User talk:MONGO

MONGO you're having troulbe understanding the No Personal Attacks policy

[Personal attack/trolling deleted]

Mongo, after seeing this, I'm sorry I ever contradicted you on the trolls you have to deal with. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a problem at all...it's been going on for some time.--MONGO 07:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO, someone registered a sock account just to post this nonsense on your talk page? I'm impressed. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 22:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually...the guy has created dozens of accounts to attack myself and others...see:Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Cplot--MONGO 07:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year

Hi MONGO -- just dropping by to wish you a happy 2007: best wishes for the new year from me to you and yours; happy editing! Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma City Bombing

Happy New Year Mongo,

I'm sure you're aware that some Americans, even politicians like Helen Chenoweth, rationalized and even defended the Oklahoma City Bombing, but were you aware that some even blamed the US Gov for a terrorist attack against its own people?

'Oklahoma City was an American Reichstag event'

"Oklahoma City was a masterfully (albeit atrocious and horrific) planned Riechstag that had the direct effect of resulting in the passage of draconian Anti-Terror legislation that had been, to that date, completely stalled in Congress.' Claims that the US Gov 'did' OKC

I aim to include these important but as-now ignored aspects of this horrific terrorist attack in the Oklahoma City Bombing article, and hope that you will help. Cheers - Fairness And Accuracy For All 01:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Care to explain this edit

I replied on my talk page.  Xiutwel (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--MONGO 22:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rootology article

Mongo, while patrolling the backlog of articles needing copyediting, I found Stratford, Connecticut/Original, which is in a format (I believe?) is not allowed in the article space? I noticed it was archived there by Rootology (talk · contribs), who you had some "interaction" with, and now seems to be gone from Wikipedia. What should be done with this article - can you make it go away? Or move it to his userspace? It's just something I came across while trying to work on the ce backlog, and I thought you could help dispose of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not an admin anymore, so I can't do much of anything with it. Maybe post on the Stratford, Connecticut talkpage that the userspace article exists and they can ask to have it deleted if there isn't any info they need from it.--MONGO 05:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, Mongo, I knew that whole thing was a mess, but I didn't realize it had gone that far - that's dumb. OK, thanks for the advice - I'll try that. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply

Thank you for your speedy reply. The edit you reverted on Oklahoma City bombing was made by a persistent vandal who keeps changing the Timothy McVeigh wikilink to a hardlink [1] of their preferred version. A variety of IP addresses are being used to make the exact same edits, so I have not yet been able to request a block (however one of the IP's in question is now up to a {{test4}} warning). Needless to say, I want to make sure our persistent vandal does not slip any edits through the cracks without getting warnings. Thanks again, --Kralizec! (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it keeps up, maybe ask for the page to be semi-protected--MONGO 05:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note to Beguiled

It was especially appreciated because of the accusations levelled at them that they "were you" (or, I suppose, that odd converse that you were them), and also because I know you have strong feelings yourself about the article they object to. Fiddle Faddle 08:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem...he will hopefully cool out now since he has apparently had a number of people ask him to. If not, then he'll likely end up blocked.--MONGO 12:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support

Thank you for your support in the RfA on my behalf. It is an honor to have received your expression of confidence. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. It is my wish that I will continue to deserve your confidence. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 19:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candygram

Apples of love for you, sir! If you stick around, you get an apple a day. :-) Bishonen | talk 18:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yummmmmmmy....MONGO like candy covered apples.--MONGO 19:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your participation in a peer review would be appreciated

Thank you for your restraint with Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center since the AfD which you proposed several months ago, and for your support in various editors' attempts to create order out of chaos. I know you have been keeping an eye on progress and have found the various inputs you have given to be of great use.

I believe that we now have a worthwhile and neutral article out of the original rather awkward and hughly POV charged one, and I have asked at Wikipedia:Peer review/Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center for a peer review. I know you have high standards and would thus appreciate your thoughts as a part of the review.

I think you know, too, that my own feelings about the conspiracy is that a conspiracy per se on this topic is WP:BALLS. My interest has always been in creating a valid and NPOV article to document the "social phenomenon" of the existence of a demolition hypothesis at all, and in creating a wholly neutral article that allows people to make an educated judgement over the validity or otherwise of the demolitionists' proposition9s).

Our objective is to achieve an article that is worthy of nomination for Featured Article Status and that has a good chance of success in that nomination. Among other things a success in this will mean that the article is congruent with Wikipedia's objectives, policies and guidelines. Fiddle Faddle 20:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply on my talk page. I do understand what you mean about a great deal of space being given to documenting what is effectively fresh air and self puffery by the proponents of these demolition based issues. It's been quite challenging to reduce it to the level it is. If it can get tighter that will also be good.

The title is never going to be an easy one. It is not a theory, not technically, since a theory must (dictionary definition) have more substance than a hypothesis, which is a "thing to be tested" based on limited (or no?) evidence. However the proposition here is very much like "The moon is made of green cheese", something which no reasonable person would give credence to. My feelings are that the proponents have amassed sufficient evidence or pseudo-evidence to move it from "Green cheese" to "We sure don't know what the moon is, but we know it is above us, somewhere", thus just qualifying for hypothesis status since there is enough material to discuss.

Good luck with your system move. I had enough "fun" setting up a new laptop for my son last weekend. Fiddle Faddle 10:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F.Y.I.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center (3rd). TheOnlyChoice 22:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion please....

MONGO- I have been having a minor edit war over an image on the Convair B-36 article. I submitted Image:B-36-NMUSAF-4.jpg, an image that I took at the National Museum of the United States Air Force last week when I visited. Another editor uploaded an image from the musuem's web site, Image:060315-F-1234P-001.jpg of the same exhibit, and claims that it is of better quality than my image. I don't mind being proven wrong, but I feel that my photograph is sharper, has better color with less glare. Which image do you think is better? I hope I am not putting you on the spot by asking for your opinion in this matter. --rogerd 23:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...frankly it is a toss up. Yours is closer in and I might crop out the gentleman at right and then have the focus be more on the cockpit. Are they both loaded into commons? Anyway, if you are interested in aviation images, I have some decent ones from the Strategic Air and Space Museum here in Omaha.--MONGO 23:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about cropping that, but I liked seeing a bit more of the wing. I wished I had just waited a few seconds for him to move on, but there were a lot of other people around. I love that museum, it is one of the few that let you carry a tripod around. I go there 2-3 times a year. Yes, I am a huge aviation buff, and that combined with my photography interest, means that I take a lot of aviation photos. BTW, my photo is in commons, the other one isn't. I recently bought a Nikon D50 and I am having a lot of fun with it. I have heard of the SASM, and would like to visit it someday. Thanks. --rogerd 01:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice camera. I'll go through my files and shoot you some images I took via email. Is the situation about the images above resolved now?--MONGO 10:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. I am thinking about getting an account on flickr.com or another similar site, it seems like a good way to post images to share. What do you shoot with? --rogerd 15:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check your email...--MONGO 19:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's at it again. I don't know if he is trying to see if he can wear me down, or what. I am tired right now, and have to have an outpatient procedure tomorrow, so I am in no mood to deal with this now, but I am thinking of filing an RfM. It seems so silly to argue about a single photo, but it gets me perturbed that he won't discuss his reasons. I have discussed it on Talk:Convair B-36 and on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Dispute about image of B-36, neither of which he has posted. At least your disputes have been about more major stuff, like conspiracy nuts and 9/11. I have to get into an argument about 2 photos of the same damn airplane at the same place. Thanks for letting me vent. Roger --rogerd 02:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coach?

[2] "That's `coach' Mongo to you; Bears' tough guy to lead indoor team" in Chicago Tribune. Regards. Edison 14:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha!....they play on astroturfed concrete for 100 bucks a game and the "real" players make at least 300,000 a year, while the average is over 1 million.--MONGO 21:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your change

I reverted your change to Gray Wolf. I reverted because the most recent assessment(the one cited) lists Canis Lupus as Least Concern.[3] If you have a more recent assessment source, a cite would be appreciated. --Wildnox (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a sentence and reference to the introduction--MONGO 05:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saw you editing, while on RC Patrol. How are you doing? — Nearly Headless Nick 10:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just being a good little wikipedian, as always :) hope all is well with you too!--MONGO 10:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, Edd n' Eddy

Do you think I'll ever get them pissed off enough for them to target me like they did you? Because that would be hellacool! I think I scored some points towards that today. Weregerbil 22:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That editor isn't mad at anyone, just really really bored.--MONGO 22:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. Too juvenile to actually be fun. Tbeatty 03:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partial vindication for you, Mea Culpa for me

Rootology created XP and then also another account after that that has since also been blocked for evading his ban[4]. I'm not worried about Cplot, but thanks anyway.--MONGO 05:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I am familar that XP is a sock of Rootology, that is why I wrote that note to XP. I really felt like an ass for defending him. Cplot too. Have a good evening. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Sup MONGO

:3-DESU 02:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imposter

You should know that someone using your name has created, expanded and polished the article currently featured on the main page, Shoshone National Forest.

Wait, that really was you ;). Congratulations! NoSeptember 12:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Nah...you were right the first time...that's the nice MONGO...I'm the "mean" one!:) Thank you, much appreciated.--MONGO 12:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats' on getting Shoshone National Forest to today’s Featured Article! Good job. :-) JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 18:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Popo Agie Wilderness Pronounciation

Well, I'll be damned, it is pronounced that way. It looked so obviously like vandalism, and at first glance, all I could find were references back to Wikipedia. Anyway, thanks. Qnonsense 17:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...I always pronounced it as "poe-poe-aggie" so I was surprised too.--MONGO 20:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Barnstar of Diligence

The Barnstar of Diligence may be awarded in recognition of a combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service.

For your work on:

the US National Park pages,
for redirecting (not deleting) cruft from the official 9/11 and World Trade Center pages to the talk page or other pages,
for staying on wikipedia despite the overwhelming hatred which has been directed toward you by those wikipedians who refuse to follow wikirules.
for deleting all links to encyclopedia dramatica, a terrible personal attack page on wikieditors.

Good luck, Travb (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Assistance

Hi, maybe you remember me. I'm the guy from de-Wikipedia, who wrote Redwood NP and other NPS stuff there. I got the job to brush up the de-articles on the Jamestown Colony in VA and related topics in time for the May 2007 anniversary. You are well connected in the en-Wikipedia (yes, i noticed the recent events around you), so I ask you for some help. Are there people here on en, who work on the same topics and can you point me to them? I found User:Vaoverland, but he didn't reply yet. And second: Are there wizards with the Generic Mapping Tools on en, who I could ask for a digital terrain model of James River and Chesapeake Bay in 1607 without modern cities, roads and the like? Unfortuately our most prolific GMT-cartographer on de-Wikipedia User:Captain Blood, left the project some time ago. TIA --h-stt !? 11:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC) PS: If it helps, I support your re-adminship in full. I think I followed the events closely enough, to make a well informed judgement.[reply]

Hi. Yes, I do remember you well, and appreciate all your fine work. No one comes to mind that would be well versed in Jamestown related articles (I should be though, since supposedly, as I have been told, my ancestors lived there in the 1610's after coming from England). I will check and see what I can come up with. Vaoverland is a good choice I believe, but there may be others. I can always help out if needed, and have some connections with the National Park Service, though not with those parks in particular. I suggest asking User:AudeVivere if she could assist you in mapwork. She has done several excellent maps and has access to cartographic software that most of us don't. I have some personal knowledge of the region but that would be original research. I am happy the Germans have an interest in American history and wish more Americans took the time to learn more about the culture and history of of other countries as well.--MONGO 12:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related articles of importance to the history of that period:

Thanks for your short notice on my de-userpage, I appreciate your effort to learn and speak german. I just contacted Aude here and hope she will be able to help me. And thanks for the list above too. I already found most of them, but a few are new and give valuable background. In de-WP we won't split the tpoic in so many articles. I guess, I will cram most of it into de:Jamestown and improve de:John Smith (Jamestown) and de:Virgina. Let's see, so far I am just at the beginning as I started to read into a few books. Again, thank you so far. I will come back to you when further questions come up. --h-stt !? 14:05, 18. January 2007 (UTC)

Hey MONGO, I see above that you are a Jamestown descendant. Presumably, you also have ancestors who fought in the American Revolution. Are you a member of the Sons of the American Revolution? If not, and you are interested, I may be able to help you out. I have three Revolutionary ancestors (two verified with DAR and SAR, one I am just finishing up the paperwork on) all out of Middlesex County, NJ. (My earliest ancestor on the continent came from Holland around 1650ish.) The documentation requirements are a bit stern, but if you have or have access to a halfway decent family tree, then the required docs can probably be found on microfilm somewhere, or published in obscure geneological tomes. - Crockspot 19:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll shoot you an email if you have that enabled.--MONGO 21:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're email is not enabled...I do have one (at least) Revolutionary War ancestor.--MONGO 21:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email now enabled. - Crockspot 19:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks is now on RfA

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration for more details and add your tuppence to the debate... — Rickyrab | Talk 19:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it isn't.--MONGO 22:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I demand an apology

This line basically constitutes a personal attack in my, and possibly other's, opinion (shall we check?): "Acebrock has his "facts" wrong as usual." You basically stated that I'm usually wrong, which is definately not true. I demand that you apologize and retract this statement, in whole or in part. You should know where you posted it, but if you don't, try WP:RFPP, where you were ultimately overruled and the page was unprotected. When you do apologize I want you to do it on this page and my talk page, and on the correct request, where you should remove the statement, or at least the words "as usual." You should know better than to say something like this, MONGO, I'm suprised you would ever say such a thing--Acebrock 20:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have examined your request and your request is denied.--MONGO 21:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And thus I take this to Higher ups. I can't guarantee that you will like the results. Also I notice you fail to explain why you deny it. I'm sure you would give me a warning if I said the same about you, which makes your response somewhat hypocritical--Acebrock 22:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suit yourself...next time, don't misrepresent my actions on article discussion pages or at WP:RFPP or anywhere. Get your facts straight before go around accusing other editors.--MONGO 22:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you forgotten about Hanlon's razor? Let me remind you of what it says: Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. I made a mistake, and it's been ver a month and even you couldn't recall if you semi-protected the page, and, as such you are in no position to say bthat I mischaracterized anyhing you did or didn't do, but still you say I did it on purpose. And, anyway, that's no excuse to say that someone usually gets his facts wrong, and there is no excuse for a personal attack. Since I find nowhere to report personal attacks, I'm going to take this to the community, and we'll see what they have to say--Acebrock 22:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective, your asking me if I was the persopn who semi-protected the 9/11 talk page wasn't done in the form of a question, but instead was an accusation, then followed up by your claim that I blocked an obvious troll out of process, which has proven to not have been an error in anyone's mind...and it wasn't out of process...he was harassing many editors and continues to do so. You then misrepresented my actions at WP:RFPP...so again...get your facts straight and stop claiming I made a personal attack or making demands on me when obviously your comments were more incivil than anything I stated...article talk pages are the not the place to make false accusations or confrontational remarks about editors...so these kind of mischaracterizations by you must cease.--MONGO 22:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People make mistakes MONGO, and "proven not to be an error in anyone's mind?" Several people contested the block. Also, saying that what I said is worse than anything you said is a matter of opinion. were you deeply offended? Also, my false accusation doesn't fit neatly into WP:NPA, since I was commenting on contributions, and admittedly I goofed, and for that and only that I apologize, however your attempting to discredit me does fitr pretty well. One little error won't have long lasting effects on your reputation, however saying that my facts are generally wrong, that could have a major effect on my rep and is deeplt. Here's what the policy says:

Editors should be civil and adhere to good wiki etiquette when stating disagreements. Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people. However, when there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack.

Saying that someone is generally wrong is not good wiki ettiquete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Acebrock (talk • contribs)

Don't report falsehoods about my editing. I can't find a single admin that protested the block on Cplot and I am not going to rehash that event now. If you are defending him, then you are defending an editor who has libeled many other editors administrators, arbitratiors and checkusers all over Wikipedia. I believe that you won't make false reports about my actions or use article discussion pages to make false misrepresentations in the future. Article talk pafges are forums that are there to improve the article, not make up misinformation about your fellow editors.--MONGO 23:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something non-controversial

I am humbled, appreciative, and rehabilitated. I was advised to stay clear of my controversial area for awhile and do something else. What would you suggest? You think current events are too controversial? nobs 22:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes patrol is never something that is bad...just reverting vandalism would be great. Current events can be full of edit wars...so I might think that would be a problem. Not everyone that frequents wiki is prone to add the level of well refrenced information that you do, so you have to remember to be patient. Do you have a particular area of personal interest...aside from politics and similar things? There are many WikiProjects that are looking for new members...check here for a directory that leads to a list of potential areas that might interest you.--MONGO 22:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I joined Military history project and probably will join a task force. Also Cold War history, but that's only in the planning stages, so real contributions have to wait. Probably do something on the Moroccan Crisis's and sabre rattling, origins of a much abused journalistic phrase. nobs 23:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Biting

Thanks for the headsup. Since Beguiled's actions aren't doing him or anyone else any good (and that's all I'm telling him), I don't think this is biting. In fact, if I recall the policy I'm doing what is often suggested we should do instead of biting. On his own talk page, specifically about his behaviour, not about his character, intelligence, or even motives. That said, I guess I am somewhat annoyed, so I think your intervention is well placed. Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll 23:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of XXXX-Related topics

I never noticed this before: Category:Lists of topics by country. All of the articles in the category look like they don't belong on the mainspace because they all self-refer to Wikipedia yet there are many of them. Any idea where I would go to discuss the policy on this? Didn't know who else to go to.--Jersey Devil 06:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to be simply a category that lists of countries. I don't think there is a policy violation, unless I am confused somehow on this matter.--MONGO 06:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean the actual articles that it links to not the category itself. Many of the articles are very much what one would expect from an article on wikiproject space.--Jersey Devil 06:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I can be much help on this. Maybe it needs to be a project? I might ask at AN/I and see if someone who is better at this type of thing can figure it out. I'm still confused by what the problem is...not trying to be difficult, as you know I will always help you when I can, but I'm not sure what the issue is.--MONGO 06:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA?

I still don't know why you were desyropped, and I wanted to know if you want to retry RFA as you were one of the best admins here. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 07:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind and I appreciate your comments. Should I decide to try once agin to become an admin, it won't be in the immediate future. I doubt I will make a try for many months, and might not try at all. Best wishes and keep up the great work you do here.--MONGO 07:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad's RfA

This is to thank you for your early support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, and for your kind comment that accompanied your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 17:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I thanked you on my page, you probably saw it, but let me thank you here too, for the barnstar. I really, really appreciate it!! Cheers Geologyguy 23:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom? Support?

Co-nom, MONGO? [5] Support? ~~Comment?~~ (Crossed out "comment" suggestion, co-nom or support do just fine.) Zilla appreciate! Bishzilla | grrrr! 13:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Formal Apology

You will find an apology for some rather rude edits that "I made" while having a shower. Explanation is on my usertalk page. Again, I am very sorry and I am gonna have to log off my laptop when I go to work or have a shower or hang out with my friends. But don't worry, I'll get my sister back good.--ImmortalKaine 08:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]