User talk:MONGO/Archive27

Now what?

Cla68...once again, I remind myself of your excellent FA work and thank you for those articles. However, I see you are working on another potential Rfc here...what exactly is the problem between you and Slim? I would like to once again ask you to resume your excellent article work and well, let bygones be bygones. I thought this issue was long dead by now...why is it still festering?--MONGO 02:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please review my evidence in the Matanmoreland ArbCom case. Since the events detailed in that case occured, there has appeared to be a continued history of problematic editing by this editor. In looking at the editor's talkpage history, I was surprised by the number of disputes between her and other editors, many of whom are, like yourself, frequent contributors to quality, NPOV articles and not normally in dispute with other editors. I believe a review of this editor's editing history by the community is past due. Please feel free to join in drafting the RfC and, of course, commenting on it once it is posted. Cla68 (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip H. Farber (2nd nomination)

I have nominated Philip H. Farber for deletion. You previously contributed to an earlier AfD on this article and it was suggested that I notify you of the current AfD. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip H. Farber (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Cheers, Pigman☿ 07:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Further to this, any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, "impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." The full remedy is located here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 15:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• hi-five* Hopefully this will allow you and the other folks to shoo away some of the Loose Change-ites. Jtrainor (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not confident that this remedy will apply except to the worst of the POV pushers. Others whose work is less obviously POV pushing and always maintains civility etc. will continue to be problematic and will be tough to get sanctions imposed.--MONGO 00:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If you ask me, ArbCom's solution was no solution at all. Enigma ^message Review 05:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Question 2

Hi. I previously asked you a question about some IP accounts. See the section "Question" above. You said that the first four were from San Francisco. How can one see this? WHOIS for the first IP seems to indicate that the provider is in Mt Laurel, NJ? I am considering a RFCU to see if this is a banned user since similar IPs continue to edit the US state terrorism article.Ultramarine (talk) 09:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

76.126.64.74 US UNITED STATES CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS INC is what my source states. You will need to see who else adds similar info and also if there is evidence of someone using various IP's to evade 3RR.--MONGO 10:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Further...you may want to see the editing history of this IP...it seems to help provide a clue...and comes from the exact same provider....

76.102.72.153 US UNITED STATES CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS INC see:76.102.72.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)--MONGO 10:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Another link from the just mentioned IP address...and this looks to be Giovanni33, who is under arbcom restriction.--MONGO 10:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that edit does look that way. What happened was that that DHeyward restored very old warnings that the IP user had removed some time ago. I saw this (since both of them and myself were involved at the article around the same time, and I was leaving a message to the IP user not to violate 3RR)--and I reverted DHeywards edit to restore the talk page the way the IP user had it (leaving only the new warnings). Well DHeyward reverted me, but I walked away. Later when I read that DHeyward seemed to be on a 1RR, but was reverted twice on the article, I left him a "warning" asking him about that. He reverted my message. Again, no big deal. The IP user came back and undid DHeward's revert that restored the old warnings on his page, and then went to DHeward's page and restored my warning to DHeward (very pointy). Even doing it twice. I hope that makes some sense. I'd never violate my probation intentionally, and this would be akin go going back to using socket puppets, which I'd never do.Giovanni33 (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Another user did a RFCU which was inconclusive.[1] You said earlier above that Bmedley Sutler/Fairness And Accuracy For All could be related to the IPs previously discussed. Any concrete evidence? Ultramarine (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to do some digging...but I thought Sutler was blocked for evading his ban as FAAFA...

Giovannii33...the only reason you didn't get banned outright is because I supported lax restrictions on you. I am the one who proposed a 1RR restriction at the workshop page on your case, so be thankful I didn't ask for more...I'm thinking that continuing to coddle those that do nothing but POV push is the wrong thing to do...topic, in in more extreme cases, outright bannings are the only way to save this website from those that misuse it to promote the ridiculous.--MONGO 05:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You are blocked for 1 week under this ArbCom ruling following the incivility in the edit summary of this edit despite being warned to remain civil. --Tango (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

How on earth do these people become Admins in the first place? Giano (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tango. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked, per general agreement at AN/I that the block was excessive and was for an incident leading from what could be interpreted as earlier provocation from the blocking admin. There was some concern in the discussion about your conduct, and the unblock is "per time served" rather than a negation of the block, so please be aware of the discussion on AN/I. Orderinchaos 15:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I am autoblocked...--MONGO 15:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It seemed my "per time served" was not entirely in line with the actual consensus at AN/I, so have reblocked for the equivalent of what the community feels it should have been (31 hours - or 29 from the present) in order to avoid a WP:WHEEL violation on my own behalf. Orderinchaos 15:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In accordance with suggestions in the AN/I discussion, I am placing you under indefinite Civility Restriction. Any incivility on your part anywhere on this site will result in further blocks, of increasing length. --Tango (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe Tango has the authority to make such a ruling, nor was such indicated by consensus at AN/I. I oppose this on much the same grounds as I opposed MickMacNee being placed by a single admin under a 6 hour "topic ban". Such things should always originate from and be approved by the community. Orderinchaos 15:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Usually, such things require consensus. The ArbCom ruling, however, allows for an uninvolved admin (which I am) to unilaterally impose such restrictions. If there is a consensus to remove it, then so be it. Such as consensus has not been established. --Tango (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You are not an uninvolved admin now, and you are treating it as if it is some official thing, with capital letters and everything. You do not have this authority, and I strongly suggest you abandon this whole issue altogether, as your continued presence in the argument is only eroding your position further. --Golbez (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find absolutely no consensus to impose it. There are pro-MONGO people, anti-MONGO people, and people like myself who think the whole thing is ridiculous and we should concentrate on building an encyclopaedia. I have opposed MONGO in the past on various things, but honestly can't see why the heavy artillery is necessary in this situation. Drama helps nobody, and the intensity with which you've gone in on this one leads to some questions about judgment, to be honest. Were this to have come from ArbCom (or clerks thereof) themselves, I'd have accepted it as they would actually have considered the relevant facts necessary to make a decision and I trust their judgment. Orderinchaos 16:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved admin, per the definition given in the ruling. That ruling allows restrictions such as the one I imposed to be issued unilaterally, so it doesn't matter if there is a consensus for it or not. What matters is that there is not a consensus to remove it. As for the capital letters - I was quoting the name from Wikipedia:Community sanctions (although, admittedly, it's not capitalised there). It *is* an official thing. --Tango (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The block is preposterous..Tango has previously had some snide comments to me and about me. I was not rude or incivil and indeed, Thomas Basboll is a single purpose account and one that is here solely to edit a few articles and promote conspiracy theories regarding 9/11. I demand to be unblocked so that I can properly protest this horrible block made simply because I didn't bow down to the Tango...I will NOT BE ABUSED BY ABUSIVE administrators on this website. He didn't like my revert of his ill concieved warning and my edit summary...that is a horrible reason to block...an Rfc is imminent..>I don't know who you think you are but continued harassment by you will make me use whatever means I have available to ensure you never abuse your admin tools again.--MONGO 15:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

An RFC once your block has expired would be a very productive way have handling your difference of opinion. I look forward to seeing the case you present. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Orderinchaos 16:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You do not need to be unblocked to protest the block. There is a discussion ongoing at AN/I, and I'm sure the people there will be more than happy to come here to read your comments on the matter. Request denied. --Tango (talk) 15:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Incredible...you are abusive for sure...I am absolutely mesmerized by your ongoing misuse of your tools and position. I was not incivil..you just didn't like your authority being questioned...what an unbvelievable abuse of power.--MONGO 15:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You know the thing that bothers me about this website - The POV pushers that want to soapbox the project with fringe views scream when they are not allowed undue weight on articles, and they use sock accts, SPA's, trolling, and harass users who call them on their POV pushing. And then someone with a "trigger finger" on the block button comes along and decides to become judge and jury, without considering the fact that the only reason this website has any merit at all is because it has a few users who engage to stop the POV pushing of fringe views. Even Jimbo says ...if a view is held only by a few people without any traditional training or credentials, and if that view is dismissed by virtually all mainstream scientists, then we can say that, too. [2] I think Tango is out of line here. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 15:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have made no judgement on MONGO's position. Simply on his way of expressing that position. He may well be right, but that doesn't give him permission to be uncivil. --Tango (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleting comments on his talk page, warning or no is a long standing privilege of editors. Most uninvoilved admins would simply have dismissed it and lnoted the warning was read. By blocking however, you have shown that you are involved by your emotional response. --DHeyward (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 16:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree totally, and I think that's missing the point. The block was not for removing the warning notice, it was for the complete incivility in response to a civility notice. I hope this can be settled amicably, but I think the initial thought of blocking for this is sound. Redrocket (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If an offhand "get lost" is what you consider "complete incivility," you must have lived a sheltered life indeed. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

So to be a wikipedia editor, you had to grow up on the rough streets? Redrocket (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that "get lost" is pretty mild as incivility goes. It is incivility, though. There is no requirement that the incivility be severe if it is repeated. --Tango (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Tango, "get lost" is hardly even worth commenting on, far much worse things happen on this encyclopedia for you to pay attention to that. Have you even reviewed your own actions? You were what appeared to be engaging in communication with him about content (which makes you by default involved in the very least, You block him for a week, after the wrong block was undone you act like some kind of ultimate authority in placing him on 'indefinite civility parole' despite you now being involved to highest extent and you state 'request denied' to a chance to him being unblocked, even though u were originally a blocking administrator today. I would step back and realize that RFAr may be in your future if your conduct continues. — Κaiba 21:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You're behind the times - the RFAr's already been filed! I have no idea what you're talking about regarding content, and I'm pretty sure I've already responded to all your other points elsewhere. --Tango (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at your replies to all the other points, and I have to say, hardly any of them were satisfactory, IMHO. And I just now saw the RFAr page, hardly looks like making a case over, but nonetheless those who act abusively in some editors eyes also have bullseyes on them, so I don't expect it be long before all your actions come to light. — Κaiba 22:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if a retired user's talk page is the best place to argue about this. Perhaps at ANI, or one of your own talk pages would be better. _(1 == 2)^Until 22:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Two comments:

1. This entire fiasco is what the wikipedia-haters talk about when they try to discredit us.
2. This is why our defacto rule that being an admin is no big deal should be revisited.

<begin soapbox rant>Wikipedia as a whole will be negatively affected by the loss of knowledge and experience that Mongo took when he retired. He has obviously had a very troubled past, but has made great strides. During his last RfA he exhibited great restraint and civility when other editors were throwing rotten fruit at him by the truckload. Unless I have missed some important point, I believe that the block for a hardly uncivil comment in an edit summary is a poor reason for a block. The continued mob mentality that follows concerns me a great deal. I think we should remember to assume good faith and continue making this a reliable encyclopedia and not to make this a social networking site for POV pushing intelects.</end soapbox rant>--Sallicio^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 22:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Leaving this website for good..had enough

can an uninvolved admin post the following to the top of my userpage?

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

I will also add a statement that I would like to have added afterwards.--MONGO 15:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I seriously hope you reconsider. This is an unfortunate state of affairs. Orderinchaos 16:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

For now I will interpret this ins the usual way: an expression of acute frustration. In this case, entirely reasonable. MONGO, take a break, clear your head, come back refreshed. Guy (Help!) 16:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This is completely unacceptable. Tango needs to appolagise to Mongo for this [3], and be de-sysoped, pending an enquiry into this lamentable affair. Giano (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You can always file an ArbCom case if you think that Giano. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it odd how you are always two steps behind me? Giano (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, we do not desysop people pending enquiries except in emergencies (someone going around deleting every featured article, say). The procedure is the have the enquiry, and then desysop the person if it is deemed appropriate. Secondly, making such calls here is unconstructive. If you want me to be desysopped, please file an ArbCom case against me. --Tango (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You are too heavy handed, in short you are incompetent. Giano (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to object to this block Giano. But please do so in a civil fashion. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh do stop trying to be intmidating, go write a page and do something useful. Giano (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Until, but I don't consider "incompetent" to be uncivil - if that's Giano's opinion, he's free to give it. --Tango (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Your block was abusive and way out of line. I have never seen you once act civiliy towards me...ever. Your block was unjustified and spurious. Since you are the last straw as far as I am concerned, please follow the instructions I have posted under this posted. Otherwise, do not post to this page again....it is harassment at this point and if you can't see that, then you are a bigger problem than you seem to be.--MONGO 17:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

So, "get lost", is incivil, likely to emotionally scar sensitive person for life, yet being called "incompetent" which infers an inability to be able to perform a task correctly isn't.... interesting to know. Total overreaction, as seems to be the way these days. Minkythecat (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In summary, MONGO has been blocked for deleting a comment on his own user page, and has been blocked. A valuable editor has been prevented from contributing, due an edit that in no way disrupted the encyclopedia. This is not only heavy handed, it's downright disruptive on behalf of Tango's part. The only honorable thing to do would be for Tango to surrender his sysop privileges. But I have seen no remorse or shadow of doubt in his comments, so I'm skeptic. One of the sad stories in Wikipedia, when bureaucracy stomps common sense. Shame, shame, shame. --Qyd (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Please post the retired tag to the top of my userpage...delete my image...I think it is on en.wiki so that should be easy enough. Please remove everything from my userpage and replace it with the retired tag and the following comments in italics...I am definitely done here.

I have left this website for good. I was once an administrator and was desysopped in a controversial decision that was strongly protested by numerous well respected editors. Since being desysopped, I have hung on, yet not having the tools has made me bitter and disgusted. The number of abusive admins is incredible and nothing is done to stop them....I was desysopped for less than many existing admins who misuse their tools and positions and get away with it. Some of these admins have shown me nothing but disrespect, have baited me and have used minor issues to sanction me. I will not continue to tolerate such abuse. Interesting, none of these admins seem to be here to write articles or make any serious contributions to our article space.

Conspiracy theorists have long misused this website to promote fringe views as facts, often demanding equal time with the known evidence. Most of these conspiracy theorists are single purpose accounts and therefore have the time to continuously argue and POV push nonsense into our article space. Meanwhile, editors like me who contribute over a wide spectrum of article spaces, do a lot of vandalism reverts and add many articles, including featured level content, do not have the same luxury. It should be easy to spot who is and who isn't here for the benefit of the website. Unfortunately, some editors are simply unable to understand or care about what really matters. The lack of understanding in this matter is taking this website in the wrong direction.

Both onsite and behind the scenes, I've done all I can to aide those that have had to deal with real life harassment. Recently, I even went so far as to privately aide someone I do not personally like. I didn't do this because I wanted to get on their good side...I did it because I do not tolerate harassment of our editors in real life. The response I got from this person was that they didn't trust me...I was really taken aback by this, and was shocked actually that my effort to help them, in spite of our differences, was so coldly received. This same editor has posted offsite regarding me...on a website that is known to have several of the same stalkers and miscreants that I have tried to defend others from. It's pretty obvious when someone should and someone shouldn't help others....I guess I should have just sat back in amusement and watched this editor get harassed...but I am not put together that way...I always defend anyone, regardless of my differences with them, when they are being harassed. Prior to my offer of aide, this same editor opposed my recent effort to get readminned...basing comments I made to them that were misunderstood overall. This same editor also periodically updated the tally on that Rfa...and I was not amused in the least. It troubles me when an editor watches over my Rfa like that and I am sure that this editor spoke with various friends to ensure where they stood as far as me getting the tools back. Sadly, this same editor has a lot of power and again, while I certainly do not condone the harassment they received, it makes me pretty sick to see this person have so much power over others.

The arbitration committee is lost. I have a lot of respect for most of them, but they are missing the point and not doing more to ensure this website is protected from those who wish to misuse it. The success of this website depends on strong decisions that are done for the good of the site. By this I mean that we need to ensure that single purpose accounts that are here to promote nonsense are dealt with swiftly and firmly. The reliability of this website is at stake..it won't ever be taken seriously so long as POV pushers and those with a wrongful agenda misuse our open editing policy. The committee needs to apply harder and more resolute sanctions on those that are here for all the wrong reasons.

There is no reason for me to continue editing this website. I am completely disgusted with admin abuse, the ongoing and endorsed stalking of some of our finest editors, the lack of determination to ensure we create a reliable reference base, the single purpose accounts that filibuster nonsense and face no sanction, the lack of direction and the poor example provided by our highest level people, the drama created by ridiculous and termagant demands for sanction on established editors...oftentimes used only by those with an axe to grind, the inability of this website to protect real experts from the nonsense pushers, the lack of cohesion, the infiltration of our top posts by those who contribute in offsite attacks, the sockpuppeting that goes unchecked...well, the list is rather endless...no reason to stay and add more content. Why bother and risk my own sanity dealing with so many problems. Maybe Wikipedia will fix itself...but the trend has been downward and I am not hopeful the problems can be solved.

There are many I will miss...though I have never once personally met any editor, I have a few friends I will continue to communicate with via email. I'll continue to offer support to them if they are being harassed, but only behind the scenes and as I have time. I want to wish my friends the best and hope they can find the strength to carry on in what I feel is a website that has become personally untenable.--MONGO 17:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Hut 8.5 18:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...please block my account indefinitely and fully protect my userpage and talkpages if possible.--MONGO 18:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done the userpage, I doubt I'm allowed to block you or protect your talk page though. Hut 8.5 18:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope your retirement isn't permanent. With 1500 admins, it's amazing we don't have even more imprudent and vindictive ones. The only thing that keeps me here is this attitude. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't leave, MONGO! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I can understand why you are angry over this situation, but I very much hope you reconsider your decision to leave (though in the end, of course, it's entirely up to you). You are valuable to this project and I think the vast majority of editors here (including those like myself who have had significant disagreements with you in the past) are well aware of that. So I hope to see you remove that retired notice, but if you decide it's not worth your while then my sincere best wishes for you in all of your future endeavors, and a reminder that you have obviously done a lot of work here of which you can be very proud regardless of what happens.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow Mongo, never expected this. You've had a hard time here, but your work dealing with fringe views is invaluable. I hope you can look beyond this one block and see that you are very much appreciated here, and still have a lot to give. You have the respect of many people here and I hope after some reflection, you decide to stay. Best wishes, Ryan Postlethwaite 00:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hey, I had hoped to edit with you, you are a great asset to the project, do reconsider. MBisanz ^talk 00:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hope you reconsider. It is a pity to lose an experienced editor. Yeah, no one is perfect... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Mongo, I have worked with you a few times in the past, and I am very priveleged to have done so. I hope you reconsider retirement. Your knowledge and wisdom will be a loss for all. Viele Glück! Good luck! --Sallicio

--Sallicio^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 01:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I will up the ante... I will give you a nom for (re)Sysop to return. I really feel that the site is losing a valuable asset. I'm sure I can get a co-nom.--Sallicio^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 01:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

MONGO, please reconsider some time in the future. You're too good a person to lose. The RfAr isn't going to be accepted, Tango will stay on, but please, we need, and appreciate, you so much more. Please. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but his last RfA had over 150 for accept. (BTW, what has Tango staying on have to do with a successful RfA?)--Sallicio^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 01:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Completely agreed with the others expressing remorse above. MONGO, don't leave! GlassCobra 01:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the above: don't go. You do great article work here, especially in areas some people won't go near. Please stay. Acalamari 01:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree as well. You are a strong asset to this place and it would be most unfortunate to lose you over the poor judgment of a rogue admin. Eusebeus (talk) 02:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Mongo, please return, you are needed here. The project is of course a shame and disgust but it is still unique and indispensible. It would not make any good if it will be given to conspiracy theorists Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

MONGO, please reconsider and stay. Not many who contribute here can claim as many Featured Articles and dedication. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 03:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Best of luck in your future endeavours MONGO. -- Naerii 03:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't leave, please! We've lost enough valuable editors as it is, and Wikipedia needs you. I am willing to personally nom or co-nom you for adminship as well. And the fact that I got edit-conflicted adding support says enough. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who edits in areas which are at times contentious and also not in the public eye, I recognise how important it is to have editors who are willing to deal with fringe additions from SPAs, sockpuppets etc. Mongo is one of the editors, most notably at the 11 September series of articles, helping to keep our encyclopaedic standards up so that those who perpetually slam this site for unreliability are deprived of at least one area of ammunition they can use against us. He is strong willed, but so are a lot of other long term good faith contributors. I think this whole fiasco should never have happened, that serious questions about the original blocking admin's judgement have been raised, and I hope Mongo sees past this and in future sees fit to return. Orderinchaos 03:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a sad day for all those fighting the fringe SPAs who are far more of a danger to the integrity of this project than any alleged incivility. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I'll echo Orderinchaos and others. See how you feel after a bit. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I know many will read your essay and give it much thought. All the best to you. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry about these recent events, and I hope that your post-Wikipedia ventures are as fruitful as of those on this project. You were a valuable asset to Wikipedia, although it was not often expressed. seicer | talk | contribs 05:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

MONGO what are you doing? Get back here! You were doing so fine and now this? Though I can understand why you are very upset right now please reconsider this. Taking a break is perhaps a good idea but please don't leave completely. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Seeing the bastards running wild on those articles really emphasizes how much you've done for the project. Wish you luck. John Nevard (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This is fucked. Wikipedia without a Mongo is far less than Wikipedia with Mongo. Please reconsider. Edison (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Documenting the Chronology

The first warning was only for a comment in an edit summary on MONGO's own talk page (as was the block). He removed a comment on his own talk page with a comment "removing SPA trolling". The SPA is particularly sensitive to the term "trolling" and filed an ANI. It was for this User Talk Page edit summary that Tango issued his "official warning" as some stretch to the ArbCom ruling. This user talk page edit mentioning trolling generated this ANI whcih generated this warning. No edits on the article talk page were incivil and there were no edit warring.

Tango inserted himself into MONGO's talk page as an uninvolved admin: Three months ago he tried to single handedly derail MONGO's RfA because of the ArbCom ruling that deadminned mongo on the same topics that Tango claims uninvolvement in. This is prescient given Tango's present action. Trying to convince a neutral participant that MONGO hasn't changed is another indication of his involvement. Trying to convince another editor that MONGO needs more evidence to prove he has changed. Here he assigns the cause of all previous issues with the 9/11 article disputes to MONGO as he opposes his RfA . And here we have Tango making an incivil edit directed toward MONGO (much worse than saying "get lost". Notice the lack of a 1 week long block. And here MONGO warns Tango to be civil. Again without a block. Was this revenge? And here Tango actually says that calling someone a fool is not incivil and suggests that an admin stop warning people so much. Well, so much for uninvolved or consistent. One thing is clear though, Tango has had some very strong feeling about MONGO for a long time. In his own words, time is unable to heal his wounded ego. He should have taken his own advice here though. Lucky for him, MONGO wasn't irrational enough to block Tango for repeating his incivil comments.

The entire incident is about MONGO's talk page and is simply not about any ArbCom ruling. This is just an angry admin who lashed out because he didn't like being told to get lost. He is stretching the bounds to get this covered by ArbCom rulings. --DHeyward (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Other editors have pointed out more abuses. FloNight (talk · contribs) points out that Here Tango extended a 3RR violation from one month to two months because the editor left a politely worded unblock request on Tango's talk page with an ip address. Reverts request for review. And extends the block when the user, who identified himself openly on his talk page, asked for review. How special. --DHeyward (talk) 05:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

An oldie but a goodie --DHeyward (talk) 05:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked

Hi MONGO, just letting you know that I've unblocked you. The level of concern about the block was such that I felt it was damaging to let it stand, and the most recent blocking admin, Orderinchaos, had no problem with it being reviewed. I hope you'll find a way to put it behind you and to continue editing. The project would be very much worse off without you, and I trust the comments to that effect on this page and elsewhere will give you some encouragement. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 06:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well done. I only regret not having done it myself earlier. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

D'accord. Edison (talk) 04:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You are needed

MONGO, I know you mean business by leaving. I also know you and I have nothing in common on this project, and I often disagree with how you go about things here. But I also have related: I never wanted to be admin b/c I always wanted to be able to speak my mind, skate on the edge of policy and guideline by being blunt, without anyone telling me I should set an example as an admin. So, I have never wanted to be an admin (unlike you). That said, you know that I know what it's like to be stalked. I also know how it feels to have that stalking make you feel alone and underappreciated (especially by the WMF). I also know that when you are blocked for freaking out, no matter how justified, no matter how much you have given to this project, feels like a slap in the face. Even though you and I are polar opposites, that is exactly why you can't leave: we need you. I wish you weren't so abrasive, but many people wish that about me. I was aghast at you during the THF/Unlink Michael Moore fiasco, but I also am impressed I have never seen you appall me since. You simply are me, but on the other end of the philosophical spectrum. That said, I disagree with you on many things, but I also am putting myself out there and saying: please, don't leave. We need you. I hope I can once again be appalled by you - I mean that. And as you know, and everyone knows I know, it sucks to be stalked and harassed. Dave --David Shankbone 10:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Look Mongo here [4] it's only Tango repeating his own disgraceful history - take paricular note of Mackensen's comments to him there. Just come back, all the serious editors are 100% with you on this. You are vindicated and have no need to feel anyhing more than justified anger. Return! Giano (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support Giano's sentiment here. If SlimVirgin had not already, I would have unblocked you myself. This site would be nothing without actual content producers. Cool Hand Luke 15:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm saying this, and I know you will think I'm looking to stir up trouble, but I think you are a needed, seriously needed, member of this community. My only problem with you has been your ability to be incivil and get away with it. I have never been able to find specific fault with your mastery of facts and ability to write for the project. I won't say I'm reversing my position on your blocks, because I'm not. You need to learn to get admins more regularly, and avoid the drama. Despite that, to dismiss you out of hand, as I've seen on the AN/I thread, is to oversimplify things. I'm not offering to be your friend, neither of us wants that, but I do have a modicum of respect for your body of work here, and would like to see it grow. Sincerely, and without drama, sarcasm, doublespeak, or any other dishonest tone: ThuranX (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Mongo, I'm very sorry to read up on what has happened here and I do hope that you will change your mind about retiring. I appreciate your work in the mainspace and the unwavering support and assistance you have given to many editors who have been victims of harassment and stalking. I hope you will have a break and then come back when you're ready. But in the meanwhile, I want to thank you for all your hard work; it has been greatly appreciated by many. Sarah 00:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me dissent from the clamor to get you to return. You should stay gone. Yes, you're a real asset to Wikipedia. So? How many thousands of hours of free labor have you put in? How much shit have you had to take? How much does the aggravation of this site roll over into your real life? Answer to all is, I expect, a gutful. So what if Wikipedia needs you; you don't need it. It will take a month or so to wean yourself off the addiction, but you'll be happier for it in real life. I know I was. Didn't always agree with you, but have always respected you. And folks here should respect that you've chosen to move on. Derex2 (talk) 04:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous

Mongo, I don't know you but I took the time to dig back through your contribution all the way back in 2006. Needless to say, the opinion I formed is you are EXTREMELY valuable to this encyclopedia. Looks like you were blocked because an abusive admin felt you insulted his own sense of authority. It bothers me to see someone like Tango win in this case, I say "win" becasue he clearly has a personal vendetta against you, looks like he has harassed you for quite some time. Something must be done to stop abusive admins from abusing their tools, it is vital to the project. As long as we have admins like tango we will have serious problems. In my opinion he needs to be de-sysopped pending consensus of the community. The fact that he will not even apologize to you, and mantains his position while clearly in the wrong is what scares me the most. He has been making some very poor decisions. He certainly was not blocked for calling you a fool, and he actually argued calling someone a fool is not invil. If he is not an involved admin, I am the President of the United States. Please don't leave, Mongo, you are needed here and you have a lot of people on your side. I am still a very new editor but I will support you any way possible. If you decide to come back (and I'm praying to God you will) be sure and let me know of any future RFA's; as I would consider it an honor to give you strong support. I know I'm repeating myself here, but PLEASE DON"T LEAVE. We can't let admins get away with this type of thing. Landon1980 (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope you stay. If not, I'll need a lot of mentoring to try and help fill the void you left behind! Enigma ^message Review 19:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

RFC

FYI, I have filed an RFC against Tango at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tango. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 15:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

What kind of Owl is this?

A Screech-owl, but which species?

I recall that you uploaded an excellent Burrowing Owl picture in the past and I found this image of a Screech-owl for you yesterday. When I saw the pictures in the Navy image gallery, I immediately thought of that image and I decided to upload them to commons. The owl was found on the flight deck of USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) in the wheel well of an F/A-18 Hornet and aptly named "FOD". It is stated to be a screech owl, but there are a few dozen species listed on that page. I was wondering if you could point out which species it belongs in and possibly place it on the appropriate page if it is needed there. Other images include Image:ABH3 Dieringer holds a screech owl named Fod.jpg, which is the uncropped original image and Image:Screech Owl named Fod found on USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75).jpg, which is a different view. Harry S. Truman is based in Norfolk, but the owl was found on the ship while sailing in the Persian Gulf. I suppose it is possible that it had been hiding in the hanger for a few months until it was found in the F/A-18. Thank you for the many valuable contributions you've made to wikipedia over the years, including the 9/11 related pages. I hope that you can look beyond the current situation and find a way to continue to contribute to the project. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

So do I, because, inspite of my 100s of friends and supporters, I'm feeling a little beleaguered and lonely here. If I can hang on in here, can't you at least keep me company? Giano (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom regarding Tango now names you as a party

A request for arbitration regarding Tango had been filed earlier at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Tango. Recently, your name has been added as a party to this request. Please make any comments you believe appropriate regarding the matter. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Your participation requested

(Cross-posted to several users' talk pages)

Your participation on User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing would be appreciated. Raul654 (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tango

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tango/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tango/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Tango evidence

Remember were supposed to keep the evidence under 1000 words. I didn't count, but at 5775 bytes regarding Tango it's possible you exceeded that. John Carter (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, user needing to make several separate cases, I suggest we can choose to respect user's experience and discretion in making those cases without undue concern. BusterD (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If anyone should be granted extra words it should be the one blocked. And if the evidence should be in the form of in-depth explication of what could have been discovered by cursory investigation by the blocking admin, I can hardly find the fault in that. Shenme (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Retirement

Perhaps you thought nobody would notice that you had retired, but here I am to urge you to return. Every good editor helps. The vandals will not win! Useight (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Its not the vandals that are the problem, but neither will the problems resolve themselves of themselves as long as wikipedia is popular. I am not willing to let the trolls distort our coverage of child sexual abuse and I hope you and Brad are not willing to let the trolls take hold of the 9/11 articles, albeit using alterante accounts. Thanks, SqueakBox

Bummer, but I can't say I blame you. Stay well, Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem

I just happened on it...happy to help, not happy you can't do it yourself. RxS (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That won't ever change I don't believe and if it did, I would have to be perfect to avoid constant complaints...and no one is perfect. I think admins, even those that have some "enemies" do best if they don't act in an abusive or in a retalitory manner. Deleted pages can be restored, blocks can be undone...but abuse of power and the lack of willingness to accept that one is possibly mistaken is chilling for those on the receiving end. Now that I have been just an editor as well as an admin, I can see what if feels like to be powerless. I think that allows me greater empathy for those that have been blocked or badgered.--MONGO 16:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tango

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee finds that Tango (talk · contribs) has made a number of problematic blocks. It also states that Tango's administrative privileges are to be revoked, and may be reinstated at any time either through the usual means or by appeal to the Committee. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Happy to see you got through that one! --BenBurch (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

From my perspective...all he needed to do was apologize and I would have stayed out of it...but it has definitely been a chilling effect on my editing, regardless of some who say I have "returned"...hardly the case since I have added zero content since before the case started. I'm still mulling over whether I have any interest remaining for some of the antics that seem to be the norm here now.--MONGO 14:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you want any help policing the 911 articles, please just ask. Also, we would love to have you over at JREF. --BenBurch (talk) 18:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

JREF...whats that...also, been kind of backing off from 9/11 lately. I might return there at some point but things seem much calmer there these days since so many CTers have been topic banned.--MONGO 18:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

JREF - http://forums.randi.org/forumindex.php - A community of skeptics that is positively loathed by truthers. I'm proud to be a member. --BenBurch (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll try and check it out but my time is very limited these days...I'll find some time later this week perhaps.--MONGO 03:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Rootology

Hi Mongo, Thank you for being reasonable about the unblock of Rootology. Rootology is unblocked with the conditions we discussed with you and a notice was placed on his talk page and AN. Take care, FloNight♥♥♥ 12:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

JzG RFAR merged with Cla68-FM-SV case

Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking it should be renamed Wikipedia Review vs. Slim, FM etc...cause that is exactly what it looks like.--MONGO 14:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sawtooth National Forest acreage

Where did you get your figure of 2.1 million acres? I was only able to come up with an "official" source figure of 1,804,090 acres from this official Forest Service webpage. Backspace (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That is probably more accurate...not sure where the 2.1 million came from, but that was added in 2005 when I first stubbed the article and I can't remember the source. It is probably from the USDA FS website which is linked but the website has changed since. According to the history page, the forest was created in 1905 and consisted of 1,947,520 acres then.[5] Likely as has happened in many NF's, the acreage bordering roads has been sold off to private parties in 5 to 10 acre parcels over the years. However, this federal website claims the park has 2.1 million acres [6]...so maybe I need to call them and ask them if there is a reference that I can cite that will give me exactly what the acres are...my guess is that your link at top is the accurate one...and we can go with that.--MONGO 03:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Format notes

Unblocking without consensus or discussing with the original blocking administrator beforehand

Page protections as an involved editor

Editing on behalf of banned editors

Incivility

Aiding and abetting trolling of established editors

Viridiae / Cla's RfA

The aggressive tone of [7] notwithstanding, isn't there some truth to what he's saying? I'm aware that you're using the diff to illustrate Viridiae's behaviour rather than discussing the content of that posting (also, our opinions may diverge on Cla68 in general and his RfA in particular); but the content does imo weigh at least as much as the form. An uncivil tone is really bad when combined with wild accusations / attacks, but less so (at least imho) when the statement is one of an opinion about facts and even less when there is at least some truth in what is being said (compare some of JzG's comments/edit summaries, which are both arguably true statements and uncivil: I don't have a problem with those at all). I guess what I'm trying to say is that AC members will most probably evaluate evidence according to those two distinct parameters, and this diff may be less than ideal to get your point across. The other diffs you're presenting are far more suited to illustrate suboptimal behaviour by Viridiae since they contain no or nearly no statement about facts, only Viridiae's personal opinions about other users (which makes his tone in those diffs indeed far more worrisome). dorftrottel (talk) 06:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the thing is that this is but a small sampling of his tone. He surely could have used a different response in that example you remind me of. That said, my response to his comment was, hopefully, a rational recreation for what really happened at Cla68's Rfa as far as why Slim asked Cla68 the questions she did and why others felt unimpressed enough by his responses to not only oppose his Rfa but for some to even strike through their support. The entire concept that Slim set out to railroad this man or that she conspired on or offsite to get others to take her side on the issue is ridiculous. Cla68 deserves huge credits for his FA work...but great writing does not justify the kinds of things presented by Felonious Monk regarding him.--MONGO 07:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was one of those who struck their support at the time, which I have come to regret. As far as SlimVirgin's actions there are concerned, our opinions do indeed diverge (which I hope is no biggie). Btw, imo this monstrosity of an RfAr is getting somewhat out of hand, mostly for the fact that it lumps together so many different issues, some of which are only tangentially related to each other (the aforementioned Viridiae diff being a prime example for why people should be careful not to aggressively 'take sides'). Best, dorftrottel (talk) 07:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Everyone is responsible for their own actions...the diffs are there and if they demonstrate abuse or exonerate someone then they should be presented.--MONGO 08:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. dorftrottel (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

We have consensus at Barack Obama

... for certain details regarding William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko. See Talk:Barack Obama. However, a small but extremely active and dedicated Obama fanboys are trying to WP:OWN and sanitize the article. Anyone who tries to aupport WP:NPOV and revert to the consensus version is threatened, called a sockpuppeteer, etc.

First, this has been an ugly situation for some time and more attention from admins is needed. Second, the Obama fanboys need to be brought under control. They do not own the article. WP:NPOV means proportionate representation of all significant POVs. The POV that is questioning Obama about his relationships with Wright, Rezko and Ayers is not a fringe POV. Editors who seek to include that POV in a balanced manner are not "Obama haters," and when they agree with one another, they are not sockpuppets. Please help. Kossack4Truth (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV in the bio of a political candidate for President sounds like an almost impossible task...and I really can't be of much service. I can monitor the article for vandalism as well as the one on McCain, but that would be the full extent of my ability to contribute to either page.--MONGO 06:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What is there now appears to be balanced. If that is the consensus version he refers to, I can't see why anybody would want to "sanitize" it. --BenBurch (talk) 22:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mammoth Cave National Park/1

As one of the people who has over 10 edits at Mammoth Cave National Park and has edited it this year, your attention is needed at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mammoth Cave National Park/1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Fanmail 'Zilla

'Zilla huge fan little MONGO way with words! All best dunghills fester, make pleasing cloud hang close over Tokyo! [The monster stretches out cosily for her daily nap on a king-size festering dungheap of diffs, stuffing a pallid sturgeon snack in her pocket in case of hunger pangs. ] Endangered snacks flavorsome! [small rawr of pleasurable anticipation ] bishzilla _ROARR!! 08:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC).

Heh..if only more editors were as understanding of my wordplay as the ever wise prehistoric dinosaurs and pallid sturgeons are...but surely the gallows have been erected already and I expect to see a hanging before high noon.--MONGO 16:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Typo

Hey, how's it going? re [8] ... might want to change forment to foment. Cheers! &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Done...I am notoriously a wowzie speller.--MONGO 20:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL. :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Mongo, stop attacking me

Mongo, stop attacking me with your comment on Poupon's page (and please withdraw the comment). Let Lar do his mentoring and if he and the community accepts then I will prove that I am Poupon's socks. (The truth is that I am not Poupon himself but I am related to Poupon's socks). I am trying to come out clean but others are throwing roadblocks. GoodWikian (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ya, I think that one speaks for itself. This isn't PoT. PoT said no other sock will be used when he needs to speak for himself. Near as I can tell (and as you know from reading the pages yourself) PoT is not seeking mentorship, either. Just peaceful editing far away from policy pages. ++Lar: t/c 21:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

RFC, Noticeboard or other forum?

For the second time in a short period, User:Viridae has decided to follow me to an article and protect it, ostensibly for edit warring but in reality he's supporting trolls whose only interest is harassing me. Here's the relevant talk page discussion. I think the two IP's have a total of 3 edits to Wikipedia all of them reverts of me and all of them after Giovanni was banned. I just want him to stop involving himself with me. I guess I could go to the other extreme but I'd prefer he just went his separate way. I asked him to just take my talk page off his watchlist but he refused. I don't really know what his obsession is but supporting trolls and unable to spot them makes him somewhat unsuitable for using the tools the way he has. I figure I can go either noticeboard or RFC. What do you think? --DHeyward (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Go to the noticeboard and explain why exactly you think that nmy protecting the article in response to a edit war is a bad idea? Viridae^Talk 04:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you really just following me around? --DHeyward (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope, this page is also watchlisted. Really I haven't followed you to any page, I have simply noticed edit warring and dealt with it. You have a problem with an article you are working on being protected - don't edit war on it. If that is Giovanni (I havent seen any strong evidence to that effect) take it to RFCU and get him blocked, of course if that was the case the protection on the most recent article would of course be lifted. I really do invite you to take it to WP:ANI for review though. Viridae^Talk 07:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If that were the case, why didn't you follow policy and inform the new users about edit warring and discussing their reverts on the talk page? Do you think that the 2 edit wonder is going to be to resolve any edit war through talk? Or maybe the more plausible answer is that you saw the 3RR warning on my talk page (the warning was for 3 edits over 2 weeks, and the mistaken editor apologized) and you were looking for a reason to block. Failing a legitimate reason you decided to protect the article in a manner that was neither constructive nor likely to result in a resolution since the 3 edit anons goal is only to revert me. The issue isn't this one incident, the issue is that this isn't the first time. I asked you politely to simply stop watching my talk page. There is nothing there for you. I would prefer that instead of you injecting yourself into any editing disputes that you put it on AN/I and let someone else review it. Certainly 3 edits in two weeks is not the kind of hot, urgent edit war that needs immediate article protection. --DHeyward (talk) 07:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please study the following: WP:AGF, Occam's razor and [9]. Viridae^Talk 11:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

And as you can see, there is nothing to block for and no reason for you to follow me around looking for stuff. Your unblock had more to do with your desire to wheel war with WMC rather than anything to do with me. Please study [10] and simply leave me alone. It's not hard. Don't read my talk page. If you really want to help with 3RR or edit warring, patrol the noticeboards. --DHeyward (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course! I have a massive desire to wheel war with WMC. I follow him around too! Viridae^Talk 21:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are you here arguing with a DHeyward on my talkpage? I haven't even been involved in this matter.--MONGO 00:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

To annoy the living shit out of you of course MONGO - I stalk you too, didnt you know? Viridae^Talk 03:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Your admin tools should have taken away long ago.--MONGO 05:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFARB MONGO go for it! Viridae^Talk 05:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

What is your deal, man?--MONGO 05:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You are full of hollow threats. I really urge you to try and carry one of them out - I have refuted almost every single piece of evidence you and Filll provided at the current RfArb and acknowledged the rest. The majority of that evidence was taken so far out of context as to be uncrecognisable (just like your most recent addition, where you failed to mention that there was significant support for those blocks, just not the length) - you have no evidence whatsoever but continue to trumpet my "involvement in a long standing dispute" with whatever editor you think I have wronged this time. MONGO this is my final request/warning: Either stay well away from me and my actions unless you are DIRECTLY involved or make sure you have a buttload of evidence you are willing to provide to support your claims. Your well poisoning has been noticed. Viridae^Talk 05:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus for this most recent fiasco of yours and indeed to believe there was is simply ridiculous. I have had enough of your threats and warnings and indeed, your behavior on my talkpage, where you followed DHeyward here and first argued with him in regards to an article I have never once edited (and I was offline for a few days to boot)and now presenting this "request/warning" to me is completely out of line for any administrator of this website. If you post your admin actions for review...I will review them. Now I really do think you best move on.--MONGO 05:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say consensus. When posting things for review, I never ever want your input unless I specifically ask for it. Is that quite clear MONGO? Viridae^Talk 06:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I will review your actions anytime and anywhere I want to.--MONGO 06:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have asked you repeatedly to stop, or provide evidence. You have failed on both counts. Please now comment here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#MONGO Viridae^Talk 06:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Viridae, please stop posting here. You have a history of making harassing posts on this talk page [11] [12] Enough is enough. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 17:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Seriously...I am fed up with it.--MONGO 15:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

"Ludicrous"

Will do - thanks for bringing this to me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not offended and I am not "holding" it against you...just wanted to make sure you knew that those less used to be vilified might see show responses as being hostile. But, I recognize why you would think I am being ludicrous. You're not the only person that thinks that of course!--MONGO 03:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, attacking somebody's argument as "ludicrous" is well within my personal conception of civility, but sometimes we can all use a reminder that not everybody shares our personal value systems. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Final request

This is my final request for you to stop commenting on my administrative actions in any way unless you are directly involved. I have repeatedly asked you to provide evidence when you have concerns about my actions, and you continue to fail to provide that. You instead repeatedly show up and poison the well with your unfounded accusations of bias. Because you have been repeatedly asked to stop and have repeatedly failed to do so I consider this harrasment and am asking you one last time to stop or I will take this further down the DR chain. Thankyou. Viridae^Talk 06:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If you post for review of your admin actions, I WILL review them. I have posted plenty of evidence, as has Felonious Monk and others, about your misuse of tools and position as an administrator at the arbcom case you are named in, so writing me saying I provide no evidence is erroneous. Your two recent blocks were overturned...the comunity did not agree with your rationale and or length of the blocks...and I do read WR..there, a user named Aloft posted a link to the article Brown Dog affair, claiming that Crum375 and SlimVirgin were tag team edit warring...you subsequently protected the article page, then blocked Para and Crum375. You then posted these admin actions for review here and went back to WR and posted a link to your review request on ANI stating to "prepare for fireworks"[13]...so you even then suspected that your actions would likely bring arguments. I guess you must think I can't read blogs or look at editing diffs...your blocks weren't based on any reports here at AIV or 3RR...they were based on the long standing theme at WR that Slim and Crum are socks or meatpuppets....and the chance to "get" either simply proved irresistible eh?--MONGO 14:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Viridae...I think if we are going to go do anything about each other, you should wait and see what transpires at the case you are already named in first. If they do nothing, then we can discuss this matter further.--MONGO 15:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe your answer to my identical request of you was...."no.". I suspect MONGO is now on "double secret probation" for pointing out all of your abusive administrator actions? --DHeyward (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You "suspect"?? WP is not a crystal ball. --rogerd (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

.....[14]--MONGO 04:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

[15] MONGO, I think our friend thinks he is Dean Wormer. --rogerd (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Semi prot

If you are beccoming a target again do you want semi prot for a while? How much activity is it getting?Viridae^Talk 02:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It comes and goes...I don't think semi is necessary at present...thanks though.--MONGO 11:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Glacier Advance

On AN/I you mentioned not being able to find much info about any advancing glaciers. This article might be helpful. It has info about glacial growth at Mount Shasta and mentions a few other locations which had growth until recently. All localized cases with higher snowfall, itself attributable to climate change, temporarily outpacing increased melting. --12.42.51.27 (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...I did see similar evidence before regarding Shasta...I have plans to update the article on Retreat of glaciers since 1850 and will be adding information as you have mentioned and explanations for such accordingly.--MONGO 05:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Rootology

Yeah, it's a difficult situation. As you know, rootology is hoping to avoid a return to old problems by not interacting with you, as his unblock notice states. he's done right and asked others to intervene rather than reply himself, which is good judgement too.

It's going to be hard for him if he gets addressed with critical or skeptical comments whilst trying to reacquaint himself with editing. That tends to be hard for anybody. I think your point's made, that you have concerns whether he should be considering proposing remedies, but I'd ask that the concern is dropped. It's been stated a few times; doubtless noted too. He'll have a fair chance, same as anyone else unblocked. If you'd be able to avoid interacting with him, it would possibly make it easier on him to avoid interacting back with you as well. If you have concerns about his posts at the RFAR case and they haven't been stated sufficiently, can you consider if they really need saying? He is a fully welcomed back member of the community, he's unblocked, and he's entitled to do all he can to make good contributions and be judged by those alone; it would be easier if he shows by his actions if those are good or otherwise and you and he continue in separate ways.

Many thanks, and hoping it works well,

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I debate that he is "fully welcomed". As far as I am concerned, his past behavior was so shitty that I think he would be best off NOT proposing remedies on someone he had prior disagreements with, certainly not until he has demonstrated over a long time that his intentions here are honorable. I also know you supported rather strongly the recreation of an ED article...the very website that Rootology was so adept at adding his pearls of wisdom to. I will call a spade a spade and if the arbitration committee is now allowing recently unbanned editors to have the arrogance to propose remedies be brought forth on someone they had disagreements with before they were banned, then that is just loony. What the heck is a recently unbanned person...(did you look at the crap this guy put me through at RFAr MONGO...or his ban evading appearance at RFAr Seabhcan as User:XP) doing at arbitration cases????? Are you people going mad? Maybe you need to reevaluate what his rationale for being unbanned is. My understanding is that he was going to stick to article space unless he got into an independent dispute and then needed dispute resolution...not so he could return and propose sanctions on those he had prior dealings with. This is simply bad news and you guys need to look into it. Hint: Recently unbanned editors should do all they can to stay away from arbitration cases...is this some kind of revelation?--MONGO 01:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"9/11 attacks" dropped "terrorist"

I have not been following the 9/11-related pages as much as I once did. I did notice that "terrorist" was dropped from the 9/11 attacks article title. Was this done as a finding of fact that the terrorists were not the perpetrators, or did an ideologically like-minded Wiki-mob gather and change the title? patsw (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the title was changed some time ago. The term terrorist is still found in the lead paragraph and surely the radical left and those who want to argue against the UN resolution condemning the attacks as acts of terrorism simply won't let it go. I think I gave up trying to work on the title and stuck just to ensuring that the fact that virtually every single legislative body worldwide condemned the attacks as acts of terrorism, wasn't lost completely. My activity on those articles has also waned significantly.--MONGO 22:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Greg Kohs aka MyWikiBiz

Thanks for your comment; my god, you need a fucking sense of humour to stay sane here. But even that is sometimes not enough. --Rodhullandemu 22:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh...I knew you were being sarcastic...I found your comment to be pretty funny!--MONGO 22:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I find the politics here utterly yawnworthy, and generally unforgiving. I remember your own request for resysop and IIRC, I supported it. We are working in a pretty fast-moving situation, in which I see RfAs for people I've never even seen around WP:ANI and WP:AN, which are pretty much talking shops for the usual suspects. I just get on with it. So what if you fucked up six months ago? We all do, but some people do not seem to see beyond that to the general picture that, for example, you were an effective vandal-fighter. Ho hum. --Rodhullandemu 22:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yellowstone national park dates

You reverted edits on 1877 vs. 1872, and on October 1 vs. October 2, from an IP editor, with respect to Yellowstone National Park. Consistent with research about the effect of IP editor changes, I tend to believe that IP editors have accuracy on their side. What's going on? How could an IP editor be convinced that the article's statements were wrong? At a minimum, i think edit summaries responding to the IP editor's views, and/or suggesting what they need to provide, would be helpful. Cheers, doncram (talk) 02:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh...I fixed your linked article...I haven't edited that article since July 12th...please provide a link to where I reverted apparent vandalism if you expect me to understand what you posting about.--MONGO 15:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yo

What's up MONGO. Are you still only pawn in game of life? ;) --kizzle (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much...more so now than ever it seems. Hope all is good with you!--MONGO 18:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

9/11 article

Hi Mongo could you explain your reasoning for deleting text from the talk page of this article Single purpose account IMO is not a reason thanks. BigDunc^Talk 13:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

He beat me to it (My connection is too slow.) Read WP:TPG - that screed was a huge morass of commentary about the subject which could not possibly help improve the article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. That article only has potential for becoming featured level if we eliminate the neverending conspiracy theory nonsense that is continuously plastered on the talk pages by single purpose accounts whose sole mission is disruption of the known evidence.--MONGO 13:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Great thanks for clarifacation but he didn't state WP:TPG no harm no foul. BigDunc^Talk 13:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah its easy to look back at edit summaries and think, should have said, violation of TPG by SPA, but ah well. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

My original removal was summarized here...read about single purpose accounts and check out the edits by that IP and the other user...all to the same page. The IP is likely that of banned user User:Lovelight [16].--MONGO 13:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Protected area coordinates broken

I have recently fixed a couple if instances of {{Infobox Protected area}}, (example) where the display was horribly broken because no seconds had been entered in the coordinates. The only way to resolve the problem in the short term was to add zero seconds, but this is obviously not an optimal solution.

I reported the problem on its talk page over two weeks ago, but no-one has responded. Since you recently edited the template (not that I think you caused the problem) and obviously have better template coding skills than I, can you fix it, please? Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 07:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I just went and restored it to my last edit at the template. Hopefully that will fix the problems. Sometimes changes to some of the embedded parameters such as the coordinates impacts the infoboxes. I've been pretty busy lately so I must have missed yours and others comments at the template talk page....let me know if you have any other issues.--MONGO 01:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for helping out with the Khalid al-Mihdhar article, especially since I know your Wikipedia time is limited nowadays. It always helps a lot to have others go over details. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 01:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem...I hope I got some things touched up, but since I am a little rusty on MOS I am a bit apprehensive to do too much. The article looks great but I didn't "vote" to get it to FA level yet...you and Sherurcij have done a great job.--MONGO 01:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Covered bridges

My sources on covered bridges are almost all specific to Pennsylvania. I found this possible book source in [17] Howard, A., Covered Bridges of Virginia, Village Press, Unionville, CT, 1999. Sorry not to know more, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ooo...well, I am going to look that one over this week...thanks for the lead. When I was last in Pennsylvania, I saw a number of covered bridges in Lancaster County. Thanks again.--MONGO 04:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I searched on Amazon.com and found a few more books: Covered Bridges in Virginia: Nine Old Ladies in the Slow Lane by Leola, B. Pierce; A portfolio of covered bridges of Virginia: Wooden bridges standing in 1987 by Joe Nutt; and Covered bridges of Maryland and the Virginias: An illustrated guide by Edward Reichert. Not sure if it would be in Covered Bridges Across North America by Joseph Conwil or not. Fun with InterLibrary Loan.

I also figure the bridge is in the National Bridge Inventory, so try looking in [18]. Ram-Man has done nice articles and a list for all the Lancaster County bridges. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how I missed this before, but the Humpback Covered Bridge is on the HAER. There are 18 pages of data on the bridge, 4 pages of drawings, 25 black and white and 1 color photgraphs here. My understanding is that all HAER work is PD US Government too. I did not read it all, but it looks like there is enough there to get the article to FA. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Redwood National and State Parks

Mongo, Marskell and I are working our way through Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles, identifying articles that can be moved off the list without the need for a Featured article review. Redwoods needs only some minor attention: would you be able to tweak it back to a shining state? I installed the toolbox on the talk page: it shows dab links that need repair and some dead sources and external links. There is a very minor bit of unsourced text that you might also hit. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It may be a few days, but will look into this. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.--MONGO 23:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice job, I followed your edits on the article and used some of the information for de-WP. And I found this image in the digital archive of the NPS recently. Would you like to use it? I think most of the images in the article are too brightly lit and don't give an adequate impression of the forest, that's why I was happy for this one with a low key. Greetings --h-stt !? 11:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we can replace one image that we have with that one...feel free to do so if you please. I think the article needs a couple more pieces of fine tuning yet, but hopefully I have done close to what I need to for now to keep it at FA level. I need to learn German one of these days. Thanks for your feedback.--MONGO 23:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Response to your RFAr statement

You said:

Alecmcconroy appears to be overinvolved in "fixing" what he perceives as problems...yet has added little to nothing as far as encyclopedic material for the bulk of this entire year[19]. I think the arbitration committee needs to cease considering any cases brought forth from what can arguably be easily seen as editors who are here for little other than harassment and creating drama.--MONGO 00:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

MONGO, I know you have a problem with me, but please respect-- I am not your enemy, I am not SV's enemy. You both contribute to the project in ways I never, never could-- in terms of both volume of contributions and quality. I do and have made substantial article-space contributions (just these week I did a snazzy diagram for the WAIS-III in fact), but there's no doubting that my contributions are a firefly compared to the brilliant sun that is the contributions offered by someone like SV.

But when you respond to legitimate concerns by personal attacks against the messenger, you don't help anything. The fact is, SV is in trouble. She need to tweak her behavior, before she gets into a problem so big that she's beyond help.

Once upon a time, a long long long time back, I tried to help you that way. I asked for help somewhere-- ANI or RFC or somewhere, asking for others to help you realize you needed to change things. You are a great contributor, a workhorse, and if you had gotten the right feedback, you'd probably be sitting on Arbcom or the Foundation Board today. Unfortunately, your friends felt it was more important to support you through thick and thin, and to dismiss those who had been stung by your words as having a flawed character and you as being free of any problems at all. Ultimately, however, because your friends didn't help you, you wound up stepping on too many toes.

SV needs that kind of help now. Attacking my character isn't going to solve anything-- but it makes things much worse for her. It perpetuates the myth that the only people who have a problem with some of her behavior are people who have great character flaws. If you try hard enough to convince her that's true, she's liable to believe you, and keep on truckin' until she does something that nobody can ignore.

Again, I'm sorry for whatever mistakes I've made in dealing with you in the past that have led you to be so sour on me. As I was writing out my little post on RFAr, I almost put in as a wikicomment "Insert MONGO's claim I'm a bad editor here", but I decided that would be way too snarky, so I didn't. But the point it, yeah, I know you feel I'm a bad editor, Arbcom knows you feel I'm a bad editor, and pretty much everyone else who knows both our usernames probably knows too. If reciting that sentiment is cathartic, maybe it does some good. But I know it does a lot more bad-- it makes it all the harder for the community to decide to return your admin bit, and it makes it harder for SV to see that she's messing up and need a change. --Alecmconroy (talk) 10:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe my arbcom comment as you have pasted above is accurate.--MONGO 21:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

How do we know it actually erupted?

I was looking for a good ref about something, and came upon this bit of humor - The Accident at Ferrybridge. I particularly like the third comment. Have other people done riffs on older/ancient disasters, like say, the Roman government vs. the 'gods', and Vesuvius? After all, how do we know it actually erupted? Shenme (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Another bit of humor, see the bottom two 'statements' of this - Lord of Parliament. I think we should have a 'parliament' day at ANI. Comments struck if not arch-polite and biting and clever? Shenme (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The more incredible is the event, the more some are inclined to believe something other than the truth. Recently, forensic criminal investigators indicated that John Kennedy was most likely shot from approximately where the book dispository is located...regardless, of even this latest study, conspiracy theories will continue ot abound regarding that President's assassination.[20]--MONGO 12:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Bryce Canyon National Park

Bryce Canyon National Park is at FAR, thought you may wanna add something. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoa...article still needs a little tweaking but I hate stepping on Mav's toes...I was reluctant but still enjoyed to do a major overhaul to Yellowstone NP after he first brought it to FA levels long ago. I wonder why he doesn't use the NPS website for some of his refs. Thanks for the heads up.--MONGO 09:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

AN/AE

Hiya MONGO. The way I understand things: When an editor is blocked for breaching his/her AE restrictions; another administrator can't unblock (without discussin it first). GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

This matter is more complicated than that. I am a big fan that in most cases, blocks should only be overturned after a true consensus to do so is established. I will be elaborating more on this fiasco in more detail if and only if SlimVirgin wants me to do so.--MONGO 19:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Them are the rules. Six-months will pass & SV will have her Administration duties restored. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that.--MONGO 19:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

For all we know, Arbcom might have a change of heart & restore her Administrative duties earlier. Time will tell, I suppose. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

MONGO!

Like 'Zilla, Ogress also like MONGO fancy words. Ogress _smash! 20:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Elk

I was referring to Talk:Red_Deer#Name_Selection. Even you agreed to changing the name to "Elk (Cervus canadensis)". I am working on some of the redirects now. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Look, I found that the article "Elk" discussed Cervus canadensis, which I didn't think was good. So I read the whole discussion from two years ago where people decided to have an article on this species and call it "Elk (Cervus canadensis)". I agreed with the conclusion, and I didn't understand why it was called "Elk" after that discussion. So I looked in the history and found that somebody changed the name a year ago to "Elk", without any discussion and apparently without consulting the discussion of a year earlier. So I simply changed it back! I don't see what it being a featured article has to do with it! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there was any discussion since then. The first thing I did of course was to look at the talk page of the Elk article, where someone recently brought up the point that "Elk" was not a good title, and someone else refers him back to the discussion of two years ago! Which, as I said, concluded that the article should have the name "Elk (Cervus canadensis)". Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment on Personal attacks

In case Giano decided to delete my comment to you on his talk page, here's the diff. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Pallid sturgeon

Are the hybrid pallid sturgeons sterile? That is, do they reproduce? (If they reproduce, it seems like they are not a distinct species.) —Mattisse (Talk) 01:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks. I enjoyed copy editing the article. (I do get intimidated by FAC politics though, but I am glad the article became FA). Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much...hope you had a Merry Christmas as well!--MONGO 15:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Pallid Sturgeon, thank you for the kind note. Have a Happy New Year! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy new year! Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding Protected Areas of CA template/navbox

I'm not sure to whom this question should be asked of, but here it goes anyway- This template has the "wilderness areas" under the heading National Landscape Conservation System, which I understand to be a BLM program. Your (oops, THE article ;) ) article: National Wilderness Preservation System says The National Wilderness Preservation System coordinates the wilderness activities of the four federal agencies — Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
which I believe is a correct statement.

So, shouldn't the template heading be National Wilderness Preservation System? And if so, could you make that change if you have the time? If I'm wrong here, please enlighten me on my talk page. Cheers Marcia Wright (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link [21]-BEWARE it is very large and actually,looking at it again, 90% of the articles listed are BLM-managed areas-so I'm adding the wrong articles to that section! The section "National Forests" should have a subsection titled "Wilderness areas", which it doesn't. OK my goof-up. Sorry to waste your time here, I will try to add the subsection and move the USFS articles to there. Marcia Wright (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You too

Happy New Year to you too jimfbleak (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Me too. The best from me and mine to you and yours. BusterD (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy new year, MONGO -- hope it's a good one for you. 2008 has been a bit of a stinker (the year when I learned the etymology of the word "broker", LOL). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and the same to you! Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much, and HNY to you as well. I very much appreciate you thinking of me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)