User talk:MONGO

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Whaaaat?!![edit]

A sad day. I hope you reconsider. Go on, wipe me off my comment if you really want to make the desolation complete. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with Martin's comments. We need you MONGO. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks guys. For all basic purposes I retired on June 7th. I also self imposed a ban on anything related to American politics and that would include 9/11 related articles, even though three of those I helped bring to Featured Article level. I'm still unsure if my efforts to update Retreat of glaciers since 1850, another article I helped get to FA would be seen as a compromise of that ban. So, since my main efforts to work on my old FAs all have some tertiary relationship to American politics or history, not sure I can see much point in spending my little precious free time around here.--MONGO 22:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
We all have pressures on our free time. But I would urge you to reconsider your decision yet again. Your edits and contributions have been a beacon on Wikipedia. By all means take a break, but do not "retire", you are far too important to the project to do that. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
David, it's definitely cool beans you think highly of my efforts. However, you're likely in the minority in that perspective. Have a nice weekend.--MONGO 23:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

MONGO, I also hope you'll take a break (if you think you must), but not too long a one, and come back refreshed. You are a useful contributor to the project (I've been especially impressed with how you handled the conspiracy types at the 9-11 articles....), and this project will definitely be the worse for wear if you depart permanently. --IJBall (contribstalk) 05:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Only, 9/11 articles would violate my self imposed ban. However, your support is appreciated.--MONGO 16:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Dang, sorry to see you go man. Definitely got the short of the stick. Amazing how some editors can hang around and do all the crap they want, but the good guys get hung out to dry. Toa Nidhiki05 19:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Life isn't always fair or just. I think the arbitrarion committee did what they thought was best, but I reserve the right to disagree with their assessment. Nevertheless, I self imposed a year ban from politically charged topics and that includes 9/11 pages.--MONGO 23:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks but...[edit]

I wasn't doing it just to be nice. I meant it. BTW I took a break from WP for about a year and it was definitely a good thing to do. If I may be allowed to speak frankly, as for the original matter, consider that your "friends" can cause you more trouble than your adversaries by egging you on when they would better serve you by counseling restraint. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

All true...good friends should tell me when to shut up.--MONGO 16:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

The ship be sinking[edit]

one more hope for salvation cast away into the inky depths. Feel free to delete this if you'd rather not have approving messages from me on your Talk. Lying with dogs and all that. Best wishes. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 04:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

All I know is comment on content not contributors. If we do that, it greatly reduced the chances of having a sanction placed against you. Many may feel that having the arbitration committee admonishing an editor is no big deal, but I disagree. The committee is elected democratically, so if they represent the community, then it's the community that wanted me sanctioned.--MONGO 16:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Integrity is not generally known for making one electable, and a democracy built on corrupt values is of little worth IMO. I looked at the diffs cited in support of the scolding, and could only conclude you chose the wrong view to advocate for and got punished for it. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 17:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, Ubikwit might disagree with you on that as at least one arb wanted him site banned and he was topic banned. Getting to my comment below, the case would have fulfilled it's promise had it left individual parties out. A three month agony caused me little return but a desire to simply walk away altogether.--MONGO 17:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

The arbitration committee passed an admonishment against me 9-3 but two of the three opposing that did so only because they felt it was too weak a remedy, the other simply because they felt discretionary sanctions for all would be sufficient. I narrowly avoided a topic ban from all American politics articles post 1932 only due to two arbitrators switching their decision to oppose. The wording of the topic ban was that it would be 18 months before I could appeal, which I would have never done, so that is the only reason I have not gone forward with vanishing. Nevertheless, I will go on record that the case in question would have been better utilized had the committee simply concentrated on laying down the law on everyone engaged in battleground behavior in said articles, so that future flareups could be contained more forcefully by independent administrators, or at arbitration enforcement. This sort of enforcement provision worked exceptionally well in 9/11 pages and elsewhere. Mostly though, I have limited time to dedicate to what really matters, which is to save my old FAs from losing their status, so unless I can regear and solely dedicate my extremely limited time towards that endeavor, I cannot see any reason to contribute here.--MONGO 17:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Take a break for a month or two[edit]

Give the drama a miss, pull down the RETIRED banner, and just take a month off and see how it feels. ArbCom merely slapped you on the hand for poor table manners because they have to do something when they take a case. It's certainly no reason to go on a hunger strike. If after a month away participation at WP doesn't feel worthwhile any more, then take another month away. And if it doesn't feel any different at that point, THEN put up the retired banner and turn off the lights for good. A better suggestion, probably, would be for you to give contemporary politics a miss and to work on something else. There is an enormous amount of work to be done on 19th Century history and politics and it is pretty fricking fascinating once a person gets into it. So: don't overreact and don't paint yourself into a corner. best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I commented on your arbitration, Mongo, because it was all such nonsense. We let felonies go by but try the misdemeanors. I take a hard line on incivility and very early on participated in the incivility noticeboard. That board was removed because there was indifference toward incivility, as it is not a high priority on Wikipedia. That is one indication of the hypocrisy at work here. Your arbitration helps explain why Wikipedia is in danger of going out of business, as Andrew Linn's New York Times article explored today. Mickey-mouse hectoring, no attempts at fairness. In your case, you were treated like a child, not an adult making positive contributions to the project. Carrite's recommendations are correct overall and I think you are well advised to follow them. I can't understand why you would absent yourself from the one area that interests you the most. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 16:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Look...civility is policy and I admitted at the case page that I probably deserved a civility warning, although their wording on the admonishment sort of aligns with that. My argument before and during the case was that firstly, why not just amend a prior case and secondly, why single out just two editors. The truth is I am much sidelined due to real life issues anyway, but a public chastisement to compliment an already disheartening personal situation makes coming here and dedicating myself at the intensity needed to update my old featured articles too much additional work and stress at present. I do appreciate both pieces of advice and support and thank the two of you.--MONGO 17:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

We will miss you[edit]

O Notorious MONGO,
The work on controversial topics can be quite tiring and stressful, but it's worth it. I don't look at American politics much, but you did great work on other topics as well, and that too will be missed. Of course you are free to retire whenever you want, but don't feel that you're permanently banished. bobrayner (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. What little time I do have will be geared solely to working on old featured articles...and that looks like it will be very hit and miss.--MONGO 23:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Silverbacks unite....[edit]

There are not enough Great Old Ones left. Take a break, sort your trouble, but I for one would be happy if you come back, even if our political views are essentially orthogonal... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

On most social issues, I'm progressive...on fiscal issues, I'm conservative. Being conservative on such things as how to combat climate change doesn't mean I think we should do nothing...just that my faith in something as disorganized as the U.S. government to fix anything makes me reluctant to give away my tax dollars for a nearly zero sum gain. On the flip side of that, a trillion bucks to fight less than 10k enemy combantants is probably the worst investment (not counting the 9000 lives lost post 9/11) the U.S. ever made.--MONGO 23:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I wrote "orthogonal" for a reason - my politics are hard to classify on the US "progressive"/"palaeolithic" spectrum (though you can probably guess where my sympathy falls ;-). But I am adamant that (generic) you don't get to chose the facts to support your politics but rather that your politics must be designed to cope with the facts. That kind of post-modernist nonsense used to be on the left, but now it has also infected the right, and with a more deadly strain, as the right tend to apply it not only to social sciences, but also to hard sciences. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Climate change is a fact. Even if one had no understanding of the chemistry, only a fool would deny the evidence provided by repeat photography showing glacier retreat. While I would like to believe that some of this retreat is because of natural things, the science indicates that most if not all this retreat is due to us. This retreat is tangible, in our face and should be easy to grasp even for those that are "skeptical". The retreat rate post industrial revolution is so rapid that nothing else really explains it.--MONGO 00:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Fish fry[edit]

Dear Dr. MONGO, as a non-practicing, non-licensed, non-trained, non-attorney, I advise you to take the advice of Prof.Dr.rer.nat.user.cook.etc.et al. Stephan Schulz, above, and take a short break if need be. However, please be advised that there are only six short years left before 9/11 is twenty years past and that wretched hive of scum and villainy (truther <cough> articles) needs an enema before said date (and a general house cleaning of the good articles now that certain impediments seem to have gone by the wayside). I.e., Bigger fish to fry. Regardless, hang around. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC) So this baby seal walks into a club...

Hard to believe it's been that long. I gave up thinking the 9/11 attacks article could be brought up even to GA. A Quest For Knowledge made a superhuman effort but it was demoted shortly afterward.--MONGO 06:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

TDA's block[edit]

Just a note to say that your comments had no bearing on TDA's block. I was aware of the breach and had decided to take action before you posted, but yesterday was rather busy with arbcom issues (as you might have perceived). Thryduulf (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I thank you for informing me of that. He and I have previously had disagreements so my original post there was as I wrote it, that he should consider removing the comments to avoid a block. I wanted it to be clear that my suggestion was just a reminder, not a warning in any way.--MONGO 18:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey! Sorry for any misunderstandings[edit]

I was moving the discussion into the discussion area. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 10:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Would you do that please? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 10:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I didn't see the move...it breaks the discussion up...but do as you wish.--MONGO 10:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, but past performance predicting future earnings, it threatened to be a long one. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 10:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)