the rest of your abusive message said (although I noticed you posted it twice). There are help-lines and groups out there if you have a problem with impulse control; I don't recommend using Wikipedia as therapy[11]....when he responds at your talkpage, you remove his comment...just touching on the iceberg here John...

Since you think the best way to get your POV version of the September 11 atacks article is to circumvent editing in situ and instead, create your version in a sandbox and then, eliminate me using the 2008 arbcom restrictions....as you comment here One possibility some way down the line would be for us (by which I mean the non-partisan editors with an interest in improving the article) to put together a sandbox version then build a consensus to switch to a more neutral and GA-compliant version. The idea of reactivating the 2008 Arbcom case to have MONGO removed from play is also not a ridiculous one, Ceoil. I think just that step would maybe make enough of a difference...hum. So odd you consider me to be partisan, yet from my perspective, you've long been promoting fringe material...and I can prove it with the diffs your editing history will provide....who do you think Wikipedia wants to edit 9/11 pages? A person I can easily demonstrate has been promoting peripheral, fringe and even conspiratorial stuff or one who has been working to keep the article based on the evidence that is supported by the best reliable sources? Who do you think they prefer, John?--MONGO 22:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may have touched the iceberg, but as far as I can tell in skimming your wall of text you haven't answered the question, which is odd. Is that because you don't know, or because you don't want to tell me? Don't worry about it anyway, I think things are heading towards a peaceful conclusion there. Take care, --John (talk) 23:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are always welcome at my talkpage...and I did answer your question at the top. But you like calling people liars, POV-pushers and what not and get away with it because, well, I guess since you're an administrator.--MONGO 23:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks, I spotted it this time. But that doesn't make sense, because it is still in the article in 2011, even though the NIST report (thanks for providing the link) was issued in, what, 2008? As regards my conduct, you will find with me that I give as good as I get. In other words if you are nice with me I will always be nice back. If you call me a POV-pusher or whatever, you may not be happy with the response. In Scotland we say of people like you that you "give it out but you don't like getting it back". I guess the US equivalent would be "passive aggressive"? Maybe not. Nevertheless I am sorry if I have hurt your feelings by being honest with how I feel about your involvement in this area. Do you ever ask yourself just how effective it has been, fighting all these years to keep "CT" material out of the article when the rest of the world has apparently moved on? Do think if you get the chance about the WTC 7 comparison, I was quite surprised to make the connection when I looked. Take care, --John (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lets leave your comments up here....please post some more....--MONGO 00:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CT and 9/11

Hi Mongo!

I am pleased that you restored your user page to its previous state.

I do question your opposition to any mention of conspiracy theories in the 9/11 article.

Let me mention the article Social Democrats, USA (SDUSA), which used to be based on a leftwing conspiracy-theory (or at least network-suggestion) site. That article and many articles on Wikipedia suggested that this organization, led by followers of a Trotskyist---or ex Trotskyist---named Max Shachtman was responsible for neoconservatism and the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld foreign policy!

Wikipedia had many such articles around 5 years ago because of an energetic editor, who has since retired. Similar charges have been made in print even by people who should know better, like former In These Times editor John Judis, in Foreign Affairs, which is beyond mainstream even establishment. Similar charges are widely publicized on blogs.

Please examine SDUSA, and its section on conspiracy-theorists / "State-Department socialism". That article discusses conspiracy theories with criticism, in a brief paragraph.

Including a similar brief discussion of conspiracy theories in the 9/11 article seems reasonable, and opposing any mention of CTs seems imprudent.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you pleased I restored my userpage to it's previous state?MONGO 11:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two reasons: In its previous state, your page need not have been in compliance with the user-page guidelines (specifically regarding soap-boxing). More importantly, I suspected that you felt better. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe that the statement I had in the image caption is not 100 percent factual? On Wikipedia, we strive to follow guidelines and policies meet WEIGHT, FRINGE, ONEWAY, NOT and others...since all reliable sources that examine the attacks rarely even have a footnote in regards to these conspiracy theories, they aren't worthy of mention in an article complying with summary style guidelines. In the WTC 7 article mentioned by John above, he states that a brief mention of CT's appears in that article, an article I have barely touched in 4 years...but CT's are mentioned there in the WTC 7 article since at least one reliable source did examine "hypothetical blast scerarios"...as far as the 9/11 attacks themselves, extremely few reliable sources even mention CT's.MONGO 14:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forget my mentioning your user page, then.

IMHO, an encyclopedia is an instrument of enlightenment, and so some consideration of the audience is needed. Given the weird ideas floating in the margins of society, or even among large shares of societies in e.g. Pakistan, I think that some brief consideration of conspiracy theories would be useful, to those who wish to educate themselves. I do not want pages to be dismissed as propaganda for the U.S., in perhaps unfair but non-negligible portions of our audience.

In contrast, I would not want discussion of herbs or the magic of crystals in our medical articles, unless in connection with studies about the prevalence of alternative health visits (and their inefficacy) among sick persons.

I would like your review of the SDUSA article, given your experiences with contentious political articles, if you feel the spirit move you.

S, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a longish article so I will look it over this evening when I can do so on a desktop screen.MONGO 17:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the goodwilled offer. Even a short section of that article may serve as a saltine, to cleanse the palate. (Perhaps editor John saw this section and then made 3 good edits, for which I'm grateful: My recruiting goal has already been accomplished!) I edited a bit on paleoconservatism today, to cleanse my palate.... Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without a lot of research on my part, I cannot tell if the SDUSA article is providing more or less weight to discuss the conspiracy theories than it should to reflect the peer reviewed academic quality references that I hope are used in the article. I see you've done a number of edits on the article and it seems to provide a good overview...but...I want to make a demonstration:

In response to a question posed somewhere by User:NuclearWarfare as to how the September 11 attacks would be written in a scholarly and an accurate manner to be read by someone that had never heard of the attacks, (I responded later on another page) that I believe the article would omit the conspiracy theories altogether since they aren't found in scholarly academic first rate peer reviewed sources except at most in the most minimal manner...the most I have found in such sourcing was a in the NIST final report on the collapse of World Trade Center 7 (NIST NCSTAR 1A), where out of a 75 page report, 2 pages discussed Hypothetical Blast Scenarios....in other words, NO conspiracy theories were discussed at all in the 911 Commission Report, no conspiracy theories were discussed in the Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers (NIST NCSTAR 1)...so we're looking at the three US Government sources which were based on nonpartisan conclusions and the NIST documents employed dozens of non federal engineers and fire safety specialists for objectivity...we have a 1% or less discussions in these three major documents...in all the engineer literature I have read, there is zero discussion except when someone has written deliberately to expalin the implausibility of the 9/11 CT's.....where I am going with this is that when I read your SDUSA article, I went into it knowing nothing about the subject matter, so the hope is I learned something, AND, since I know nothing about the subject matter, I have to assume that the WEIGHT given to the CT's there is appropriate. When readers go read the September 11 attacks article, and do so with no prior knowledge of it (not likely) we want to make sure that the appropriate weight is allowed for the CT's in that article...based on the referencing I have found thart meets the highest theshold for reliabilty, that weight should be 1% or less...I prefer no mention consequently.--MONGO 02:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For a 20,000 Byte Article a link with 28 characters is .15% of the article size. Meeting your 1% or less requerment. As an American, I belive that the CT's can go stick it up their butt, but that opinion is out there, so it should be linked.intelati^talk 03:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't read my final comment..."I prefer no mention consequently"...I would revert and allow the Rfc to be closed...--MONGO 03:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because I oppose the inclusion of bizarre but popular falsehoods in the scientific articles, I suppose that consistency requires me to oppose the inclusion of bizarre slightly popular falsehoods in 9/11 and other articles on contentious issues. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind reading this brief discussion?

Do you think your involvement would unduly affect the process? I'm proud to call you a wikifriend and wikihero. I'd be most honored if you would be a part. BusterD (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey BusterD...first off, I'm deeply appreciative you think of me as a hero of anything...if you read above here a couple sections you'll see some of my new found friends would be likely to vehemently disagree with you. I would be honored to nominate you for admin, BUT...in light of recent dust-ups, some may oppose you just to spite me...that would be a disappointment to me...and its hard for me to assume good faith of some when they extend so little to me. Now, taking all that aside...ask yourself if you really need the tools....several of the finest quality contributers on this website have never been admins and never sought to be...one such editor is Wsiegmund...whose contribtions here and especially at Commons has few if any parallels in terms of detail, composure and quality. Another thing they will ask is why and where you plan to use the tools...so you need to show this...I think more editors should be admins...the questions regarding whether an editor understood every aspect adminship before becoming an admin always seemed laced with process wonkery....I want an admin that is going to be fair and avoid acting condescendingly, especially with long term editors...admins also need to be straight to the point without taunting and provoking others. Let's discuss this further as you have time.MONGO 18:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the candor. I wondered if you thought that would be an issue (as I said to R.E.). This has been the case with you since the Dramatica drama, so this isn't new. You do occasionally get grumpy, but I'll confess it's been a long time since I've seen you do anything but fine and sometimes controversial pagework. I'm perfectly fine without more tools, and maybe I shouldn't even apply for them. But very few folks are even asking for the bit these days, leaving the existing active admins with more work to do every day. IMHO, responsible editors need to take more responsibility if the pedia wants to continue growing and improving. I may not be the ideal choice, but I know I can be trusted to do the right thing when possible, and admit when I'm wrong. I'm not a youngster, and I have considerable real life experience with teaching, writing and controlled chaos. Whether that translates into mop-wielding, that's not up to me. Reaper suggested that Voice of All (one of my admin coaches from back in the day) would be the best choice, since Shell is on hiatus. The worst thing I can see happen is that folks take the opportunity to bash someone I trust and respect. If you see that happening, then it's probably best to ask Reaper or Aaron to nominate. (heck, someone will probably accuse me of canvassing because we've shared this discussion...) BusterD (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have my own personal criteria for what to look for in a prospective administrator...1.) Is there evidence of vandalism, lack of edit summaries, little content creation/enhancement, a bad block log 2.) Is there any evidence the candidate has a history of protracted incivility or is unable to be introspective with themselves 3.) Is there any reason to believe the candidate would abuse the tools 4.) Does the candidate have some understanding of administrative work...others would differ in this, and some want a clear explanation WHY you want the tools. As for me, I have had some admins, even the other day, who emailed me and wanted me to run for adminship again...I said no way...and looking at my own criteria, I can see I would not make the cut...not to mention that even if I did, others would oppose me since I'm not without enemies...However, I think you fit my criteria for an administrator and I would be happy to nominate you if you wish, but though I would like to believe others wouldn't say no to you just to spite me, I cannot guarantee that this wouldn't be the case. I don't think my nomination recently of Moxy turned out bad for him because of me nominating him (he was unsuccessful) but he might have fared better had someone else been the nominator. Before that, Mike Cline was successful....you may wish to look over his Rfa here...the main problem he faced was a lack of Wikpedia namespace work...

I see three admins in the sections above here...one seems to have no understanding that his act should have been done by a neutral administrator. Another shows up to threaten me for little reason and, tracking his commentary elsewhere, I see evidence of him taunting another editor for no reason....that was just from a cursury glace at his/her edits...the third admin is obviously here to do nothing other than taunt and act snidely, he could have posted his stuff at the talkpage of the article in question...I can tolerate these actions here since I'm not worried about a bunch of kids, but most editors don't know what to do when faced with an overly aggressive admin and it's important (not that you don't already know this of course) to try and be as cool as possible and to be impartial in your actions.--MONGO 02:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 436: / Line 436: @@
 For a 20,000 Byte Article a link with 28 characters is .15% of the article size. Meeting your 1% or less requerment. As an American, I belive that the CT's can go stick it up their butt, but that opinion is out there, so it should be linked.[[User:intelati|<span style="background:#FF0000;padding:1px;"><font color="Black">intelati</font></span>]]<sup>[[User talk:intelati|talk]]</sup>  03:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 :You didn't read my final comment..."I prefer no mention consequently"...I would revert and allow the Rfc to be closed...--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 03:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
+::Because I oppose the inclusion of bizarre but popular falsehoods in the scientific articles, I suppose that consistency requires me to oppose the inclusion of bizarre slightly popular falsehoods in 9/11 and other articles on contentious issues. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz|<font style="color:blue;background:yellow;">&nbsp;'''Kiefer'''</font>]].[[User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz#top|Wolfowitz]]</span></small> 13:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 == Would you mind reading [[User_talk:Reaper_Eternal#Would_you_consider_preparing_me_for_deeper_involvement.3F|this brief discussion]]? ==

Revision as of 13:12, 16 September 2011

Online Ambassadors

FYI...

Per women on Wikipedia

re your comments

Lake Frances (Glacier County, Montana)

A little wave across the arb cases

User:Freedom5000 is gonna be pissed

Good profile

Something geographical/nature-related...

Hi Mongo

GRTE

Barnstar

Thanks!

'anks for the 'arnstar!

Talkback

RE: Conduct of WLRoss

Confirming the sources

Your arbitraion case has come up at ANI

New article

Franklin child prostitution ring allegations

William F. Raynolds

Proposed deletion of Johnson Lake National Wildlife Refuge

Candygram for MONGO, Candygram for MONGO.

DYK for William F. Raynolds

Please weigh-in on this merge

Franklin child prostitution ring allegations

Ansel Adams photos

Glacier View Dam

Teton Fault

WikiProject Protected areas

removing my content

Suggestion to pull WikiProject Wyoming under WikiProject United States

Suggestion for WikiProject United States to support WikiProject Nebraska

My RfC

Suggestion for WikiProject United States to support WikiProject Montana

9/11 fac

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

I said something nice about people like you today

Rollback

Interested in your thought processes

CT and 9/11

Would you mind reading this brief discussion?