User talk:MONGO

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
FACs needing feedback
viewedit
Fôrça Bruta Review it now
Phillip Davey Review it now
History of the Nashville Sounds Review it now

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

Archive
Archives

Archive 1 (January 2005 to June 2005)
Archive 2 (July 2005 to October 2005)
Archive 3 (November 2005)
Archive 4 (December 2005)
Archive 5 (January 2006)
Archive 6 (February 2006)
Archive 7 (March 2006)
Archive 8 (April 2006)
Archive 9 (May 2006)
Archive 10 (June 2006)
Archive 11 (July/August 2006)
Archive 12 (September 2006)
Archive 13 (October 2006)
Archive 14 (November 2006)
Archive 15 (December 2006)
Archive 16 (January 2007)
Archive 17 (February 2007)
Archive 18 (March 2007)
Archive 19 (April 2007)
Archive 20 (May 2007)
Archive 21 (June 2007)
Archive 22 (July 2007)
Archive 23 (August 2007)
Archive 24 (September/October 2007)
Archive 25 (November/December 2007)
Archive 26 (January, February and March 2008)
Archive 27 (April to December 2008)
Archive 28 (2009)
Archive 29 (January to June 2010)
Archive 30 (July to December 2010))
Archive 31 (2011))
Archive 32 (2012))
Archive 33 (2013)
Archive 34 (2014)
Archive 35 (2015)
Archive 36 (2016)
Archive 37 (2017)
Archive 38 (2018)

FA[edit]

Congrats to your new FA! How do you feel about TFA on 2 October, day of establishment? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I guess it just got promoted...very nice. Yes, I was hoping to have it mainpaged on October 2, 2018 as that is the 50th anniversary of the park being established. Redwoods National and State Parks was also created on that same date but it was already on the mainpage like a dozen years ago!MONGO (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I made a note in WP:TFARP. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Gerda...Ill check it out.--MONGO (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations! --Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Its for you especially Wsiegmund..and for everyone else too.--MONGO (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi! Quick message.[edit]

I hope your family fucking dies of cancer you worthless PoS. You should do your family a favour and kill yourself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.246.14.127 (talkcontribs)

I love you too!--MONGO (talk)

This rando is such a cutie pie. I've never seen someone so upset they can't spam goatse on wikipedia. "Grrr you took away my vandalism I'm so maaaaad." —StarkinMN 14:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, a very pleasant person for sure.--MONGO (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks[edit]

I didn't even know the thing existed until today. Of course you qualify if you want to declare. --rogerd (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I would likely be thrown out since I'm MONGO!--MONGO (talk) 09:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
"I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member" -- Quotations related to Groucho Marx at Wikiquote--rogerd (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
You didn't know I was a Marxist, did you? --rogerd (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I stick with the three stooges...I'm not intelligent enough to get the Marx Brothers usually...I'm just a MONGO!--MONGO (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Because of Mongos unexplained deletion, Am I right that to show existing critique is not allowed in Wiki?[edit]

BR Mik-kiss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mik-kiss (talkcontribs) 15:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes..I am well known as Mr.Nasty or Mr.BigMeanie.--MONGO (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
So are you here in WIKI mainly for harassing people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mik-kiss (talkcontribs) 17:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes..I am here for that reason mainly. How am I doing?--MONGO (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) He is. It's his primary purpose and goal (not the 1200 articles he's created or the dozens or articles he's brought to FA or GA status or the tens-of-thousands of edits he's made to improve articles and build an encyclopedia). p.s., MONGO -- you're doing a stellar job at the harassment. ;-) -- ψλ 18:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
You might have a remarkable history (good or bad), but the good stuff must be earned every time again and again.

I still think that WIKI should allow fair critique and not promote censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mik-kiss (talkcontribs) 18:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Cool beans...I agree!--MONGO (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes but what you do is more important here. I seem to be censored here from contributing Wiki without warning - what a shame - to Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mik-kiss (talkcontribs) 19:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I wish people who yell "OMG censorship!!" at us would consider the possibility they might be pushing something that does not belong in Wikipedia. Hint: go back and reread WP:NPOV. If a whole lot of people are pushing back at what you want to add, it just might not be NPOV. Antandrus (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

North Cascades National Park scheduled for TFA[edit]

This is to let you know that the North Cascades National Park article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 2, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 2, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! And on its anniversary! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

While you are at it[edit]

Note this[1]. @Samf4u: might care to comment. It concerns 9-11 incident articles....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Take it to the article talkpage.--MONGO (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Look in your email box (including spam)![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, MONGO. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- ψλ 18:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I think any argument at all with these loons is akin to arguing with 9/11 CTers. I've become convinced they are mentally ill and/or emotionally unstable, almost all of them.--MONGO (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

😴[edit]

Why is it so quiet? Have our most active editors gone back to school? 📓📚🤓 Atsme📞📧 20:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I haven't been to school since third grade...in fact was expelled half way though that.--MONGO (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Why doesn't that surprise me? 😂 Atsme📞📧 21:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I had 4 F's and one D in coloring so they threw me out.--MONGO (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I failed Duck, duck, goose in second grade - I ducked when It came around and got sent to the principal's office. The principal was a bit bemused and let me hang out in the outer office for a while before sending me back to class. In coloring, though, I excelled. I had the full 64-crayon set and used 'em all. Acroterion (talk) 02:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
😂 Acroterion duck!! Btw, your picture of Sawtooth Valley is beautiful. Looks like coloring in grade school paid off in ways most don't even consider at that age. I just came back from Yellowstone and have some park pictures to upload but post production has been killer because of the haze from the fires. Atsme📞📧 02:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, that's a FP on WP and Commons. It was a good day. I may be in Yellowstone in a couple of weeks, I thought there were no big fires in the area - is the smoke from Idaho and Washington?
Fire haze isn't necessarily a bad thing - I had low hopes for this picture - File:Tatoosh Range WA MRNP1.jpg, but it turned out fine. This one was taken a little beforeb- File:Paradise VC 1.jpg - and the haze sets it apart from the background. Acroterion (talk) 02:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Most big fires are in far west in WA, OR and CA. That Mendocino complex fire in CA is nearly contained but it's still near 500k acres. Most of the haze (even noticeable in Omaha) are from those fires. [2] Also check Webcam atop Mount Washburn in Yellowstone at it usually has a line of sight to the Tetons if it's clear but it hasn't since about July due to haze. [3] Biggest fire in Montana right now is in Glacier on Howe Ridge on north side of Lake McDonald.--MONGO (talk) 03:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Maybe you'll get lucky and catch Steamboat Geyser erupting. I was reading some data somewhere the other day that at least one of the eruptions there was higher than any ever recorded before which says alot since it is already the world's tallest erupting geyser.--MONGO (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Steamboat's been erupting on about a ten-day basis all year - by the accounts I've read it's deeply impressive to witness. Some strategy is called for in parking your car, though, it showers the parking lot with sinter-laden water. Acroterion (talk) 12:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Saw car after car coming out of park on May 23, 2005 into West Yellowstone covered in sinter and particulates. I was up there the following day but of course too late to see the eruption the geyser was still steaming...my image of that is on that article page.--MONGO (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Do you have any photo requests? Obviously I'll get a shot of Steamboat if we're that lucky, and I'll see what can be shot around Ear Spring, though the NPS photos look good. We'll be around the park for three days at the end of next week, and in Grand Teton for a day or more, so weather permitting I'll take requests. We'll be going via Theodore Roosevelt NP and the Beartooth Highway and coming back through maybe Thermopolis and Buffalo, WY. Acroterion (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Wow. Let me think to over and post tomorrow. The Beartooths are poorly documented with images. Supposed from the Beartooth Hwy its possible to see the bears tooth itself as well as a few other prominent peaks perhaps. It's been 25 years since I travelled that road so it's vague to me. Let me think about it.--MONGO (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I doubt there will be sparkling clear conditions with the smoke from farther west, but the forecast looks good so far. Both of my primary cameras have GPS tagging and the newer one will tag headings as well, which will make ex post facto documentation easier. I'd like to re-shoot some of the Tetons that have less-than-ideal images of mine too. Acroterion (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Me thinks your Teton shots were all top notch. If you're going over the Big Horns I do not know if Cloud Peak can be seen (especially the massive eastern face) from the highway. I'll have to stew about what other images you may capture.--MONGO (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
We'll be in and around the Bighorns, probably more to the south. I don't think Cloud Peak is visible from the road as anything more than a bump on the horizon. Acroterion (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Just not sure right now of any specific images that would be ideal to get. I'm sure you'll turn up some newbies that will be great to add to your collection. Have a save trip.--MONGO (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
OK, I'll shoot what I can see and sort out what it is when we get back. Snow is expected on the Beartooth this Sunday night - we'll be in the vicinity Thursday - Sunday, more or less, then around the Bighorns for a couple of days. Acroterion (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I do not see a lot of images for Theodore Roosevelt NP so any from there would be great. Sounds like you'll be taking I94 to I90 to Billings? So we lack Red Lodge region images as well as better images of northern Absarokas and Beartooth region. Lamar Valley region. We could also use images of northern Tetons. The boardwalk at Ear Spring is apparently closed off so some of the impacted nearby pools may be as well. I'll post more in next day or two if I think of anything. Whatever NRHS sites structures that are easy to locate fine as well.--MONGO (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Air tankers drop retardant on Roosevelt Fire[edit]

  • Watch air tanker drop retardant on fast spreading Roosevelt Fire...here.--MONGO (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
    • A DC-10! Do you know where the tankers are staging? Greybull, perhaps - we've seen fire crews there, and it has long runways, otherwise probably Idaho. Acroterion (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Pretty sure its Greybull. This fire just blew up in last 2 days really. More info will be available by tomorrow I am sure. I read they may shut down US 189/191 south of Jackson if this thing starts to threaten the hwy.--MONGO (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Since my grandfather dug a lot of the wells and septic systems for the Hoback Ranches I've been watching this pretty closely also. Just a matter of time to get burned out when you build in the timber in the West.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Thats interesting. It's been quite some time since I drove that route south of Jackson since my visits back to that area are always in or out over Togwotee Pass to the north, but it is more timbered there than I recollect.--MONGO (talk) 03:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
The Hoback Ranches are a subdivision of a large tract of private land that spans the rim divide between the Green River and Hoback River Watersheds southeast of Bondurant. When it was originally subdivided, it was with the understanding that the roads would not be kept open during the winter; if you want to live there year-round you have to park down on the highway and ride up in a snowmobile. Anyway, most of the houses are on the Hoback side and the terrain varies. Some houses are on lots up in the timber, others are more in the open. There were 150 houses and 55 burned. So, it really depended on where the houses were.
Bondurant proper, down in the basin along the highway, was fine. There's not enough fuel down there to sustain a fire. But, the fire burned a significant amount of the watershed of the Hoback and its South Fork. A heavy rain over the burn area or next Spring's runoff could cause a lot of problems down there.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:17, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

MONGO's daily pearl of wisdom[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Everyone I ever met that was a psychiatrist needed a psychiatrist, present company omitted of course. Only in a totalitarian state of fascists or communists would an unsubstantiated and uncollaborated allegation be sufficient grounds to find a defendant of such an allegation guilty. "How do you know she is a witch?"...."Well, she looks like one!"--MONGO (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Brett Kavanaugh has the full support of every decent, right-minded, family-loving American. (allegedly) Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I support the law and in a court of law, this would result in a not guilty verdict. In fact, the lack of evidence provided to an investigator would result in no investigation. The only time investigators look for evidence where there is none to begin with is if they want to find Bigfoot, but that's not done by the FBI, that's done by reality TV schemers or 3rd rate buffoon lawyers.--MONGO (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, I must admit, some of us here in UK weren't entirely sure if we were watching the Senate panel or something else. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Right. I guess justice there is different than here? We have real courts here that decide things based on evidence rendered and not based on public opinions. Regardless of the heartfelt comments by those yesterday, no evidence aside from an allegation is insufficient to impugn another's character much less render a guilty verdict.--MONGO (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Hang on, I've got a great idea for compelling daytime TV... Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
The world according to MONGO...premieres here on a yet to be determined time and date.--MONGO (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
It's infuriating. It's as if instead of interviewing for a SCOTUS Justice job, he's interviewing for a SCOTUS Social Justice job. I served on a jury once for a murder trial, and I remember the judge and the case and how we had to use evidence and not emotion to reach our verdict. What I said elsewhere is that this is damaging to women and to sexual assault victims. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Something happened to that Doctor...but aside from her testimony there is no other evidence that implicates the SCOTUS nominee. The other idiotic accusations don't even deserve a mention...only a third rate ambulance chasing buffoon lawyer would even defend them publically.--MONGO (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
It's reaching a point where I really fear for the future of this country. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
When your argument has no strength, you can resort to doxing your opponents from a US House of Representatives IP address, accost, impede, harass people while they eat in a restaurant, lie, wait till the last minute to release felonious accusations, or march through the streets like total cowards wearing black outfits and masks and vandalize property and get in fisticuffs with those you disagree with.--MONGO (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I'll leave aside the question of whether, in an ideal society, the powerful should be able to take children away from the powerless, and imprison them in cages as a political gambit, without having to face criticism when they go out for a prime rib. It does seem odd to obstruct all efforts to investigate an allegation, and then to dismiss it as uncorroborated, but again, I don't feel like unpacking that right now. I'm interjecting myself to say that your insinuation, above, that a sexual-assault victim must be crazy—because she works in the mental-health field—is beneath you. MastCell Talk 20:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────They had this information about this alleged FELONY months ago but knew it was unsubstantiated and that had they brought forth the "evidence" in a timely manner the case would have been dropped for lack of evidence but...nah...they wait till right before the vote deliberately and then demand this alleged heinous crime be investigated to delay the vote till after the midterms. The power brokers therefore have been guilty of taking advantage of the Doctor a hell of a lot more than the conservatives have...the left is USING this woman. As far as the ideal society crapola, in between ordering the IRS to deliberately target conservative groups, the Obama administration put innocent illegal children in "cages" [4] built tent cities for illegals before the Trump administration considered it [5] and gave immigrant children to human traffickers [6] so spare me the crapola that only the Trump administration behaved poorly regarding the overwhelming influx of illegal aliens.--MONGO (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mongo, as people were pointing out yesterday, this is a job interview, not a criminal inquiry, so that the proceedings would have resulted in a not-guilty verdict isn't the point. Not that I'm defending how this has been conducted. I'm glad to hear that the FBI will investigate, but I hope for as long as they need to, rather than just a week. SarahSV (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Then rather than go this way, hammer the nominee on his decision record as a federal judge. As the nominee stated, he is not disputing that the event mentioned by the Doctor happened to her, only that he had nothing to do with it. The witnesses she named have presented written testimony under penalty of federal perjury that they recollect none of the details presented by the Doctor. The Doctor refuses to say who transported her to and from the location where the alleged offense happened and she doesn't recollect the precise year, month, date or even where it happened. All this could have been taken care of months ago...but now, they bring forth this at the last minute. Sorry, not buying it, and frankly, I don't even like the nominee. I disagree with him on his stand on many things. The Doctor is being used and the end result of all this is the powerbrokers will destroy her life far more than it currently is.--MONGO (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
It isn't surprising that others alleged to be at the party wouldn't remember it if nothing memorable happened to them there. This shouldn't be a party-political issue at this point. The current situation is that a credible allegation needs to be investigated. How long it takes shouldn't matter. SarahSV (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Nothing memorable?...the Doctor says one witness that has provided written testimony he knows nothing about this has been claimed by the Doctor to be in the room while it happened. How long Sarah? Long as the Mueller investigation? This is just a deliberate ploy to delay the vote until after the midterms.--MONGO (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • At the risk of kicking a hornet's nest, I'd like to ask you a question, because I'm not sure I understand your viewpoint here, and I'd like to. (Of course, if you're uncomfortable answering it or just don't feel like doing so, you're free to say so and I won't bother you anymore).

    Reading what you wrote above, in the collapsed section, it sounds like you believe Dr. Ford's testimony that she was sexually assaulted, but you also believe that she was either lying or "mixed up" (to use Orrin Hatch's phrase) when she identified Kavanaugh as the perpetrator under oath, with certainty. Is that a correct summary of your view? (This isn't a trick question; it feels important to me to understand where you're coming from). MastCell Talk 00:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I shut this down out of respect to Sarah...not you Mastcell. I stand with Susan Collins speech she made before she voted to confirm the nominee. That speech is available in its entirety on YouTube. Watch it listen to it and pay attention to it.--MONGO (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Writers Barnstar Hires.png The Writer's Barnstar
Congratulations for the excellent work you did on North Cascades National Park and for helping to make it today’s FA of the day!! Atsme✍🏻📧 03:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Why thank you very much!--MONGO (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

TRNP[edit]

I've started uploading some images to Commons, as you've probably noticed. Good clouds but difficult lighting conditions in the South Unit. Processing takes a while and I probably ought to tweak them a bit more. There should be gradual uploads for a while, there are lots to choose from for the whole trip. Sorry I missed NCNP on the main page! Acroterion (talk) 01:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I shall keep an eye out for these at Commons. Looking forward to them.--MONGO (talk) 11:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I see you are adding categories but I also added them to the Commons page dedicated to the park [7]. Nice job!--MONGO (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I've got about about a dozen more of TRNP to add, most from the north unit. I expect to be uploading images for the next three weeks or so as I get them processed. Acroterion (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
That park is not oft visited as you found out...so anything especially of the caliber you usually take will be of great benefit.--MONGO (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
56 files for TRNP and a few for Medora, ND. I expect I'll add a few more when I revisit some of the images I passed over. The badlands tend to not look terribly interesting in thumbnails, but work out fine when opened. I could wish the second day had better sky conditions, but it was still pretty good - at least the veiled sun made shadows less harsh. I'll work on some other place tomorrow, I'm a little tired of looking at North Dakota. Acroterion (talk) 04:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Added a bunch here. The place looks deserted...bet that was nice. Reminds me of a trip I made to the Great Sand Dunes in early 80s...no one else in camp ground and maybe one other car filtered through.--MONGO (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

MONGO's world of wisdom[edit]

When using news sources, especially in BLP's, the chances the source is not biased is near zero.[8]--MONGO (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

MONGO heritage revealed![edit]

In addition to being almost entirely of English ancestry I was recently informed I "probably had" a Native American ancestor ten generations ago!!! This person married my first American ancestor after he left England in the 1630s. That makes me 1/1024th Native American!!! Sad part is I am likely more Neanderthal Man than I am Native American.

We have that in common, cool. Mine was in the late 17th century in New England. It was just family lore before we got the DNA results back last year. Seems my ancestors were people of imperfect virtue, and did a bit of messing around... who knew. Antandrus (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
My ancestors came from England but they were all Neanderthal actually. They did not leave England willingly...lol--MONGO (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
That scares me considering we all came from the same mother. Atsme✍🏻📧 21:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Reptilians need trees to climb.
Thats a fable that excludes our alien ancestry.--MONGO (talk) 22:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
On reptilian planets they probably make action movies about mammalians.
For my own part I was well over 3% Neanderthal which I am told is unusually high. Probably explains some of the terrible things I did when I was an undergrad. Antandrus (talk) 22:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Reptilians know all humans are repugnant so if they have such movies they are probably done very secretively and shown only at adult reptilian swamps.--MONGO (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

It’s the preamble to the Holiday Season![edit]

Trick or Treat!!!

Happy Halloween!
Why are demons and ghouls always together?
  • Because demons are a ghoul's best friend.

What happens when you goose a ghost?

  • You get a hand full of sheet.

Atsme✍🏻📧 00:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Cease using The Washington Post as a source?[edit]

MONGO: "we need to cease using them as a source". Let's see how far you get with that. Will you get one of the most respected and reliable sources deprecated? Which policy will you cite? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Sad.--MONGO (talk) 06:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
@BullRangifer: Are you sure it is a good idea to be citing WP:CIR at people? PackMecEng (talk) 12:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
In wacky world of Wikipedia the competent are obviously ones that misuse our server space to post preposterous POV laden essays of screeching nonsense. Imagine had that time wasted been put towards working on building a neutral encyclopedia?--MONGO (talk) 13:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Truth be told, the POV agenda pushers are capitalizing on the fact that major news publications are blatantly anti-Trump and anti-GOP and what they publish reflects that. Wikipedia has a policy against citing blogs or opinion pieces, even from reliable sources, because they are inherently biased and unsourced. But what we are seeing now is publications like the WaPo and the NYT as well as CNN, MSNBC, Newsweek, Time, and so on, turning their front page/headline stories into opinion pieces without labeling them as such. This allows the anti-Trumpers/never-Trumpers/anti-Conservative Wikipedia editors (which is the majority who contribute to the politically-based articles) to say "We follow the sources!" intentionally because they know that these sources are their go-to for confirmation bias. The WaPo, with all of its false flags and retractions that follow, has become unreliable. Same with the NYT. But that will never be noted or considered in Wikipedia. The anti-Trump/anti-GOP/anti-Conservative majority will never allow it. Neutrality here in the way of politics is dead because of that majority. This is one of the reasons why Wikipedia is no longer an encyclopedia. -- ψλ 14:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Anyone that doesn't grasp the fact that journalism is a discipline that naturally attracts the more liberally minded is fooling themselves. But you are correct that so much of the especially web based news is so partisan it hardly meets our NPOV standards even if it is does meet our reliable sources standards. In any BLP about a politician, the chances it can be neutral is directly related to how long it has been since they left elected office.--MONGO (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
The news media are supposed to critique the government. It is their job. The fact that Trump is a uniquely problematic individual, far outside the norms of political behaviour, is not their fault and not their problem. News media on all sides of the poltiical spectrum outside the US reflect this fact, they report on his systematic dishonesty and his apparent corruption. Bob Woodward's book is painfully fair, yet paints a picture of unprecedented chaos. Only in the US do right-wing media feel the need to airbrush this out of the story. It's like climate change: the fact that everyone other than Fox reports it as real, doesn't mean that everyone other than Fox is biased against the fossil fuel industry. Guy (Help!) 11:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
"The fact that Trump is a uniquely problematic individual" What I see as problematic in your statement is that it's personal opinion, not fact. The other problematic thing here is that if the WaPo sees Trump as "a problematic individual", and that's the basis for their stories on him, then this absolutely proves the WaPo is biased and not objectively reporting on the 45th POTUS.
"far outside the norms of political behaviour" (1) I'm going to assume from your spelling of 'behaviour', you're either not living in the US or are not a US citizen? (feel free to clear that up). That in mind, you might not be very well versed on the historical "political behavior" of US presidents. While Twitter didn't exist until just recently, Trump is hardly the first publicly outspoken and brash POTUS. (2) "Norms" as measured by whom?
"Bob Woodward's book is painfully fair, yet paints a picture of unprecedented chaos." There are those inside the White House that say Woodward's book is full of bullshit and gossip. And the 'those' includes honorable men such as Gen. James Mattis. Whose word should we believe: the word of a guy who's looking to remain relevant in the public eye and sell books or the guy who has honorably served his country, making countless sacrifices to do so, and is actually in the White House, part of the inner circle? I'll take the latter over the former any day.
-- ψλ 13:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Nice the folks across the pond have a lock on the truth while us silly Americans are all brainwashed eh? What an arrogant preposterous post colonial load of socialist bullshit, JzG. You know I think a lot of you but well, this is about as clueless as most of your other statements as of late. I also simply do not get why American politics are so fascinating to Europeans....why do you give a crap really? Hold your breath JzG...Fox has a recent piece on Trump and his supposed denial of AGW...[9]...neither apologetic nor condemning, Fox simply reports it, but the CNN acolytes want to go off on a tangent about how the US under Trump is going to imperil the entire Planet since we won't shut down our coal fired power plants and build 300 million tax subsidized wind towers to offset the lost electricity. Any conversation that is about "fixing" climate change that doesn't A.) include the nuclear power option, B). have a serious and ethical discussion about controlling the exploding human population and C). non human impacts to the climate, is a waste of time.--MONGO (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Winkelvi...you're being labeled an "extreme Trump supporter" by the same guy above who questioned my competency to edit. Please do nothing since a few admins seem to think you have no right to do the same but if these personal attacks persist I will seek a resolution on my own.--MONGO (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, isn't that incredibly amusing?! I'd be interested to know what Bull's reliable source for that is, since I've never expressed my support for any politician in Wikipedia. Apparently, the truth doesn't matter when it comes to claims about other editors. Should this be considered a personal attack? Perhaps so, since Bull's comment is clearly not meant to be a compliment. -- ψλ 16:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
The left has ownership of the facts and reality show so if you aren't on their bandwagon you are not competent to edit. Its not about FA or other high levels of work here such as you have done...the competency is determined by ones ability to write a one sided opinionated essay.--MONGO (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments about me[edit]

Your comments about me are bordering on harrassment. You are a cheerleader for a very distructive editor and are quickly turning into a troll like him. In fact, I wonder if you might be his sockpuppet or something. Stop this crap now. Legacypac (talk) 05:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes...I am his sockpuppet. Run checkuser right now cause I am a troll!--MONGO (talk) 11:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I checked my edits...only once did I call you out specifically and that was regarding the fact you have 6 blocks in the last not even 3 years. If there has been harassment, it has been (once again) your harassment against Winkelvi at his talkpage and your draconian drive a stake in their heart comments regarding Winkelvi that you have been barfing all over noticeboards. This is the second time you have done this apparently as you were blocked for a month back in 2016 for well golly: "gravedancing, perpetuating a feud, on User talk:Winkelvi" as shown here. Be smart...don't give me another reason to demand a second long term block to add to your collection.--MONGO (talk) 13:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Characterizing PolitiFact as opinion[edit]

As a seasoned editor, you know very well that PolitiFact is a RS and not "opinion". Yet that was your rationale for removing RS content from the Don Bacon (politician) page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned, we must be careful to not use sources one-sidedly. The removal of a source you did not like and replacing it with one you did was done deliberately to mislead and by doing so you violated the undue weight clause of NPOV and it becomes a BLP violation. Thanks!--MONGO (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
"The removal of a source you did not like" - The govtrack website for the Tax Cuts bill?[10] Is this a joke? This is some seriously WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior. First you stalk me to the Don Bacon page, then you falsely claim that PolitiFact is "opinion" and now you suggest that I removed or omitted important info from a reliable source (when the source in question is a govtrack website for a bill - which added no new text that could not be found in the PolitiFact piece - and which SHOULD be replace by secondary RS per nearly every editor in American politics). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
No one is stalking you anywhere! You think someone disagrees with your edits they are stalking you? But thanks for the diff of wrong accusation and lack of AGF.--MONGO (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

MONGO is a mean nasty person and must be punished section[edit]

By now everybody is aware you don't like using major news outlets as sources. WP:AE is the wrong venue for airing those complaints. [11] If you think you have a case then take it to WP:RS/N. Also, responding specifically to your statement that "we are limited for references by the least worthy source of information, namely, the NEWS" Is there some news organization out there that has tied your hands and is preventing you from using better sources? Are you not allowed to go to your library and check out books, or get a Wikipedia scholar pass and read peer-reviewed published articles? Are you for some reason unable to look up subjects in tertiary sources like Britannica and to use those sources as a guide for balance here? ~Awilley (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

If you can find books or scholarly works on all the breaking news junk that gets added I would like to see them! From what I read they are referring to all the recentism that keeps getting added. Which would of course not have higher quality sources yet. PackMecEng (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Apparently Awilley seems to have misread my post that he linked to above. I do not agree that more rules or changes to long existing rules will make things "better". What User:Coffee set in place and what Awilley wants are both efforts in good faith to correct an issue, but its an issue that is not as big as they surmise. I dropped out almost entirely from AmPol articles months ago because of several reasons. Firstly, as PackMecEng points out correctly, we do not have higher sources available for the recentism issues mainly because they are...recent. News is editor reviewed, not peer reviewed in the same way a scholarly entity is. Secondly, I see almost all news sources as less than useful on political issues because they are all mostly partisan...that includes CNN and Fox and the rest. Thirdly, I know I have a bias so I know I am not likely to edit those areas without that bias...and I will as other biased persons, I will likely want to use those news sources that tend to bolster my biases more. It is sad the others with bias are unable to check themselves on this matter. Lastly, and this is to Awilley...excuse me fine Sir, but I have 13 FA works and have started another 1200 articles and not one has ever been deleted. Its insulting to the extreme that you would assume I am unable to look up things in tertiary sources to achieve a balanced neutral treatise on a particular subject. Sadly, for current event political articles, there are few to none of these sources available YET. And that is my point that Awilley in his zeal seems to want me to shut up about apparently, in his condescending manner, but since he is a lofty admin and he sees his job as some sort of corrective action policeman I best adhere to his demands or face a block for daring to challenge his supremacy.--MONGO (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. A couple points: 1: breaking news is a very small subset of post-1932 American politics. Stuff over about a year old starts showing up in other sources. 2: We are apparently talking about different types of news sources. I have a low opinion of cable news stations that seem to spend 2 minutes reporting the news itself and the rest of the hour bringing in panels of talking heads to spin the news in different directions. When I talk about news sources I'm talking about major newspapers and outlets like the New York Times, Guardian, Reuters, and Associated Press, that have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, and that issue corrections when they get things wrong. Forgive my millennial cord cutter bias. ~Awilley (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
All of those entities have had to issue numerous corrections so no, they still fall short of what I would deem as scholarly. Furthermore, the reliance on opinion pieces (which the NYTimes has a plethora of) as "news" pieces is far too rampant on the articles. But well, I think the efforts to find a new way to enforce an old issue is noble but not needed. Simply let them go back to 3RR, allow some vigorous back and forth to be performed in the talkpages and unless someone violates 3RR or Spirit of 3RR routinely, then let it go.--MONGO (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
You speak of corrections as if they are a bad thing. I'd be more worried if a news organization didn't issue corrections. Certainly opinion pieces shouldn't be used as news, and I'd expect you to call it out when you see it. Just be careful about crying wolf. Edit summaries like this (implying a RS is "opinion") can damage your credibility. ~Awilley (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Paris Graffiti Impasse Planchette - look at the sky
No, I speak of corrections as they happen after print, meaning they are so hurried to get a story out they lack the oversight (and intergrity) to make sure its correct to begin with because they want to SELL. Wikipedia is not the NEWS is policy. I know where your partisanship lies Awilley, so leave me out of your crusade to make things better when you fail yourself to demonstrate adequately that you have any article writing capability of note. With that, be free to seek solutions to problems that aren't nearly as big as you might pretend they are...as I shall not even think to interfere with your efforts again as I have once again learned my place as a peon and I am unworthy. I shall slither off to my little corner now...be well.--MONGO (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
There's the ad hominem. ~Awilley (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I mean... they are not really wrong are they? PackMecEng (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
No reason to continue the discussion if its led to an impasse.--MONGO (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
nous sommes dans une impasse et ne serons probablement pas d'accord! peut-être la prochaine fois nous aurons un meilleur désaccord--MONGO (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Look MONGO, I respect you for the amount of content you have created, although I don't particularly appreciate having it lorded over me. And you have a legitimate point about recentism in our articles and the scramble to SELL news. I believe that the majority of news sources do have an inherent bias: a bias toward controversy, and that unfortunately bleeds into Wikipedia. (You could probably gather that from my userpage.) As far as other kinds of bias in sources, for the purposes of Wikipedia I try to outsource that judgement. If print sources are available I try to find the most reputable respected scholarly source available—the one everybody else cites and that appears in all the bibliographies—and adopt its POV as my own. If I were editing about recent American politics and only news sources were available I would probably look for a chart like this and try to only use sources in the green box. That's my approach to NPOV in a nutshell. Find the highest quality sources available and pretend their POV is my own. You of course are free to do as you like.

@PackMecEng: if you are genuinely curious about my own personal views (not sure why you would be) then feel free to ask me a direct question on my user talk page. I'm not going to play along with Ive-got-u-pegged-and-ur-biased-against-me-now-plz-give-me-some-personal-info-about-urself-so-i-can-find-a-way-to-use-it-against-you. ~Awilley (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Apologies if you thought I was asking what your POV is, I was not nor do I particularly care to find out. PackMecEng (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Egads....its a I have to have the final word contest! Awilley...that chart shows Reuters as near top best source yet didnt they stage images sonetime back to make it look like something else had happened when it did not. It says FoxNews is hyper partisan right and that it is persuasive in its coverage? So that is what we go by? Ok...I am done and shall report to the local gaol and take my shackles and or chains or lashings as applicable. I am obviously ill prepared to vet sources and shall leave such intricacies to those best prepared to provide a truly neutral rendition of the our BLPs. Time to pout.--MONGO (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
naughty MONGO on the right...Willy on Wheels at left

=

MONGO love shack[edit]

It's a nonstop love fest!!

Welcome to the MONGO love shack where love and happiness is spread by all...its a nonstop orgy!

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 27, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Camp Fire arbitration case request[edit]

The case request has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Reply Request[edit]

When you have time, please reply to the messages at Talk:September_11_attacks#No_Idea. Thank you so much in advance. KachaleMouferferee (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, MONGO. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)