User talk:MONGO/Archive31

Online Ambassadors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FYI...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Per women on Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

re your comments

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

From Affirmative action

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

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

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

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

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

Lake Frances (Glacier County, Montana)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A little wave across the arb cases

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

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

User:Freedom5000 is gonna be pissed

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

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

Good profile

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

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

Something geographical/nature-related...

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

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

Hi Mongo

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

GRTE

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

I've started three new lists:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barnstar

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

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

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

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

Thanks!

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

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

'anks for the 'arnstar!

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

Talkback

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

RE: Conduct of WLRoss

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Confirming the sources

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

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

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

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

Your arbitraion case has come up at ANI

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

New article

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

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

Franklin child prostitution ring allegations

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

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

William F. Raynolds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed deletion of Johnson Lake National Wildlife Refuge

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

Private conservation easement is not notable.

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

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

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

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

Candygram for MONGO, Candygram for MONGO.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DYK for William F. Raynolds

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

Please weigh-in on this merge

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

Franklin child prostitution ring allegations

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

Ansel Adams photos

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

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

Glacier View Dam

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

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

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

Teton Fault

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

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

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

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

WikiProject Protected areas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

removing my content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestion to pull WikiProject Wyoming under WikiProject United States

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

Suggestion for WikiProject United States to support WikiProject Nebraska

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

My RfC

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

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

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

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

Suggestion for WikiProject United States to support WikiProject Montana

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

9/11 fac

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

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

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

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

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

I said something nice about people like you today

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

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

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

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

Rollback

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

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

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

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

When one makes an accidental revert against policy, one is expected to immediately revert themselves. It's been 11 hours and 30 minutes. I'm still waiting. N419BH 05:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

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

How about this obviously good-faith edit which you reverted twice? N419BH 06:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tango
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

Interested in your thought processes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CT and 9/11

Hi Mongo!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Forget my mentioning your user page, then.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overall, that's a fair approximation of my stance.MONGO 18:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind reading this brief discussion?

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

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

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

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

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

Re:

Thanks for the barnstar - I'm glad there is someone on this wiki who isn't going to bow to the demands of the CT nutcases. Toa Nidhiki05 15:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. It's pretty hard to maintain composure when faced with such perverse POV pushing and sometimes it needs to be called what it is. Additional voices of concern at such articles is about the only way to keep the POV pushers at bay. Though some might disagree, I do actually try to just be sarcastic, but every now and then I just tell them straight up what I think.--MONGO 21:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

No matter how insane CT might be, we are required to remain civil and avoid personal attacks. For your own sake, please tone down the language. Referring to other editors as "nutcases" is not acceptable. You can get banned for saying things like that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. However, the commentary by the "opposition" at the page in question leaves much to be desired in terms of civility--MONGO 22:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you might need to explain that to MONGO in words of one syllable. Malleus Fatuorum 22:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

What are you implying, Malleus?--MONGO 22:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That you're just not getting the point, and it seems like you never will. Malleus Fatuorum 22:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. Although I can't see any reason to debate the situation of that article you and your pals wish to wreck here at my usertalk though. It isn't impossible that you might just be incorrect in your assessment as to how to make the article better. Frankly, all I see you doing at that talkpage is trolling...you've offered little that has much to offer as far as how to "fix" stuff except to suggest we're supposed to fashion some "you brought all this on yourselves" propaganda piece of hogwash...should you and your comrades succeed in creating such a monstrosity and get it past GAN, the immediate subsequent GAR will simply demote it back to just an article...which in my opinion suits me just fine...I can't see any reason to strive for a GA much less an FA piece if the pettiness I saw at the GAR as of late is now typical.--MONGO 23:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

And your attitude encapsulates quite nicely why the 9/11 article will never be more than the piece of shit it is currently. Malleus Fatuorum 23:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Though dated now, you may wish to take a look at the following...here...I don't know if the arbitration committee of today would use similar wording for "background issues" as they did then, but there can be no doubt in my mind that your and John's behavior on this article are exactly the same as that editor's was. Let's put this in perspective...I DO NOT go to articles about major events in other countries and try to force some anti-British, etc. POV into them.--MONGO 23:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

You are very clearly demonstrating the problem here, but you equally clearly can't see it. Perhaps you should encourage your mate User:Arthur Rubin to carry through with his threat of banning anyone who disagrees with you. Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Arthur and I surely don't always agree...in fact, he wanted CT's mentioned in the article...as I remember it I didn't. He's not a CT advocate, but like some I mildly disagree with, I respect his opinion....but I cannot respect the poorly informed or egregiously POV laden opinions of yourself when you show up at articles such as this skreeching about "how the world's largest air force failed to act" nonsense, and when I try and add a fairly neutral paragraph indicating that this supposed failure is baloney, you guys say I'm biased since I didn't massage the section to make it look more like the USA fucked up. Nevermind...if you just try and be pragmatic, you may find your "opposition" to be a little more compromising...no one is ever going to be overjoyed with the article...and some (see BusterD above) can't even read it...it's too personal...get it?--MONGO 01:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have read it now. Thanks to everyone involved, EVERYONE. I understand that even administrators disagree on controversial subjects, but I'm wondering why all the snarky baiting pointed at MONGO? BusterD (talk) 01:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

They love me.........a lot.--MONGO 01:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Because MONGO has behaved like a dishonest arse. Any competent ten-year-old could have written a better account of 9/11 than the one MONGO so fiercely defends. Malleus Fatuorum 01:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You mean the extremely controversial (constantly vandalized) formerly featured work which has now been badgered down by you personally at the latest GA review? Surely you exaggerate. Do we actually have Good-class articles written by ten year-olds? BusterD (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Then you and John and Karanacs can create your version in a sandbox and see what everyone thinks...if you're such an expert on this matter lets see you do as I suggest...and don't forget to follow our policies and guidelines such as WEIGHT, FRINGE, summary style etc. Also, BusterD...I DID give Malleus the right to write to me anyway he pleases without me sending his comments for overview elsewhere...BTW, Malleus, you'll learn to love me so much, I'll have you waving American flags, worshipping George Washington and donating half your income to help keep our national debt down before you know it!--MONGO 01:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

That really will be the day. You have to realise MONGO that most of the English-speaking world isn't American, and has a different perspective on the events of 9/11. To say nothing of the non-English speaking world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus_Fatuorum (talk • contribs)

That's not merely funny, MONGO. I'd like to see a sandboxed approach which represents what User:Malleus Fatuorum believes is the best course. I'm all about the clash of ideas, but snark and sarcasm don't work as well here as they seem to do in other online forums. I'll concede as a marginally involved party, I've had some issues with these pages and I'll accept that I don't know the subject matter nearly as well as either of you fine editors (no joke). And MONGO, your occasional potty mouth doesn't reflect your finest qualities. Why do you keep accepting the bait? BusterD (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, I'm very pro contributions by everyone, regardless of where they are from, so long as they don't try to misuse the website to promote fringe beliefs...odd, User:Hut 8.5 and User:DHeyward are not American, yet they also disagree with you....--MONGO 01:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is William Langewiesche missing as a book source on 9/11 attacks?

His book American Ground is one of the only books I was willing to read on the subject, mostly because he's one of the best wordsmiths I've ever read. Why wasn't any of that material incorporated? I'm in no way complaining. I just always found his account extremely compelling and well-sourced, if very close to the events described timewise. It's not extremely complimentary of some parties. Is his account flawed in some way I glossed over while reading? Has this been well-discussed? Have you ever read the work? BusterD (talk) 03:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll order it...isn't it mostly about the cleanup process?--MONGO 03:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but extremely detailed. It was by far the best-written book I read in 2004. Your library would certainly be able to get you a copy, but I suspect you could get a used copy for just a few dollars; it sold well. If you haven't read it, I must warn you it's not all heroism. BusterD (talk) 04:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I will check it out...I have no doubt it is not easy reading in parts.--MONGO 04:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I can attest that it is well worth reading. Your library will probably have it. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I have a library across from where I work and will seek this out Monday at lunch. Thanks to both of you!--MONGO 16:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Neoconservatism

Please look! Thanks,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kiefer...I can look things over tonight.MONGO 18:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Keifer...wow, you're taking on Richard Jensen...well, I can do some copyediting and checking some refs if you like, and I don't mind helping. But both of you are far more knowledgable from what I can see in the talkpage back and forth.--MONGO 02:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh Shit! He had some other books on his user page! They looked like textbooks for high-school, at least on my brief peak!

Well, if he writes with Walter Dean Burnham, then he's serious---although I'll be on the lookout for the "critical elections" and neo-Schlesingerian political cycles POV! ;)

Honestly, his comments about "losing credibility" and about "my confusion" were out of line, and I wrote the jab about checking his footnotes as a pointed joke rather than a threat. (But I do repeat that I don't fear a comparison of my work with his or anybody's.) I am aware that retaliating and dragging in an editor's off-Wiki activities are grounds for a long and well-deserved block! (But I will look at his cliometrics book on reserve in our library, just for curiosity!)

To me that article is focused on this latest Bush administration, where "neoconservative" has been used to peg Jewish advisors of Bush, and the article was disturbingly similar to the outline of some Know-Nothing articles, which I reviewed. (I provide a link to an anti-semitic article, from one of these formerly cited journals, on the talk page.)

1. I added a mention of New Politics, but there should be some explanation of why McGovern drove these people bananas (and got his ass kicked by an extremely unpopular President).
2. There should be a discussion of affirmative action, which was opposed by social democrats and the AFL-CIO on political grounds (it was a gift to elect Republicans), on moral grounds, and on economic grounds (it would benefit middle-class Negroes, but do nothing for the poor).
3. There should be a discussion of anti-Semitism of Black Power (especially the NYC local control battles).
4. I would remove the whole discussion of Strauss, since Straus's ties to neoconservatism are slim to none; the Straussian cult is a curiosity, but the juxtaposing of the "Noble lie" teaching and Bush's blaming of Hussein for 9/11 should be left to the John Birch Society.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 03:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hum...well, like I said, I can copyedit and do some research, but this is a topic area I am not great at...having me work on content there might be able as helpful as a sharp stick in the eye. You're apparently not the only editor who been somewhat at odds with Dr. Jensens contributions. This is akin to the discussion we had above in which I indicated my knowledge of the subject matter would make me a poor choice in dealing with possible POV issues...however, I will look this page over for awhile and surely show up there to help as I canMONGO 14:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Jul-Sep 2011

		The Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured article reviews for the period Jul-Sept 2011, the Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Buggie111 (talk) 20:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Request

Can you please tone it down a bit? No one wants to be told that their work sucks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

AQFK....these "editors" have been saying that to you in a passive-aggressive way for some time now...I'd let that article ride for now...its fine just the way it is for the time being...I'd resume the effort in 6 months.MONGO 18:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Help with identifying Glacier National Park images?

They are over at Commons, at Category:Walter McClintock Lantern Slides. Many photographs appear to be from the Glacier National Park area. Someone familiar with the park could probably identify the mountains and lakes-- could you take a look? Djembayz (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Most of the mountains are, or from the Swan Range to the south...I can ID the peaks, add an appropriate Category to each image and perhaps make a note on the Category page about each peak.MONGO 19:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I looked the images over...the only ones I could ID were already tagged on the image itself.--MONGO 05:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort! Djembayz (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello MONGO/Archive31! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Thanks

It was me who wrote the motion (and the long long long long section of a statement underneath) :) SirFozzie (talk) 02:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha...thanks very much...it needs to be written in stone. I don't know if that case is the place to do it aside from the motion and I don't think either admin needs to be dragged over the coals on this issue or used as examples, but perhaps you and other arbitrators can "coerce" the blocking policy. Also, my goal with Malleus wasn't to get him as a named party in that case...but I've been in his shoes, not knowing when to shut up, nor take a chill pill...and like him, I had a block reverted by a friend and though I didn't contest that then as it was less common than now, I still think blocks of merit should stand and that admins should do precisely as you've written to minimize future problems. Good work!--MONGO 02:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it would go better for you if you stopped trying to invent history, and stopped right now. Malleus Fatuorum 02:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I wish I could "invent" a motion as eloquent as what SirFozzie wrote--MONGO 02:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Invention indeed. Wikipedia's civility policy has more in common with Old Wild West lynchings than 21st-century jurisprudence. But I know the truth is an anathema to you, so I shall bother you no more here on your talk page. Malleus Fatuorum 02:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I already told you that you could say anything you wish to me here...the goal was to give you a place to vent without threat of retaliation on what you post HERE...other places, the gloves are off. I don't know that lynchings were as common in the wild west as the movies seem to indicate...I think dying by way of bison stampede was about as common as a lynching.--MONGO 03:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

OK EQ

There's now a modest article on Benedictine Hall (Shawnee, Oklahoma), mainly sourced to the NRHP nomination. Acroterion (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Cool beans! I'll check it out tonight.MONGO 19:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I looked it over on my Blackberry...looks just fine...thanx!MONGO 20:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Back from "retirement"

Hi MONGO! I decided to come back. Some things I still want to do here. Enjoyed the break immensely. Guess that's what I needed, a rest. See you around. BusterD (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Breaks are good...my editing is low as of late due to various non-Wikipedia related issues. Hope you find some interesting areas to contribute to again.--MONGO 03:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

And they say white guys can't dunk... BusterD (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 2011 Oklahoma earthquake

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil

Hi, MONGO. I see no problem at all if you do some copy-edit to the article. I'm glad to see your will to help. However, I must warn you that Malleus Fatuorum won't change his opinion no matter how much you improve the article. His stance is based on personal feelings, not on a rational motive. Nonetheless, thank you very much. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 10:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I shall work on it as best I can starting Friday evening. In Malleus defense, he is an excellent copyeditor, whereby I'm not known for such...I'm mainly best at the research end and all of the featured articles I produced always had the help of others, especially in terms of copyediting. However, I'll do what I can and perhaps Malleus may be swayed.MONGO 12:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

That's ok. Any help is appreciated. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Lecen's opinion is contrary to the facts, not that that seems ever to have stopped him before, as the FAC of Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil quite clearly shows. Malleus Fatuorum 12:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Lecen, I have a number of things I will adjust to the article this weekend.--MONGO 12:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, MONGO. I never bothered her. It was she the one who appeared and made comments. If she is so busy, why she did it, then? Anyway, I'm going to wait for your improvements. I really appreaciate your help. --Lecen (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean it that way...I'll do what I can but my forte is research so maybe this will be a good exercise for me. Overall, the article is interesting and had you not written it, we may have had to wait some time yet to see it on en.wiki.--MONGO 02:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Bishonen said the she saw "other problems besides the prose". What are they? --Lecen (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on some of them now...and will do more over the next day or two. Chck my edit summaries as I tend to leave notes in that whenever I make substantive changes to unfamiliar articles.--MONGO 07:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Was she talking about unreliable sources? What exactly did she mean by "other problems besides the prose"? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Not so much unreliable as just not enough different sources I think. I'm heading out now to do so things, but will work on this more tonight. I'll post coments at the article talkpage after I do somre more copyediting..hang in there! I hope to make whatever adjustments I can by the 23rd as I won't be around much for the 4 days after that I think.--MONGO 20:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to be a pain in the ass but I must be sincere to you and tell you that I disagree if your last edit.[12] First, because it's the kind of information that would make sense in the articles about Pedro I and the war between him and his brother. The focus in here should be Maria Amélia. Second, because neither Britan nor France aided him. The most they did was that once the war was practically finished (with Pedro I's victory) both nations sent a joint warning to Miguel I that they supported Pedro I. In toher words: they did absolutely nothing. They didn't send troops, arms, money or anything helpful. Not even moral support until the war was almost over. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Lecen, you're not being a pain at all...but lets resume article discussion at the article talkpage.--MONGO 03:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

First, Malleus Fatuorum called me a "dickhead" twice merely because I awarded another reviewer with a barnstar and not him. That's why he doesn't like me and that's why he opposed the article in the TFA candidates (and I had never met him before that!). Where I live people do not insult someone and this kind of behavior is not accepted as "normal". However, I noticed that he has many supporters who love this "Malleus Fatuorum's lifestyle". There is no excuse for being rude to other people. Even less with no good reason. I also noticed that he likes playing the victim type and is always crying out loud that he is harassed by "civility cops" and that no one supports him. That's a lie. There are more people bullying those "civility cops" and supporting him than the other way around. Second, if Bishonen doesn't think the article is realiable enough, well, then, she should point out waht is wrong instead of blindly accusing me. Empire of Brazil, Pedro Álvares Cabral, José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco, Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil, Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná, Pedro II of Brazil and Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies all of these seven articles are FAs and all were written by me. Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil was recently promoted to FA and now it's just not good enough? What? Why? The article is being butchered beyond recognition merely to please Malleus Fatuorum who will never grant his support. Damn. Why should I be worried about pleasing him on the first place? Who is he? Somekind of God in here? I'm really sorry for being so frank, I'm not complaing about you at all, and you are helping me a lot, but the truth is that this is all a huge waiste of time. If people won't give their support because Malleus Fatuorum said "no" than we should simply change the entire FAC process and place Malleus Fatuorum as the sole reviewer since his word is law. Damn it. Said enough already. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have a staggering lack of insight into your own behaviour Lecen, while being excessively critical of the behaviour of others. But surely with a modicum of effort you can see that your continuing personal attacks against me are inconsistent with your repeated bleating about having been called a dickhead? Time for it to stop. The reason I opposed your TFAR is because the article is very poorly written, as was Afonso before I helped you with that. Simple as that. Got it? Malleus Fatuorum 16:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

What would be of me without you, ó greatest of the great ones! --Lecen (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The lesson you have to learn Lecen is that you do not have the command of English you believe yourself to have, as a cursory glance at any of your FAs demonstrates.[13] I'm giving you fair notice that your personal attacks must stop. Malleus Fatuorum 16:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I never said I was exceptional when writing in English. On the contrary. What I do here is to write content. It is Astynax the one who makes the copy-edit. --Lecen (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Well..let's just not do this here...I'll have more to add later.MONGO 16:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

September 11 attacks

I don't know what you mean by "personal attacks" so spare me with that nonsense because it's getting old. There is no hierarchy here it doesn't matter how long you have been on Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with the "settings" every other page looks fine, the text in your version is below the infobox. You deleted referenced information on the height of the towers, the speed of the planes, the floors impacted, etc. you may not, but most people consider that pertinent information one would find in an encyclopedia article, "good articles" have information in them. You do not WP:OWN the page, there is no hierarchy here. 7mike5000 (talk) 12:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem is your edits added the kind of details and links that were removed over the last few months to reduce over-linking and to more tightly focus the article. In any case, you've boldly edited, you've been reverted, and now it's time to take it to the article talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

A number of editors, including Tom above, have been trying to reduce the article's universally acknowledged bloat over the past few months. This problem has been highlighted by a number of reviewers. The article still needs tightening, so please work with other editors to include what is needed while making the article as concise as possible. Acroterion (talk) 12:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Analyze this

Since you seem to be collecting evidence for a clique, analyze this. Geometry guy 22:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be the normative behavior at that talkpage.--MONGO 02:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted. Robust disagreement is indeed normative amongst editors with honesty and integrity. Geometry guy 05:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Now try this. Geometry guy 05:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

That Truthkeeper88 is Neptun88? --DHeyward (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't that someone pushing 9/11 CT's?--MONGO 02:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It was a sock of Giovanni33. He often created SPAs to hide. He's banned. --DHeyward (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure...Gio was in southern California I think...--MONGO 02:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

But Neptun88 was a confirmed sock of Gio...[14]--MONGO 02:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Meh...[15]...that's 2 and a half years ago.--MONGO 04:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

How sad. By trawling back through the archives you will also find many times when Malleus and I agreed. So what? Geometry guy 12:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at his two failed Rfa's which are linked on his userpage...its not unusual for similar thinkers to bond, but highly unusual for those that have animosity or divergent views to do so.MONGO 15:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I gave Malleus the benefit of the doubt at his RfA a couple of years ago. That doesn't mean I'm a supporter or defender now. Malleus and I have also disagreed many times. We are completely different, for example, in views on and approach to civility. The post I linked is but one example of "animosity or divergent views". One editor even took me to task for it on my user talk page.

My expression of sadness was at the way you seem to filter information, in black and white: my enemy's friend is my enemy. Thanks, though, for idea that Malleus and I are "similar thinkers" who have "bonded": it made me chuckle. Geometry guy 21:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Something for you to consider

Whatever you may think of me (and believe me, I don't really give a shit), I think Sandy is right that you are, or have become, too close to the subject matter to remain impartial when editing topics related to 9/11. I also think it would be best if the maintenance and improvement of that article were taken over by newer editors who haven't been involved in the protracted disputes that have been running for all these years. That would be the best case scenario as far as we, as neutral editors of an encyclopaedia, should be concerned. I will, however, tell you that I will take you or any other editor to WP:AE and request a topic ban if they act in any manner other than what would be expected of a neutral editor of an encyclopaedia—that includes calling other editors, even editors you don't like, bigots. I suggest you use AE if you believe that another editor is not acting in a manner that would be expected of a neutral editor of an encyclopaedia, but I really think it would be best if you step away from the area. I would add that I'm here not because I think Malleus' conduct is desirable, but because you seem to have the most invested in this emotionally and because if you step away, the chances are others will follow suit. Of course, you're free to completely disregard everything I just said and there's very little I can do about it, but I hope you will consider it, because it is offered in good faith. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell...Malleus and others commented in the article GAR that the article was biased...one example was that there was no mention of NORAD and the "failure of the worlds largest airforce to act"...I ackowledged that this was an omission and added a paragraph about it but the reliable references I found indicated that opposite was true, that the airforce DID respond but in a very NPOV manner added that there were serious communication break downs between various federal agencies. On the advice of Karanacs, I worked to cleanup prosen fix citation issues and get the article more MOS compliant. Malleus has made but a few edits to the article, some relatively minor ce's...the rest of his "contributions" have been nonspecific comments at the talkpage along the lines of "you reap what you sow", "rednecks", "draped in red white and blue", that the article is "sh-t", "crap"...his "contributions" are zero. Now, I have a couple questions for you...since you come here to offer "advice" to someone that is twice your age and has been on this website far longer than you...firstly, in such an article, who is "neutral"? I don't think you are, you don't seem to think I am, I know Malleus isn't...so who are these "neutral" editors? Secondly, what would be the outcome for me if I edited an article say about the IRA (I haven't looked at the article so I don't know if it is or isn't biased)..but let's say for the sake of argument that it had a "pro-British" viewpoint/POV and went to the article talkpage and told everyone there it was crap, it was biased, it stinks, it looks like a 5 year old wrote it and finished up with, "the only people satisfied with this article are British rednecks draped in their Union Jack"...do you think any welcome would be extended to me after that? Wouldn't most think such comments are bigoted? At the least, is that the manner an argument is "won", by making ethnocentric comments?MONGO 21:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

As noted below, I do not wish to defend Malleus's post, but one interesting feature was the phrase "wrapped in red, white and blue", which applies just as much to the Union Jack as it does to the Flag of the United States. It behoves all editors of Wikipedia to leave nationalism (and indeed all of our individual points of view) at the doorstep, and write the best possible articles we can for the entire English speaking world. Geometry guy 22:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I also found Malleus's comment unhelpful, and you will find a thread immediately above yours on his talk page with precisely the same link. However, I urge you to consider HJ Mitchell's comments carefully: don't respond in haste. I too have noticed some emotional involvement on your part, but I've also seen that you have the ability to step back and reflect, and provide valuable input. There is a real chance for progress on the 9/11 article now, which is something I hope all editors will welcome. Geometry guy 20:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please discuss the content, not the editors.[16] Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Your drama mongering isn't helpful-- this is a really stupid warning. Oh, are you going to block him next? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Concur. Geometry guy 22:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree and abide by whatever Kaldari suggests...and I retract my comment about Malleus being a bigot or bigoted.--MONGO 23:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see User:Gerardw/Notes on civility. I'd like to call your attention to the suggestion: "In the current context, in my opinion, any editor who repeatedly complains about Malleus or admins supporting or the like is just as disruptive to Wikipedia as any post he may make." Gerardw (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Then AN/I in your opinion is just a dramafest, likely to only increase drama? Should repeat problems be dealt with in a RFCU or sent directly to arbcom?--MONGO 00:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you and Kaldari discuss or plan the posts you have both made here and at other venues? If so, what was your purpose? Geometry guy 01:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

No we did not...I previously discussed with her the issues regarding NPA and CIVIL in general in a couple emails...she was reminding me to follow my pledge and I think (I'd have to check) that I told her that if was out of line that she should pull me back in line.--MONGO 01:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Why did you suddenly switch from an uncompromisingly robust defense of your position to a more conciliatory one after Kaldari's post? Geometry guy 02:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Because I made a mistake, I was trying to fight fire with fire. My AN/I complaint and comments elsewhere would have perhaps fixed the issue had I been less reactionary. Kaldari is a neutral admin in my opinion.--MONGO 02:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)The point is it's premature to consider how to deal with a "problem" unless we agree it's a problem. And "Malleus" drama has already generated a 265 post, 16 days arbcom discussion [17], and in the end, the case was not accepted. I'm not unsympathetic to your reaction to the comment, but you saw the current consensus at the ANI post. My advice is if you really feel: 1) an editor has significantly the crossed the line, and 2) there's a reasonable chance the community will support you, do "one and done." Make one really good posting at ANI. Phrase it as neutrally and calmly as you can and include as many relevant diffs as you can. Watch the thread but avoid the tendency to reply to every comment, and especially counter claims/accusations from the other party. Answer any specific questions you get asked but otherwise let the community discussion go. Going onto an editor's talk page with anything less than a reasonably polite query or a fairly standard warning is unlikely to be productive. Gerardw (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, his name wasn't atop that case...it had a peripheral focus to him so there weren't any diffs there demonstrating the issues in detail as he wasn't a named party. However, your advice is excellent and I thank you for your time.--MONGO 02:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I also thank you for your time, and you give a lot of good advice. There are multiple explanations for what may have happened here: a conspiracy to expose double standards? a relationship in the making?...and many more mundane explanations inbetween. I came quite close to filing a report at ANI for other editors to consider, but did not, as I do not think the editing process has been significantly disrupted, and that is what really matters. Geometry guy 02:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding what exactly?--MONGO 02:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

GeometryGuy, consider this past history...that this led to this finding...and that was ONE DIFF.--MONGO 02:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks for apologizing for mistakes and continuing to engage in rational discourse. Geometry guy 03:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I've been around the 9/11 articles a long time...--MONGO 03:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Um, no, that one diff didn't lead to the Seabhacan finding (I edited around him on other articles, and he most certainly deserved the finding, and it was not based on that one diff). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

That was the only one cited but yes there were others...--MONGO 04:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Response to comment on Tom's talk page

Rather than fill up Tom's talk page with a response not entirely concerning improving the building 7 article I figured I will just leave my comments here.

My goal is to have articles focus on presenting the facts in a way that is objective and allows people to reach their own conclusions, rather than trying to push them towards one side or another. I am also of the opinion that a fact is something that can be plainly observed. Many things being stated as facts in the building 7 article were not actually observed by anyone, but simply things that experts concluded had occurred. Additionally their basis for such conclusions is at times flimsy, like their conclusion about thermite. I can think of all sorts of ways someone with high-level government clearance could sneak hundreds of pounds of dirt-like material into a 47-story tall skyscraper that housed a number of secretive government agencies. Sometimes I find debunkers suffer from a lack of imagination or they don't really think of how it would be done because they already reject the conspiracy theories. NIST may very well not suffer from that, but they couldn't exactly say "well, it is certainly not implausible that someone could have used thermite to demolish these columns" and expect to avoid the hell that would rain down on them from every other government institution.

Personally, I don't really think there is good reason to challenge the collapse from fire explanation, but I also recognize that this does not absolve anyone of making bad arguments or trying to assert something as fact that they cannot reasonably prove in any way. Hell, NIST just guessed at what caused the fires. It is a pretty solid guess, but there was also plenty of motive, means, and opportunity for a whole host of individuals to set fire to the offices of the SEC, which is where the most severe fires were located. Destroying evidence implicating your business or a business partner in a massive fraud is not exactly unimaginable and the too-big-to-fail logic also would make most guilty parties too-big-to-indict for doing it as well.

All of that is just my own random speculation so naturally it has no encyclopedic purpose in any article, let alone one that's about a building. To put it simply, if I was interested in promoting conspiracy theories in the building 7 article I wouldn't have been pushing for a change that removed everything about conspiracy theories save for NIST saying it found no evidence supporting them. My more open-minded consideration of conspiracy theories is not something that should be faulted against me. Just because I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure does not mean I am not objective about the situation. What I think is really going on is that some editors want to use the building 7 article as a vehicle for debunking conspiracy theories and that, said editors, are letting the general quality of the article decline as a result.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your patient, calm and polite explanation here at my talkpage. I do not fault you in any way for your beliefs, nor will I try to convince you that you are wrong to have them, but will explain that these fringe beliefs, while perhaps not absolutely impossible, are so improbable that no credible engineers consider them even worth entertaining. World trade center 7 was only 350 feet from the foorprint of the 1362 foot north tower WTC1...had WTC 7 experienced a similar failure on it's own in another time and place, then other explanations may have been worth investigating.--MONGO 04:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I did not say anything about what I believe, only that I keep my mind open. However, I think you are not really acknowledging the politics of the situation. Even if those credible engineers had doubts they would be less eager to share them simply because of the political nature of expressing such doubts. So much as saying they are not sold on the concept would likely be a career ender, regardless of what reasons they gave. They would likely be black-listed in their field, pilloried in the press, and harassed by the community. Academics are human as well and you cannot just presume they would disseminate information from their brain like some sort of emotionless machine. Not to mention some will not consider such a theory because the underlying presumption that the government lied and concealed the true actors behind such a horrific event is too extreme for them to consider. The problem here seems to be the problem that often happens when talking about conspiracy theories, you are presuming it is merely a scientific question. Even when there is not a great deal of politics involved a theory that is considered fringe is less likely in general to be tolerated by the scientific community at large. Getting any study seriously challenging the mainstream view to be accepted is incredibly difficult even without the serious political ramifications.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You're allowed to be as open minded as you want, but since no reliable sources support these fringe beliefs, they don't belong in an article dedicated to providing a factual, reliable and citable account of the events that virtually every expert supports. The fringe beliefs you mention are discussed extensively and given way more than their due weight for consideration, but this is done in articles that directly examine those beliefs, not in articles that don't.--MONGO 03:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE does not in any way say every belief not in the mainstream should be treated like claims the Earth is flat. Every theory and belief has its own level of merit. Circumstances change for each claim and each article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I am curious, when you say these beliefs are given way more than their due weight in the articles that are actually about these beliefs what exactly do you mean?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

That they are given way more than their due weight.MONGOn~

Are you saying the articles on such fringe beliefs are worded in a way that gives them undue weight?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

In some cases the articles are written in a manner that gives a particular theory or group too much of an appearance of being mainstream...when more should be done to make sure the audience knows they are fringe. I also think most of the 9/11 CT related articles could be condensed and merged together as many do not deserve a stand-alone article.MONGO 19:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

While not knowing what specifically you are referring to I can say I respect the idea of what you are saying. However, I should also note that, as I said, not all beliefs are created equal. I think there is some importance to distinguishing the claims of the Loose Change/Zeitgeist crowd from those who alleged foreign government involvement or those who alleged that the U.S. government let it happen on purpose. Even more important is to distinguish allegations of a conspiracy from calls for a new investigation that is more independent. I would not support lumping these all together as though they share equal credibility.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

And if the 2nd (and third) investigations turn up the same information on the facts we have now, then what?--MONGO 04:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I believe if a truly independent investigation is given the ability to seriously probe the government's records it will uncover more information and that some of said information will be damaging to at least some aspects of the official explanation. That is what happened with the HSCA. At any rate, it is at this point an irrelevant question. Until there is such an investigation we cannot really know what it would uncover. It certainly does not have any bearing on whether calls for a new investigation should be regarded as equivalent with claims of controlled demolition.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Re:

Yeah, I figured it was a lesser-of-two-evils type deal. These nuts won't go away, and when they do, new ones come in. I'm holding out that maybe someone logical may come in and flip the numbers a bit, but I'm not optimistic. Toa Nidhiki05 17:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Well...we've been down this road before...they are never satisfied with a link, then we add a sentence and that isn't enough as they want MORE...but for the record, I have gotten over a hundred emails over the years thanking me for keeping that stuff out of the article...they mostly don't edit it because it is too sensitive a subject for them...and luckily, Wikipedia itself generally has a low pain threshold for anyone constantly sniping about the need to include more fringe info in articles...lest we end up looking like the website is run by wackos.MONGO 17:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, enough is never enough for those people. If this passes, I fear it will just advance into more and more CT-related stuff. Toa Nidhiki05 20:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I am convinced it will be now a foothold...that has always been the plan that others, who think we weren't being comprehensive enough, don't understand. As the event fades further back in history, the fables surrounding it dim the truths, as they're more sensational and mesmerizing...--MONGO 04:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what happens... Its why we have Holocaust deniers and Moon landing conspiracy theorists. When something so horrible or spectacular happens, some people just can't believe it was real. Toa Nidhiki05 14:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Re Wyoming

Mongo, done. Hope all is well in your next of the woods. Cold and snowy here. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Muy bueno...I miss Montana, more every day...all is well here but like Gene Hackman said in the movie Unforgiven (film)...I thought I was dead too...but it was just that I was in Nebraska....MONGO 18:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I actually had to do the same for Montana as I think the protect on Wyoming drove them north. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I saw that...well, it happens from time to time...most of the last few weeks of edits to the Wyoming article looked like copy/pastes from other websites or Wikipedia articles themselves and the reverts of those edits...and not a lot of folks watchlist Wyoming I don't think since the reverts are slow...I did the last one there on my blackberry which is an arduous task due to page loading issues, etc. If an IP shows up in the next couple of weeks and wants to add something useful, they can always comment on the article talkpage. On a side not...I'm surprised so many alpine lakes in Grand Teton NP aren't named (not on topos or in GNIS)...I could see that in a less important area, but note in a National Park. For comparison, Glacier NP has a lot more lakes and virtually every one is named.--MONGO 16:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography of Wyoming history

Mongo - Just threw this together this morning. Lots more to add, but you are welcome to bring along your expertise.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Will check that out tonight, thanks.MONGO 15:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Looked this over and its fine...I'll add some to it this coming weekend.MONGO 17:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

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

 
--Kumioko (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	you do good Puffin Let's talk! 16:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a kind gesture...only I am not an administrator...best wishes to you nevertheless.MONGO 16:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You are an administrator I saw you block someone a few years ago. Also it says succesfuL here. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 22:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 22:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I was desysopped by the Arbitration Committee in December 2006...so it's been 5 years since I was an administrator...you may have me confused with someone else.--MONGO 02:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

So it should be called: "The 'oughta be' adminstrator barnstar". Hey, come over the RfA and watch me kick the hornets' nest a few more times. I didn't want to let you guys down. BusterD (talk) 03:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm reading it...its disappointing...especially reading how my involvement may have cost you support. I didn't think the community thought so badly of me....hence, there is no way I'd put myself up at Rfa...it would be a massive waste of everyone's time and I don't have any use for the tools anyway...but I continue to cheer you on and hope others will look beyond me and concentrate on your maturity and ability to learn from the situation. IF the effort fails, another try in a few months will surely pass....but I encourage you to stick it out as long as your stomach allows it.--MONGO 03:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I have a strong stomach, brother. Hey, this ain't over. We're not even 24 hours in yet. The bleeding has stopped and one user even switched a !vote to support. Another opposer docked his assertion. A third opposer just gave you a barnstar. One support user was happy I once gave Jclemens serious guff in an AfD. Frankly he deserved it, and I LIKE Jclemens. Who'd ever thought of fighting back against people who have simply been mislead and might have gotten it wrong? I think six more days will tell. Regardless, most editors have sounded supportive, even if not just now. Thanks for giving me the chance to stand up for myself. It's thrilling. BusterD (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The issue of some of your older articles lacking inline cites was raised...I commented on the talkpage about it as I don't see that as a justifiable reason to oppose (though that editor did have a number of other issues)...anyway, I list the articles I started on my userpage not as a way to boast but as a way to keep track of things as I do plan, as I can find time, to revisit those older articles and clean them up...I think listing your areas of focus, article starts and other things like DYK's and what not on your userpage would benefit you.--MONGO 03:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Amphitheater Lake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Surprise Lake (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)