User talk:MONGO/Archive10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Hello

Bhadani has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

--Bhadani 14:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Latest Cyde vandalism

... is to add a false deprecation notice to Template:Ref and Template:Note. LotLE×talk 21:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

User:O I C U R M T

Nice block. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 04:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for the trust that you had in me when you supported my Request for Adminship. The nomination ended successfully and I am actually overwhelmed by the support that I received. Thanks again! -- Kim van der Linde at venus 06:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for investigation

Wakipudeo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has a similar editing style to BIG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). I'm not positive if the users are similar, but my reasoning to his unsourced content isn't getting through and the introduction of personal attacks is abundant. Could you look into this..? -ZeroTalk 09:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Its his general disruption and unfounded personal attacks that concerned me, and his status as a revatively new editor gave me great cause for suspision. If he starts anew, we'll look into it as appropriate.
As for my user and subpages, I'll leave that to you and cummunity. If they feel I'm a suitible editor and contributor to the site, then, yes they can be restored. If not, notify me and I'll depart in full. The common perception is that I launch personal attacks and engage in incivilty, which I feel is a grossly mislead view and something I find to be very vexing. -ZeroTalk 11:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My User/Talk pages

Given that the reason I indefinitely left wikipedia was recently perminently banned from editing here, I am interested in returning. Could you please unlock my user and usertalk pages? Thanks! Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Redwoods

Thanks again for your work on the Redwoods, and hopefully we'll see it at FA soon. I'd have done it myself, but copyediting and cleanup are more my specialty than adding gobs of content. However, I thought I'd let you know that I have joined project protected areas and will work on NPS articles as much as I can. Thanks. PDXblazers 02:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#.7B.7BUser.7CMoby_Dick.7D.7D

I thought you might want to review this. --Cat out 04:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Hpuppet User:Hipocrite User:Whomp User:64.95.38.193

These are all the same person, some months ago this person agreed to stop editing at Wikipedia and no further action was taken. Hipocrite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is posting again and vandalised the Monkey-baiting and other baiting articles. Would you please "Block" all four of these accounts to stop this nonsense. Thank you 70.51.198.36 18:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I am NOT a sockpupped of User:Hipocrite, nor have I ever come into contact with him. This is a mere content dispute. -Whomp 18:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
While not wishing to become involved in what appears to be a personal vendetta, I feel that User:Hipocrite needs to provide rather more in the way of justification for his deletion of the content of the various "Baiting" pages. I've reverted his last change to the Monkey-baiting page, but will bow out of this issue henceforward. I trust that appropriate admin action, if admin action is indeed appropriate, will be taken. Tevildo 18:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect to Chill

All right, I'll not add pov descriptions of even those who deserve it; but there is nothing unfair about reporting that the Presbyterian church has been accused of anti semitism, and then sourcing that assertion. That is a statement of fact, backed up by many articles, some of which I posted. It is of interest, and of significance - and to delete it I think constitues vandalism, and to indicate that I intend to keep it in the article is not against any rule that I know of - at no point was I disrespectful of the reversion editors (thought I did call them vandals, which I think they are under the rules of Wiki).

As to the talk addition on Palestinians (and note it was in the talk section), it was a response to a long rambling pov tirade - I did not call anyone anything, I merely pointed out that the reason for the Wiki policy against or was that no one could know the real identity/validity of a poster, and while my examples are extreme, they were for the purpose of making that important point, again if you look at the posting a whole, it was in no way disrespectful of the person to whom it was address.Incorrect 19:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You called the user a possible "raving terrorist out to kill Americans" based on the fact that he was Palestinian. We have your exact edit right here. This is the kind of stuff that could get you indefinately blocked from Wikipedia.--Jersey Devil 21:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

JD, context is everything: I also said I could be a Christian Palestinian (which I said I am not), and I also said the user could be a 4 legged greendskined alien from Mars, no one has anyway of determining who/what a poster is when they post, therefor such postings from a personal point of view are totally irrevelant, even in the talk page - the whole point of my post (which you have neglected to mention) was that anyone who posts could be anyone/anything, therefor personal discussions are totally irrelevant and should not be engaged in - or perhaps you think that is not true and editors here should post their life story (which is impossible to verify)to validate a point?Incorrect 23:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I need some advice

I see very little logic, and little fairness in the process currently underway. I am feeling extremely disspirited, as if when push comes to shove, important issues about content are being dealt with behind closed doors - by favoritism instead of fact. I'm really feeling down. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I shall. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
And thanks for the help with archiving. All done! And when I get a few moments to rub together I'll be sending you a quick sumup of my concerns regarding the RfAr case for your edification and mullery. :) Thanks MONGO. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 11:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hehe... What was this? How would you even find such a page? I was just kind of chuckling to myself about it. Thanks for the support!!! ;-) --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 22:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It was just a little funny since I hadn't seen that page on my watchlist for so long, to suddenly see some action there. Welcome back. See you around. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 13:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

latest edits

MONGO, at first, i thought that ill go to ANI and complain about your eroding civility. Then i though that its better to let you keep going, until you get get so far that it gets inexcusable by any standard, and you'll get reprimanded. Then i thought that it would be mean of me, so its better for your own sake to take it to ANI before it gets out of hand. Then i thought that its better for you to just give you a personal message: Bro, you are escalating in incivility, you won't be able to continue with your mission of blocking the 9/11 truth movement if you keep on as you are doing, your current method is self-destructive. I'm not going to give you any advice regarding how to solve your issue, since you view me as you... enemy? I don't know, but now you know how i belive your latest edits are being perceived. I don't expect you to answer to this. --Striver 10:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Brett Kavanaugh

There is a slow action edit war going on at Brett Kavanaugh, can you help? 64.12.117.14 11:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Goethean

I see you're having some trouble with our friend. You are right - he has a history of using his user space to launch personal attacks. His User:Goethean/Examples serves no other purpose, and his posts like the one in question [1] serve only to attempt to discredit those he considers his opposition to his POV. The more you rail against it and him though, the more it serves his ends. At some point though the community will move to take down the personal attack page he maintains. FeloniousMonk 19:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks
MONGO/Archive10, thank you for participating in my RfA. It passed with an amazingly unopposed 77/0/1. Thanks for the support everybody! If you see me doing anything wrong, want to ask me something, or just want to yell in my general direction, leave me a note on my talk page. I promise to try and knock out Wikipedia's problems wherever I may find them!

Staxringold talkcontribs 21:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh

The circle of life, or something like that. Tom Harrison Talk 13:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Picture question

Hi MONGO. Great job with Redwood National and State Parks. Just a quick question concerning a picture I had placed in the article -- Redwoods in fog. I'm just curious as to why it was removed.[2] The current picture with fog doesn't quite convey how thick the fog can get, which is rather important to the trees. Thanks. — Zaui (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding it back. — Zaui (talk) 04:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to help the prose also. — Zaui (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Closing out a re-direct deletion request

How does that get done -- this one looks finished [[3]] Morton devonshire 22:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

A shout out from NYC

Hi there. Email sent. Here's a snapshot from the 'hood. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. Email sent. Here's a snapshot from the 'hood. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you...I think I have seen this spot from a different angle.--MONGO 02:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know we could do that

Thanks.

I use The Gimp for image editing but try not to tinker too much. Sometimes images seem to get darker when set against the white page background. --Duk 02:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

flight 77 videos

MONGO, regarding my edit concerning the accuracy of what lead to the release of the recent Flight 77 videos, you wrote:

>>we don't have to email anyone, this project doesn't allow self promotion

In response, the edit was not self promotion. The edit was made to correct the inaccuracy written that the Department of Defense released the videos to Judicial Watch in response to their lawsuit. This is not accurate. I don't know how to correct the inaccuracy without linking to the related documentation that is on the site, flight77.info. Perhaps the documentation files could be moved to a different source.

I've worked for this site and its efforts, but I sincerely don't wish to promote it in correcting the inaccuracy on Wikipedia.

It was the Department of Justice, not the Department of Defense that released the videos. Here is the letter from the Department of Justice concerning the release. As stated in the letter, the release was a CD ROM which represented "...the responsive record described in the Declaration of David Hardy dated August 1, 2005 in the above-captioned case."

The case mentioned was the case filed by the webmaster of flight77.info, Scott Bingham. I don't know how to avoid 'promoting' Scott Bingham in describing why the videos were released. It was simply through his lawsuit that they were released. That lawsuit had been active for over a year when Judicial Watch filed their lawsuit. Their lawsuit was a junior lawsuit. All junior lawsuits were issued the same release as the senior lawsuit. The release was forced by the senior lawsuit. You can refer to the final court order in the case. It is this information that explains why these particular videos were released and about the timing, and why the other videos referenced in the documentation have not been released.

If you can suggest a way and a reason to omit Scott Bingham's effort in the release of the videos, it can be arranged. The supporting documentation can either be moved to a different server and/or Scott Bingham's name can be removed from the documentation.

The important thing is to convey accuracy in why the videos were released and when. The inaccuracy that Judicial Watch forced this release has fueled conspiracy theories due to speculation.

In asking to be emailed, I was hoping to avoid this drawn out explanation and possible debate. The documentation is just the case. You may or may not agree with the views or integrity of Scott Bingham, but that shouldn't stand in the way of providing an accurate article.

Your comments are appreciated.

Cordially, Jimwilson 22:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Your personal Attack against User:Striver

This is a personal attack.

Your nonsense is never going to go in the 9/11 articles. Never. If you continue to misuse wikipedia resources, you'll end up at arbcom and there will be dozens of people that will contribute to seeing you blocked from editing those types of articles. In all liklihood, there may also be an end to the fighting you also engage in on the Moslem related articles as well. You create POV forks constantly, spam other POV pushers with similar nonsense POV pushing agendas and have been incivil more times than I can count. There really isn't much more to say, aside from the fact that we can ignore you some, but in the end, if you continue, we will do what we have to do.--MONGO 18:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No way someone can be so rude to any user as You are MONGO is in your above post. Please do not try to be bossy. If someone does not think on your line of thinking then it does not means that he is a POV pusher. --- Faisal 22:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Favorite Songs

My survey has changed. I am now continuing my mission for the best songs, but now I am accepting all genres. I'm giving you a chance to revote for your top ten favorite songs of any genres (not just classic rock which is still the best). I've made a executive decision to keep the existing survey results and just add on to that with the new entries. My feeling for doing this is because classic rock is the most influential genre in music currently so it should be expressed more in the survey. Thank you for contributing in the past, and hopefully in the future. ROCK ON. RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 03:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

They're Baaaack!

9/11 Jewish conspiracy and 9/11 Jewish conspiracy theory. Please speedy delete both, as they're re-creations of 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Jews And Israel. Thanks. Morton devonshire 07:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

ZAP!--MONGO 07:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't take it personal (OK, so I did, but I'm over it) about the page, but, what else could work. The main page of 9/11 conspiracy theories is said to be too long, so I thought that the Jewish section was an appropriate lift, as it was somewhat self-sufficent. Something's gotta go, but what can we do to help the page? Scoutersig 14:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC) --P.S. How can I check to see if a page was made (and deleted) before I make it (again?)?

Another fork! 9/11 conspiracy theories foreknowledge Morton devonshire 20:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Plotinus talk page

Hello MONGO please review if you could the statements made by Goethan on the talk page of my account and Plotinus as well as his attempt to have some of my contributions deleted and my account banned. This has drastically affected my desire to contribute. Since I have to now prove to Goethan any contributions I might make to Plotinus. If you read through the notes in the talk page you will see how abusive and disruptive his tacts have been. Goethan was supporting an individual who was trying to change some very important tenets of Plotinus via original research. I fought to get their attention about how incredibly incorrect this research was and they ignored me. So I engaged in actions I have since apologized for. I have showed that modern research on the subject of Plotinus on the Neoplatonists and Gnosticism article from John Turner shows without a doubt that Plotinus not only knew who specifically he was addressing but addressed them in a way unique only to them. I have also been reprimanded by a fellow admin slimvirgin on Wiki because of this. This is very dishearting to say the least. LoveMonkey 16:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand that the subject is alittle obscure but he caused a revert war and got my additions remove from plotinus. He the put my article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neoplatonism_and_Gnosticism

for an afd. This is a pattern of abuse. LoveMonkey 23:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand that the subject is obscure I was pointing out that he did 3rrs on plotinus to remove my additions to plotinus and also cause a LoveMonkey 23:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey Goethan is at it again on the Plotinus talk page. There is a poster who keeps putting up their email address in the article and people have delete the addition. I am addressing comments made by that poster and goethan has decided to be disruptive. LoveMonkey 16:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

MONGO what is it with wikipedia and goethan? First I made an edit that is an outright FACT about plotinus and goethan reverts it out trying to start a revert war AGAIN. Second goethan is reverting other people's work and engaging in person attacks read his talk and the new poster universaltruth's comments. Personal attacks (hell last week on the plotinus talk page he compared me to nazis) and deletion requests-all of these tactics DISRUPTIVE. All patterns of abuse. LoveMonkey 16:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. I am trying to work on some of the old articles i created and i though i could ask you for a opinion: How do you think i could improve this article? Thanks. --Striver 20:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, ill see if i can work on the reference, or at least explain them.--Striver 09:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
MONGO, you think this site has high enough Alexa rating to warant it a article? I was surprised of its high rating, 11k, its quite unusual for beeing a Shi'a site. Strangly, its not even included in Yahoo!'s list of Shia sites by popularity [4]. Is it notable enough in you eyes? --Striver 09:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

critique

Hi, are you referring to my comment to Sheep? Well, on the other side, reviewers might not think much of contributors who blithely write hyperpositive comments without reading FACs properly.

Having said that, I'm sorry if I was a little hard, but the standards are high. I think it's risky to nominate a FAC without input from anyone else. II wouldn't do that myself, because I don't trust my sole judgement, either in prose or otherwise. You clearly want to prepare and nominate a series of articles on national parks: why haven't you networked on WP to find some collaborators? IMV, that's an essential aspect of your work. Have you tried AndyZ? And what about researching the members of Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team with a view to identifying collaborators, or at least WPians who might copy-edit the text?

I'd be pleased to critique one of your nominations that is better written.

In view of your comments, I'll strike out my quip about Sheep. Tony 01:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You "completely disagree"? That's a little harsh, isn't it? Your endeavours in this field are admirable, but I think I've pointed out many aspects of your prose that aren't yet up to FA standard. What more evidence do you want than what I've provided in the FAC room?

I don't know whether the article fails other criteria: I usually concentrate on 2a, which is the bane of FACs and alone is enough to sink a nomination. WP will have no authority on the net if it's not well written, no matter how much useful information it contains; your articles are way below the "compelling, even brilliant" prose that is required. By putting your work up for scrutiny in that process, you surely must accept uncompromising criticism and nit-picking. That's what will improve the overall standards of writing on WP, which is my agenda.

My problem is that I'll go back to your article and find that every section requires the same type of critiqueing as I've done for the existing ones on the FAC page. What I want is for you to establish a small network of like-minded WPians who can work together to improve the prose of their products. At least one of these people should be a good editor, at least until your prose improves (which it should with focused experience). See my work in progress for a better idea of the issues.

I don't mean anything personal in these comments. That's quite separable from the process here: I'd provide the same criticism of the work of friends as strangers.

Tony 02:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

So, now that you've turned strident, I must ask what particular comment you've taken offence at.

What has money got to do with this process?

Utterly disagree, and similar phrases, are all a little uncompromising, don't you think?

I have no idea why you're pushing this "factoid" line; all articles contain facts, and those facts should be presented as well as possible.

Many FACs have been good enough to pass, especially after they've been worked on during the FAC process. You appear to be digging your heels in and claiming that your articles, for some reason, shouldn't have to be written in "compelling" prose (the lower limit). Tony 09:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Some FAs are not as good as yours, which is why we have an active FAR process to either improve them or weed them out. That is inevitable given that the standards have been raised over the past 12 months.

You'll improve more by focused work than by general perusal of good examples—as I suggested, try my "work in progress", linked above. Although rather short, Hurricane Claudette (2003) is not badly written; Sanssouci is good (both promoted last month). Tony 15:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Pentagon tapes

His version of events is actually up at 9/11 Truth Movement. I haven't gotten to rewriting it yet to match the news reports. In the right context we could observe that 'flight77.info says that...' but I don't know how notable it is. Lots of people say lots of things. We have no business trying to evaluate scans of selected legal documents to reach an original conclusion. I really think he should take it to the press and correct the record. I haven't used Wikinews, but maybe that's a venue as well. Tom Harrison Talk 14:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking at Wikinews, I think that might be just the place for him to go. They do original reporting, and he can even request an interview with someone there. Tom Harrison Talk 14:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Information request

There are zero mentioning of biodiversity or national parks in the United States article. Since you seem to have an expertise in those areas, I wonder if you could provide a short paragraph (3-4 sentences) on biodiversity and national parks in the U.S. Thank you.--Ryz05 t 22:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That old mole

Aaaghh... every time I think I find a temporary quiet, the anti-Churchill vandals come back. The latest is User:Verklempt inserting this POV rant into the lead of Ward Churchill misconduct allegations. What the hell is wrong with these people?! I had almost convinced myself that Verklempt wasn't quite as bad as that semi-anon (71-whatever; IP as username). But the latest changes are pretty obnoxious, and to the lead, which makes it worse. LotLE×talk 23:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Just for fun

Sometime in between when I last wrote a note and just now, I was reading my local alterna-weekly. Y'know, one of those thing printed on actual paper. It carries a syndicated column called News of the weird, which is mildly amusing. But this one caught my eye:

Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied
  • An Illinois Appellate Court in April upheld a lower court ruling reversing Mongo the steer’s disqualification for steroids after he had been chosen junior grand champion at the 2003 Illinois State Fair. Mongo had tested positive for the anti-inflammatory Banamine, for his sore foot, but the court declared the test improperly administered. It was a victory for Mongo’s owner, Whitney Gray, but of utterly no benefit to Mongo, who shortly after the fair was slaughtered for steak.

Definitely not suggesting anything... just thought you'd want to know about your namesake :-). LotLE×talk 00:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool...but I wouldn't be very tasty I don't think...too many doritos in my diet! I'll look over th latest POV additons as well...nothing beats it when our biographies become a hive of slanderous innuendo.--MONGO 04:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding MedCab case: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-09 source documents

You have received this message due to your name being attached to the above case brought by User:Jimwilson.

We regret to inform you that this case regards a policy change and not an inter-editor dispute. MedCab has no authority over Wikipedia policy, and we suggest that changes to policy be made at Wikipedia:Village pump.

Thank you. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem

I'll be taking a good look again when I get a chance; someday, I'll have it make it and see a few Redwoods. Sam 02:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks MONGO!

 Dear MONGO: dude, thanks so much for your support during my recent successful request for adminship. I really appreciate it, especially from an experienced editor and admin like yourself. Hey, be sure to let me know if I'm doing something as an admin that I shouldn't be doing! Take care -- Samir धर्म 07:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

DVD+R/W's RfA

Thank you for your support in my RfA, which ended with the result of (74/0/0). If there is anything I can help with feel free to ask. Also, if there is anything I am doing wrong, please point that out as well. I look forward to working with you in the future.

Highest regards, DVD+ R/W 02:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda

172 suggested your name as a knowledgable person who may be interested in reviewing the rewrite I did on Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda and helping to moderate the controversy. This is a controversial article that has been the subject of many edit wars. Recently translated Operation Iraqi Freedom documents have made the non-official view that Saddam and Osama did have a cooperative relationship much more persuasive. In fact, former Democrat Senator and 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey now believes they did cooperate, showing this is a tenable position. The older version of the article is clearly not NPOV as it treated the non-official version as if its adherents were members of the flat earth society. I believe the rewrite is much more readable now and the narrative is more connected. I'm certain it has it faults but it seems to be a better foundation to work from than the older version. Please take a look and make any comments you like on the Talk page. Thanks! RonCram 05:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick

This just opened, in case you're interested. --Tony Sidaway 06:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Hey

I just changed the text to "monument area", if that is accurate. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD on List of Nintendo series

I see you speedied the article. I have no problems with that, but since you flushed the article down the toilet, would you care to put down the toilet seat cover... er, close the AfD as well, then? =) -- Captain Disdain 14:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. In all liklihood, based on your comment here now, not.--MONGO 17:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The truth about 9/11 FINALLY REVEALED

I stumbled across this "conspiracy theory" while going through that site I posted a link to earlier. (Clearly it must be true, because I used all-caps for part of my message title -- if you need more convincing, I can use even more capitalization in my next post.) I feel like this theory really ought to be the lead section in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. Cheers, JDoorjam Talk 05:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I love the link. Haizum 08:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty good. I recall seeing the footage of those winged trains hitting the buildings. One controversial issue: Would they be classified as "express" or "local"? Wahkeenah 09:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Ummm...good point...I think it is sad if anyone actually believes this stuff, but think it that this one is so preposterous it must be a strawman article to make the other conspiracyb theory sites appear less credible...not that most with a rational mind can't see that anyway.--MONGO 09:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I have found over the course of time that there are many people in this world who could be called "literalists", as they have absolutely no understanding of satire. They also typically lack a sense of humor in general. Some kind of genetic defect, I reckon. Unfortunately, many of them end up as conspiracy theorists. So I can almost guarantee that someone will read that page and think it's for real. That reminds me: Tornadoes are often described as sounding "like a freight train". I'm waiting for the conspiracy page suggesting that tornadoes are caused by large freight trains traveling too fast. Wahkeenah 09:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Wallace Shawn, one of the funnier characters in The Princess Bride, made the startling admission in the DVD extras that he has no sense of humor and just plays his characters in what seems to be an appropriate way. He could just be pulling our leg, though. We'll have to see if he publishes any conspiracy theories someday. Wahkeenah 09:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

My God you are quick

You keep deleting pages listed for speedy deletion right from under my nose! Kudos! skorpion 07:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for intervention

Hi. 4.243.62.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been very persistent in the course of editting pages whilst calling me a vandal. I don't condone personal attacks, but I don't know I can reason with this editor. Perhaps you could explain this...? -ZeroTalk 11:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You are vandalising, "Mega Man Zero"- you've gone to at least thirty game pages so far and unilaterally ripped out the spoiler tags from the storyline sections, despite said storylines all containing multiple spoilers. Not only that, but you've done it when others have politely asked you to STOP. And you're STILL DOING IT. What you're doing is referred to as "blanking", and yes, it's vandalism. 4.243.62.28 11:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Well RPH, I've stopped reverting on this for now. If there's a appropriate reason to refer to my edits as vandalism, I would be grateful to hear of it. -ZeroTalk 11:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Insanephantom

If I am not mistaken, Insanephantom was blocked yesterday (?) Please unblock him, I know him personally and because he is new, he was playing around with the sandbox like newbies do. He has apologised now, please unblock him. Typhoonchaser 12:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:Wow, you're quick

I just happened to check the news at the right time. It's my first Main-Page Current Event, actually. We should both read through it again after the link to it is removed from the main page. — Eoghanacht talk 12:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Domkatar

Under what jurisdiction you deleted the article Domkatar,Do you know they were rulers of Magahar,follow this link.[5].Should I help you use CTRL F of your computer and type domkatar , if you don't have time to go thru entire article.Link was already there in the article.I think good sense will prevail upon you and you will recreate the article by yourself.Thanks.Holywarrior 15:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC).
.The article was nominated for deletion bay a vandal see Talk:Bhumihar who is notorious for putting misleading tags on articles.Holywarrior 05:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks I will recreate it with more proofs.but if you have deleted it because of tag in the article,this will only encourage vandalism.Do you want to contest that Domkatar existed or do you want to say wikipedia is going to be google based.Holywarrior 05:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WOT

Right now there's a free-for-all at the above, your input is highly appreciated. --kizzle 22:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Today's Star shines upon...


...my dear Dave,
both an awesome Wikipedian
and a human being of extraordinary quality,
a model of kindness and thoughtfulness,
whose kind support and friendship
I can never fully repay.
My warmest wishes and my
prayers are with you today,
my dearest friend.
Phaedriel


Request for investigation

I've filed a a request for investigation [6] and Checkuser request in light of this [7]-ZeroTalk 07:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, please do keep track of MM Zero, Mongo. His vandalism is keeping the articles he's damaging from coming forward, and it's getting aggravating. He's so far ripped out the spoiler tags from over a hundred articles, tags that rightfully belong there, and he hasn't given any legitimate explanation for it. His vandalism shouldn't be tolerated here on Wikipedia. 24.19.96.143 19:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Replied on my talkpage, MONGO. -ZeroTalk 00:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
And so have I. -- Daniel Davis 03:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh I get it. This has been a consistent editting habbit since the earlier editting days. You've previously been warned about this falsely callling edits "vandalism", what the definition of vandalism is [8], trolling [9] and general misconception and blanking [10]. I had respect for this editor and generally believed his edits to be in good faith. That respect was misplaced. -ZeroTalk 11:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Considering that archives of my own page are irrelevant to this present discussion, as well as the fact that you're taking those discussions out of context (as well as the fact that the majority of all of my prior conflicts were with a previous editor who was using my personal information), which is peppered by uncalled for personal attacks, your comments on this matter are becoming less and less important to me. If you're trying to dredge up the past, YOU have a history of this kind of behavior- reverting others good faith contributions with only the vague edit summary of "rv", so accusing me of such a thing (I've had maybe five conflict total over an edit history that spans over a year- I've noticed you've completely ignored any positive comments that were ever given to me) stinks of hypocrisy. I've also noticed that you've put this on Mongo's page instead of your own- which of course means you're attempting to influence him into "joining" you in attacking me. Personal attacks like "Although I appreciated your flawed reasoning" "I'm not amused by your abuse of random IP addresses" are most certainly rude to say the least and completely inaccurate. -- Daniel Davis 18:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
There are no personal attacks. In your previous summary [11] , you noted this was in response to harassment and threats. If this is the case, I deeply apologize and you have my support in this. The only problem depicted is that of false accusations. Vandalism is a purposeful attempt to degrade the quality of the encyclopedia. This statement made in various edit summeries was purposely made in knowledge of this. Yes, I'm sorry this fellow's actions has harmed you and your family. This does not excuse that of your comments. If you feel offended by my request for a third opinion on this then I apologize and I'll keep this in mind. But my edits certianly are not vandalism and this is not the first accusation of yours to an editor when this has been falsely made. If my edits on this dispute were vandalism and as destructive as composed, I would have been blocked long ago and wouldn't have such a highly regarded and successful editting history [12]. Just a thought. -ZeroTalk 19:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks very much for the barnstar. God bless. -- Huysmantalk| contribsImage:Poisoned Icon.jpg 22:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Norm Coleman

Hi, I am sending this message to serious contributors who may be interested in articles related to U.S. politics. I believe I am receiving an unreasonable response-- and at times insulting and rude-- from the editors of Norm Coleman article, who refuse to remove a section that may offer some interesting trivia for Wikipeidia users, but is irrelevant to people interested in reading an encyclopedia article on a member of U.S. Senate. If you have time, please take a look at the article. Regards. 172 | Talk 03:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

  • They should lay off Norm Coleman. So what if his staffers wrote his wiki-article? He brought hockey back to Minneapolis-St. Paul. They should cut him some slack. Wahkeenah 03:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Badsy

Hey MONGO, I was hoping you could keep an eye on this guy today. He was dumping commercial links to t-shirts at Cafe Press into articles earlier. I warned him to stop, but am now running out the door to catch a flight and can't blockslap him if it comes to that. Could you take a glance at his (post-13:08-o'clock) contribs a couple times today and make sure he's heeded my warning? Thanks a bunch, JDoorjam Talk 13:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ward Churchill

Dear MONGO: I noticed that you have given me a warning on my Talk Page. You did NOT point out specific things that I did that violate Wikipedia policy, probably because I have NOT violated any policy. I also noticed that made a VALID sourced and referenced edit to the Ward Churchill article. Lulu, your friend, deleted. You then protected the Ward Churchill page and will the claim that the sourced and referenced material is potentially libelous, which of course it is not. However, I understand that you believe that it should be discussed, but protecting the page without you discussing the underlining issue seems to me a bullying tactic. Also, the warning to me on my Talk Page seems to me to be another bullying tactic. In neither of the these situations are you discussing WHY you believe that sourced and referenced material is potentially libelous you are just attacking me personally. You have been attacking me personally since I started work on the Ward Churchill article. Those personal attacks are in the edit history. I know that you are an administrator, but you are NOT acting toward me in a civil tone and you constantly engaging in bullying tactics towward me, simply because you do not agree with the edits in which I have been engaging. Now, you may disagree with my edits, but they do NOT violated Wikipedia policy, so I would suggest that you engage in civil behavior toward me. Either you or Lulu reverse each and every edit that I make, even though my edits do not violate any Wikipedia policies. You are constantly stating that I violating Wikipedia policy, but you never give specific examples of it, just warnings and threats. Please stop the uncivil behavior. Now, you have used your power as an adminstrator to protect the page, even though you have NOT provided any evidence whatsoever that the sourced and referenced material that I put in the Ward Churchill article is potentially libelous. Just stating that it is libelous do not make it so. Please provide evidence for this conclusion of yours and stop using the protection power as your personal bullwhip. You have stated that since I once stated that I believe that you and Lulu are POV pushers that you believe that I violated Wikipedia policy. However, you and Lulu call me a POV pusher all the time and I don't see warnings from you to Lulu. Why is this? Could it be that since both you and Lulu have made a agreement to back each other up on any edits in the Ward Churchill article, you overlook Lulu's behavior??? I believe the answer to be yes. Stop being an abusive adminstrator. -- --70114205215 21:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC) I believe the first step in settling disputes is:

== First step: talk to the other parties involved ==
The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page. Either contact the other party on that user's talk page, or use the talk page associated with the article in question. Never carry on a dispute on the article page itself. When discussing an issue, stay cool and don't mount personal attacks. Take the other person's perspective into account and try to reach a compromise. Assume that the other person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary.
Both at this stage and throughout the dispute resolution process, talking to other parties is not simply a formality to be satisfied before moving on to the next forum. Failure to pursue discussion in good faith shows that you are trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it. This will make people less sympathetic to your position and may prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution. In contrast, sustained discussion and serious negotiation between the parties, even if not immediately successful, shows that you are interested in finding a solution that fits within Wikipedia policies.
This is my attempt to start down the road of stopping your abuse toward me. Thank you. -- --70114205215 21:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The following what you stated to me on my Talk Page: There has been no abuse...I can cite plenty of evidence that you have been condescending, insulting and just plain rude. Constantly harping about editors instead of the content they support, is a violation, and that is policy.--MONGO 22:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear MONGO: I can cite plenty of evidence that where Lulu has been condescending, insulting and just plain rude to me (those incidents are in the edit history) and you have not once attempted to make Lulu stop his condescending, insulting and just plain rude behavior toward me. As a matter of fact, you have been supportive of, by ignoring, Lulu's condescending, insulting and just plain rude behavior. Lulu has called me a troll and you did nothing. You have been supportive of Lulu's behavior which violates Wikipedia policy and you have actually joined it. Please review it here: [13]. You can review where you state that I should not call Lulu's behavior POV pushing here: [14] Please stop the abusive behavior. Please explain where you have attempted to stop Lulu in his behavior toward me. -- --70114205215 22:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, Dear MONGO: You have made a claim that I have attempted to put "potentially libellous" (your spelling) into the Ward Churchill article. Please explain when and where I did that. I would like to have your explanation added to the edit history. As far as I can tell you have made a grave claim against my editing, but you have not provided any evidence to back up your claim. It seems to me to be another example of bullying behavior on your part. Please go into detail when and where I did this, you made the claim, please back it up. -- --70114205215 22:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
It's a biography...it is important to gain concensus (something you do not have) before you post information that may be highly inflammatory, no matter how well it is cited,. As I mentioned on your talk page, if you don't stop with this "Dear" crap, I am going to block you and end your condescending tone.--MONGO 22:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The following was posted on my Talk Page: How's this for bullying...you refer to me as "dear" one more time, I'm going to block you...got it?--MONGO 22:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC) This comment and one above it is an example of how Wikipedia administrators believe that it is ok for them and people like Lulu who agree with them to bully and push around those that do not agree with them. And there is nothing that anyone can do about it. Simply amazing. --- --70114205215 22:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is a biography. And the FACT that Churchill has been recommended for firing by a committee at the University of Colorado is a FACT that should be in the introduction of Churchill's biography. Even if he is not ultimately fired from the only real job that Churchill has had in his life then it has to be in the top two or three things worth mentioning about him--regardless of how you want to bully around anyone that does not agree with you. -- --70114205215 22:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not "bullying" you...I am telling you what policy states. If you make one more accusation about me and not about the content of the argument...see WP:CIVIL. Read the policy.--MONGO 23:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to stop you from unfairly blocking me. I trying to make the argument that you are asking me to do things that you are not asking Lulu to do. Now, you are stating that if I point out this unfair treatment then you will block me just for pointing it out! Why don't you suggest that we simply agree to focus on the issues of the article and Lulu will stop calling me a POV pusher and you will stop stating that I am engaing in hate mail and I will only talk about issues in the article and then can take it from there. Why don't we put all of this former stuff behind us and just work on the article. I will stop calling Lulu a POV pusher if he stops calling me one. Its just that simple and you should try to solve the dispute in the most simple way possible because as far as I can tell from reading the Wikipedia policies on dispute resolution then we should attempt to solve these issues in the simplest way possible. We should not try to push the dispute to mediation or arbitration, etc. Also, as far as I can tell from the Wikipedia policy on civility you should try to work with me and not simply reverse anything that I do. The underling issue is edits to the Ward Chuchill article. Go ahead and block me. I have been trying to resolve this in a most reasonable manner. But you blocking me does not agree with my understanding of the Wikipedia policy. How can someone be blocked just for attempting to stop you from blocking me??? How is that fair? Why aren't you attempting as a Wikipedian administrator to follow the Wikipedia guidelines as to dispute resolution, where we attempt to talk this out. I quoted the alternative of talking to the person before resorting to mediation and arbitration, but I now learn that if I try to talk to you concerning a dispute I have with you, then you will block me. Let's just agree to stop calling each other POV pushers, and stop telling everyone new that comes to the Ward Churchill page that I am a POV pusher (as Lulu did here: [15]) ----70114205215 23:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

User:70114205215

Please block this user as he is violating to Wikipedia Username Policy, his name is a random sequence of numbers.--GorillazFan Adam 23:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You obviously have not read the Wikipedia policy concerning dispute resolution. You should attempt to talk to me first on my Talk Page. That is what the Wikipedia policy on Dispute Resolution asks for. You went to my talk page and posted and you waited FOUR minutes before you ran to MONGO's page. How about the Wikipedia policy of good faith. Four minutes is not good faith. --- --70114205215 00:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
This is not a dispute buddy, your username has to be blocked regardless.--GorillazFan Adam 00:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, buddy. I have already changed the name. Ok, buddy? --- --HouseByTheLake 00:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Thats better, now go and edit to your hearts content.--GorillazFan Adam 00:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Er... what? You think your username magically "changes" because you edit your sig? I'm afraid it doesn't. It's still a random sequence of digits. Please request a bureaucrat to change your username right now before the account is blocked. This is the place to do it. Bishonen | talk 01:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC).
I did exactly what the policy suggests Wikipedia:Changing username: "Instead of changing your name, you can change your preferences to change your signature. This will change your "public appearance" on talk pages without requiring costly changes to the database. All your edits will be attributed to the same user." Thank you. -- --HouseByTheLake 01:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, yes. I have explained it again on your page. Bishonen | talk 02:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for the rainbow

Thank you very much for the most beautiful of all the birthday piccies, MONGO. :-) Bishonen | talk 01:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC).

My (Mtz206) RfA

Hi MONGO - Thanks for supporting me in my RFA. My Request was successful with 41 supports, 12 opposes and 5 neutrals, and I'll do my best to live up to your expectations. If in any point in the future you get the feeling I'm doing something wrong, do not hesitate to drop me a line. -- mtz206 (talk) 02:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Empire State and Chrysler

They do give an impression of height, yes? :) Wahkeenah 03:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say. I had the chance to get on the outside observation deck at the World Trade Center, and that was really impressive. But as far as real height, the drop off the north face of Grand Teton is over 4,000 feet...and in places, almost as sheer as those buildings.--MONGO 03:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I lifted that quote from an anecdote in The Empire State Building Book, by Jonathan Goldman. I road up the glass elevator on the CN Tower once, and that was impressive. I was on that outdoors observation deck of the Empire State when I was a kid, and that was very impressive. When I think about Philippe Petit tightrope walking between the WTC towers, that's way beyond impressive. I wouldn't have tried that for any amount of money or airtime. But if you've climbed the "Big Breast" in Wyoming, I'm sure those other structures seem like blips. Wahkeenah 04:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll have to read that book. No glass elevators for me! NO tightropes either...then there was that fellow who climbed up the side of one of the WTC towers after he designed some kind of device he could wedge between the steel shell seams. User:RyanFreisling has been kind enough to take the images of the buildings and other scenes from NYC...and my favorite is the Chrysler building. Best wishes!--MONGO 08:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I've visited the observation deck on the Empire State Building a bunch of times - just breathtakingly beautiful. The 'Top of the Rock' observation deck is likewise gorgeous (that's where the wide-view shots were taken from). The WTC were (and remain) my favorite buildings, despite the controversy about their design (boxy? ugly? No!). I used to go to the courtyard between the two towers with my lunch, lie on the ground with my feet touching the beveled corner of one of the towers, and stare straight up - at what looked like a walkway to the sky. I love the CN Tower as well - went there as a kid. I'll post some more photos from my collection when I've got a few moments to rub together. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear some positive personal experiences and perspective of the WTC towers. I was never up close to them, I just saw what they looked like from a distance, how they dominated lower Manhattan like a couple of gigantic saltine cracker boxes. When someone told me that a plane had hit the towers, before it became obvious what was going on on that horrible day, my immediate sarcastic reaction was, "It must have been an architecture critic." Wahkeenah 14:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I read somewhere that early on, after the WTC was recently built, that someone remarked that they looked like the boxes that the Empire State Building and the Chrysler Building must have been in. I'm impressed with some of the design changes to the new buildings that will be going up at the WTC site...Freedom Tower, 200, 175, and 150 Greenwich Street...but I'd be most happy to simply return to 9/10/2001 and have 9/11 just never have happened...that the feds had caught these people, before they ever boarded those planes, and that thousands of people would still be alive, and their families wouldn't have had to watch them die such a horrific death.--MONGO 15:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Wahkeenah 15:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
The WTC towers were very late 60's to early 80's construction style...I know architects have a name for the style of that period of large building design, but do not know what that is. I liked the WTC towers for their uniformity and monolithic nature...they were beautiful in their simplicity...maybe Ryan Freisling knows what that period was called.--MONGO 15:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Probably more specific than the generic "postmodern". Couldn't say. Wahkeenah 16:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I've heard them described as 'modernist', with strong 'bauhaus' influence. However, there's a very interesting article about the WTC's architectural design's origins - and an intriguing hypothesis about how they may have factored into Laden's possible motivations here:
The World Trade Center's architect, Minoru Yamasaki, was a favorite designer of the Binladin family's patrons—the Saudi royal family—and a leading practitioner of an architectural style that merged modernism with Islamic influences. {...}
The shimmering filigree is the mark of the holy. According to Oleg Grabar, the great American scholar of Islamic art and architecture, the dense filigree of complex geometries alludes to a higher spiritual reality in Islam, and the shimmering quality of Islamic patterning relates to the veil that wraps the Qa'ba at Mecca. After the attack, Grabar spoke of how these towers related to the architecture of Islam, where "the entire surface is meaningful" and "every part is both construction and ornament." A number of designers from the Middle East agreed, describing the entire façade as a giant "mashrabiya," the tracery that fills the windows of mosques. {...}
Having rejected modernism and the Saudi royal family, it's no surprise that Bin Laden would turn against Yamasaki's work in particular. He must have seen how Yamasaki had clothed the World Trade Center, a monument of Western capitalism, in the raiment of Islamic spirituality. Such mixing of the sacred and the profane is old hat to us—after all, Cass Gilbert's classic Woolworth Building, dubbed the Cathedral to Commerce, is decked out in extravagant Gothic regalia. But to someone who wants to purify Islam from commercialism, Yamasaki's implicit Mosque to Commerce would be anathema. To Bin Laden, the World Trade Center was probably not only an international landmark but also a false idol.
Hmm! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I might have been onto something... maybe the attack was done by an architecture critic. Wahkeenah 18:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Ryan. I can see the symbolicness of why the WTC towers would have been prime candidates, based on that commentary, to folks like Bin laden. The attacks were not just a design to terrorize...they were also Bin laden's rejection of the western world and a sort of David vs. Goliath issue, in that the U.S. is percieved by many in the third world as the oppressor. Governments act in what form that will best serve their own perpetuation, and in this, the people of the third world may especially see the U.S. as the oppressors. There are many examples where this train of thought is indeed fact, as the U.S. does not oftentimes get involved, unless it's vital interests are at stake.--MONGO 19:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda rewrite

Based on the comments of Mr. Billion, I have completed another rewrite of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Taking the advice of CSTAR, I am putting the new rewrite on the Talk page first and asking you to put in any comments using the footnote facility ( [1] ) to note each one of the comments you have some issue with. Also, if there is some comment you think needs a citation, make a note of that as well. I truly do want this article to be accurate and face reality.RonCram 19:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:ANI

I like it! I was going to respond to them and tell them to go away but I think I prefer your way. Nice work :-) --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 09:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Images of the Worlds Greatest City

Apart from the fact that if WP:NPOV applied to User space, the photos would be clearly be of London, "World's" should have an apostrophe. Stephen B Streater 09:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

New York, New York, a wonderful town; the Mets are up and the Yanks are down. Wahkeenah 09:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC) (That could change, though).

Beavers

I'm reminded of this saying from many years ago: "Eat a beaver and save a tree." Wahkeenah 09:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Block Abuse

MONGO, given your ongoing content disputes with SkeenaR and CB Brooklyn you should not have been the one to block them. While these users HAVE in my opinion made 'personal attacks' against you... you have also done so against them. The line of where 'personal attacks' become disruptive enough to warrant a block is subjective, but in this case I largely agree with you that they had crossed it. HOWEVER, under no circumstances should you be the one making that decision. Which is why it is one of the VERY few things admins are specifically prohibitted from doing. --CBD 15:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I block all personal attacks...I can't seem to find anything that I have said that is a personal attack. In fact, though I posted the info about me being an employee of USDHS, they are misusing that almost to the point of [16] which you should read. I encurage you to read the entire blocking policy and try to remind yourelf that I am not in a content dispute with the people you say I am. They are, single purpose editors, whose goal is to POV push nonsense conspiracy theory rhetoric into our article space, and they only listen to blocking and other very stern applications of our policies. I think they must think this is some kind of a blog...it most certainly isn't. Due to the misuse of the information I mentioned, and the manner in which they are "throwing it out there" could possibly be grounds for indefinite blocks. That would be a matter for arbcom to decide. I would remove the personal information I posted (which I only did to demonstrate that I do know a thing or two about the events of 9/11) is because the edit history for the talk page for the 9/11 attacks article would take a long time to reconstitute due to the vast number of edits, and by removing it, it just gives the conspiracy theorists the thought that I am covering something up. Had I know they would misuse the information I posted, I never would have posted it.--MONGO 15:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no matter how someone 'uses' personal information after you release it that can't be a violation of the 'posting personal details' policy unless they introduce details which you have not revealed yourself. Suggesting that this (or the 'POV pushing' you object to) is grounds for an indefinite block is not justified in my opinion. I do think that their implications amounted to 'personal attacks', but I have lower standards than most for what constitutes such (though I don't generally block for it). As to the rest, I'm sorry but you clearly ARE in a content dispute with these users when you say that they are trying to add "nonsense conspiracy theory rhetoric into our article space"... you are disputing the content they are trying to add. Ergo, 'content dispute'. The essential point is that you can't be described as anything like impartial on this page and these users, and thus should not be blocking everyone in sight - particlarly on subjective and disputed grounds. --CBD 18:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
You continue to misunderstand...it isn't a content dispute. Pokipsy76 had been reverted by many editors, many. What part of that do you not understand? There is a point at which editors do exhaust the communities patience...and you and others are complete failing to assume any good faith on my part. Rfc's do end up sometimes going against those that file them for retribution...that is what this appears to be to me. Now you have wheel warred with my administrative action as well...I find your position untenable.--MONGO 18:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
MONGO, I'm sorry but I don't see what you are getting at. The fact that multiple parties were involved in the content dispute doesn't make it stop being a content dispute. To put it another way... even if there were a dozen people who agreed completely on "Some conspiracy theorists disagree" and only one person opposing (which definitely was NOT the case here) still it would absolutely without any question be a content dispute. I can't understand why you insist this isn't a content dispute... you disagreed about the content of the article. It is a content dispute. That's just... obvious. What am I missing? As to the rest - I have previously seen people routinely remove blocks placed by an involved admin and then reset such themselves as I did. Normally, I would not have blocked somene for 'personal attacks' without much more extensive efforts to resolve the situation peacefully... my removal and reblock here was done only to take you out of a conflict of interest you shouldn't be in. I apologize if that upsets you, but I don't think my action was improper. --CBD 20:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Given that you are employed by the U.S. Gov't, and actively engaged in combatting conspiracy theorists in various WTC-related articles, the suspicion that Uncle Sam might be rewarding you for this in some form or fashion is, in my opinion, a rather natural suspicion, and not a personal attack in and of itself. I would suggest that you refrain from blocking editors of these articles for reasons other than blatant vandalism (such as penis imagery), otherwise the "conflict of interest" suspicion is inevitable. Maybe the folks you're dealing with are crackpots and trolls, but that's neither here nor there. — Jun. 25, '06 [16:52] <freak|talk>

Haha...their very nature of thought is a conspiracy. Don't tell me you are also so deluded. It is a personal attack if it is misused, and especially if while being blocked that they post the same misinformation using a different IP to evade the block. How dare you tell me to not block those that violate our policies! The 9/11 articles are not benign...they are real life events that impacted the lives of millions of people...the very nature of our purpose here at Wikipedia is to ensure quantifiable and well source facts are presented, not some crap from POV pushing conspiracy theorists.--MONGO 16:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Let's not forget the "meta-conspiracy", i.e. the theory that all the various conspiracies discussed in the various conspiracy theories are emanating from one place... probably from the top-secret location that everyone knows about, "Area 51". Either there, or from Loch Ness. Wahkeenah 17:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
At the most basic level, you are counter-pushing your own POV. As (possibly circumstantial) evidence holds that you are employed by an agency whose credibility is endangered everytime somebody reads that shit (and I do mean shit by the way), reverting and blocking users for it only reinforces their suspicions about your motives, and it's not an appropriate use of administrator privileges. — Jun. 25, '06 [17:17] <freak|talk>
I gather you are encouraging me to not edit those articles. That is exactly what they would love to see happen. I will continue to revert their nonsense and block as approved by the blocking policies.--MONGO 17:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not telling you not to edit. I'm not even telling you not to edit war, even. If you think something is wrong, revert it. Just don't attempt to be the boxer and the referee in the same fight. If you think you're being tag-teamed, request a checkuser. If you're in the mood to revert and block the same users for the same edits, you should probably look for real vandalism, which is typically easy to spot, and quite different than what you are dealing with. I find recent changes patrolling to be quite theraputic. It takes my mind off whatever conflicts I may be involved in elsewhere on the site. — Jun. 25, '06 [17:35] <freak|talk>
I'm neither stressed nor worried in the least. I blocked those editors for misusing personal information about me in an effort as a form of defamation of character. I posted that info in the ignorant thought that they wanted an education, but they don't...all they want to do is use wiki as a blog to post nonsense. In fact, they should be happy, since they are single purpose editors that do little more than add nonsense to the articles, that I haven't blocked them indefinitely.--MONGO 17:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Not only misusing personal information as defamation but also for massive assumptions of bad faith and as a justification to edit against consensus. The parts of this ongoing battle I've been involved with have been marked by relentless insertion of POV material that has been reverted/removed by a large group of editors. You know, at some point it does become vandalism...maybe not penis photos but disruption just the same. Rx StrangeLove 18:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal info

You yourself posted personal info at one time or another. Whether or not you believe that it's being "misused", it has a great deal of bearing in the conversation at hand. Especially if you are blocking users for doing just that. Please take it up at your RFC. Bastique▼parler voir 17:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Block

I have blocked you for 15 minutes for perpetuating a forest fire on User talk:Gmaxwell. If you must engage in flame wars, have the courtesy not to conduct them on someone else's talk page. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Your blocking

Hey, remember when I blocked Lulu for 3RR and you unblocked him, citing how I had been involved in a prior dispute with him? I'm wondering why you aren't applying these same guidelines to yourself. You were in a present conflict with these recent people you blocked, much worse than my involvement with Lulu ... and I can't help but think that you've being hypocritical. --Cyde14:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I remember that. The conspiracy theorists working the 9/11 articles are single purpose editors that have no intention of adding anything but nonsense to the articles. I do not remember all the details of the 3RR offense by Lulu in which you blocked him for, I remember it happening, but not sure about all the circumstances. Looking at the block log, I cited that you didn't warn him on his talk page...do you recollect that. The differences between Lulu and the conspiracy theorists I deal with on the 9/11 articles is a pretty wide chasm. Lulu was instrumental in helping get Retreat of glaciers since 1850 to FA status and I think has done an outstanding job ensuring other articles don't become hotbeds of POV hatred...such as Ward Churchill.--MONGO 14:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I knew you were going to try to avoid the issue by saying Lulu isn't the same as these people you block. But the issue remains: you shouldn't block people you are in content disputes with. I know you're praising Lulu and everything, but in my mind he's pretty much the same as these 9/11 people you're dealing with. So - are we going to rely on subjective criteria like "how I think about someone" or objective criteria like "don't block someone you're in a dispute with"? --Cyde 14:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the laugh Cyde...no surprise since you think Kelly Martin is some great prize to Wikipedia. I am not in a content dispute with the trolls and POV pushing morons on the 9/11 pages...they are vandalizing critical articles that discuss events that adversely affected the lives of millions of people. Those articles are absolutely no different than certain biographies...Wikipedia only looks moronic if we post stuff that not a single reputable newspaper will touch with a 50 foot pole. The crap they litter those articles with isn't based on any factual record, it's just conspiracy theory cruft and is about as close to vandalism as it gets....but just a hairline over adding erect penises. Your failure to see the difference between Lulu and a bunch of nitwits is your problem.--MONGO 14:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, you've been going well past bounds of civility into personal attacks for a while now, but calling your opponents "morons" is not acceptable. Please desist from doing so and/or remove such uneccessarily disruptive comments. --CBD 17:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Y'know. As much as I disagree with almost everything Cyde does—and as much as I think it's spiteful of him to spout insults against me on your talk page, for no apparent reason—I think Cyde and the others are sort of right on this recusal thing. I have not followed it closely, and I'm pretty sure that the editors you blocked really did deserve blocking. But it does look like you were enough "involved" in the same issues that this action would be better deferred to other admins. By analogy, I've criticized Cyde for closing an AfD on which he voted (actually, a couple times): the closure was correct in result, but even the appearance of conflict-of-interest is best to avoid among admins. Still, I write this in a spirit of comraderie; I have faith in your intentions, I just think you maybe let your annoyance carry your action. LotLE×talk 17:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
NO, the blocks were just, if the same scenario was to be repeated, I would block as I did.--MONGO 18:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
And at that point you would be desysopped. You've been given a very clear warning here from multiple people. If this continues you will be brought to ArbCom and you will not like the result. --Cyde 18:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Wrong...my first block was reviewed and supported by two other admins. The second and third blocks were not deemed, as of yet, to have been completely unjustified.--MONGO 18:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
These latest two blocks have attracted a completely different type of attention from a different crowd. What people are looking for is assurance that you won't do it again and you won't have to be closely monitored ... instead, here you are, insisting that you aren't going to change. In that way lies only bad outcomes. --Cyde 18:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a threat. See:WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL.--MONGO 18:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I expect to be closely monitored...make that your personal mission.--MONGO 18:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
No, it's not a threat, it's a fact (citing irrelevant policies doesn't change that). And I'm not the only one who's going to be monitoring ... everyone who was brought into this by your against-policy blocking is. --Cyde 18:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, you do what you think is best. You smell blood so you're going to act accordingly. Is there anything more we have to discuss?--MONGO 18:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)



MONGO .... your latest spree of edits is really starting to worry me. Are you becoming unhinged? You're lashing out and being uncivil against lots of good people who are merely trying to warn you against blocking people you are in a content dispute with. And stop misusing the word "vandalism" - vandalism is clearly defined at Wikipedia:Vandalism and what you have been dealing with is not vandalism. --Cyde 17:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Look, if they are adding and then readding, against concensus and in violation of policy, unproven nonsense, then there is little else it can be referred to as than vandalism.--MONGO 18:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Can you provide some diffs of this vandalism, then, if it is so clear-cut? --Cyde 18:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
These two ([17] [18]) were the 'basis' for his block on Pokipsy76 (the first of his three recently disputed blocks for "vandalism"). Personally I'd question whether they were even 'non-neutral POV', much less vandalism. Certainly not blockable offenses... even if MONGO hadn't been in a content dispute with him. --CBD 20:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Let's say I used the wrong terminology to describe the reason for the block on Pokipsky76 in my edit summary or rationale. Do you dispute, from comments made by myself and others and the diffs provided on my Rfc, that there was no grounds for my block? Looking over Pokipsky76's editing history, I don't agree he should be permananently blocked as at least one editor has advocated. Interesting that you think the 15 minute block on me for doing nothing wrong was okay, and my block of someone else that I and others have provided adequate links about demonstrating edit warring, demonstrating POV pushing and demonstrating little or no effort to utilize the talk page on the Collapse of the World Trade Center article, that he has not possibly exhausted the communitie's patience. Remember, I am not advocating that he deserves to be permablocked. I also didn't wheel war, as you did with my blocks, no matter how justified you may have thought they were, you should have told me that you were going to change the block times and not just argued against them...you saw that I wasn't going to change the blocks, so you also acted unilaterally on this matter.--MONGO 21:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

However

Thank you for barnstar, but next time, avoid flack from process wonks and go to another adminstrator! Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Please be reasonable ... the people who are speaking with MONGO now are assuredly not process wonks. Kelly and I, Userbox Destroyers Extraordinaire? Process wonks? Hah!! --Cyde↔Weys 14:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
You've crossed over on this one. If VoiceofAll had implimented the block, it would have been 5-by-5, right? [19]. I don't think you're wrong - MONGO should have gone to you, or Voice, or ANI or something, becuase said user would have been blocked, and all of this would have been avoided. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Problem is, it is difficult to deal with daily vandalisms to these articles by POV pushers of nonsense and be able to expect a clear response at AN/I or a neutral third party because they don't see the vandalism, even if you give them the diffs...I know this sounds like a lame excuse, but truthfully, I cannot ever agree that there are content disputes with the conspiracy theorists because they too often add only poorly referenced or unquantifiable nonsense to the articles...they are just barely above vandals and trolls in many cases. Some of us, I admit, even I was fooled a little at the very beginning, when User:TruthSeeker1234 started using a strawman sock User:EngineerEd. Tom Harrison exposed him after a few malicious edits. But TruthSeeker had been brought to arbitration (it should have been an Rfc, but I didn't initiate it)...arbitration rejected the action at that time, but checkuser later showed that Truth was using a strawman sock and two other accounts as well. They stop at almost nothing and if everyone understood that this is not a content dispute but instead is the only way to handle POV pushers who troll the 9/11 articles.--MONGO 14:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the problem is that I see POV pushers who troll the 9/11 articles as content-based issues, which requires that the blocks be on the basis of exaustion of patience. They have exausted my patience, and did it quite quickly. They will exaust the patience of anyone who gets involved. Get more adminstrators involved, get them exausted, and let them do your dirty-work. I got exausted after only one edit. Others will get exausted quite quickly. Why take the heat when you could make someone else do it. Cyde, you've commented here, and I've always thought you were a pretty spot-on guy. Take a look over the 9/11 articles and tell me when you are exausted. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

RIPE NCC: Open proxy?

Do you know if RIPE NCC IP's are open proxies? I've confirmed one IP listed on WP:OP to be of RIPE per WHOIS. Thanks. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Just judging by your post, you probably already know about these kinds of things than I do. I simply block vandalism as I see it. I am not knowledgable about proxies or IP checking. Might want to post at WP:AN and see if someone there chimes in.--MONGO 15:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

TruthSeeker1234

MONGO, I'd like to ask you to reverse the removal of the unblock request and protection you placed on User talk:TruthSeeker1234. While there were valid reasons ('sneaky vandalism' and WP:POINT) for blocking this user it should not have been done by someone he was in conflict with (Tom Harrison in this case), I have never seen an indefinite 'community block' for a single instance of vandalism before, and as an involved party / editor of the page you should not be placing protection... especially not with the specific purpose of preventing the user from requesting unblock or discussing the issue. We aren't supposed to be using admin powers to forcibly silence dissent... while this may be temporarily satisfying it inevitably leads to greater conflict. --CBD 02:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Now look here...you know nothing about that block, and I didn't do it, so go talk to Tom Harrison. He created a malicious sockpuppet and added deliberately erroneous information to articles as a strawman. I'm going to start doing a through review of your edits (actually, you don't hardly seem to do much at all admistratively) aside from harassment, which this is starting to border on. So what now, you going after Tom Harrison for this? Do you realize how silly you look defending conspiracy theory POV pushers?--MONGO 02:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
<sigh> I asked you to reconsider the page protection, not the block. As to harassment... "doing a through review of your edits" is a pretty good definition of such, but you go right ahead if it makes you feel better. You won't be the first. For the rest - I'm not defending 'conspiracy theory POV pushers', and not just because I wouldn't violate civility policy by calling them that. Who you are abusing is really irrelevant to me. I'm defending simple standards of fairness and accuracy which I consider vital to Wikipedia. If you don't like me telling you that, 'calling people "morons" is not proper' then maybe you could stop doing things like that. Or get people to agree and write it into the policies that such is perfectly acceptable. --CBD 03:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Arg...if you need to discuss anything else with me, please do so on the Rfc. Look at your edit history over the last week almost...you definitely appear to be obsessed with me. I find that worrying, and your continued prodding is starting to border on harassment. Please do not post anything else on my talk page...we have nothing more to discuss. I would have to say that it is YOU that is abusing me at this point...back off.--MONGO 03:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

what a pretty batch of proofs you provide.

I encourage that...You're not alone, as I and others intend to start blocking POV pushers of nonsense in earnest.--MONGO 18:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC) Threats, personal attacks, and a splendid proof that you are a participant in a pov pushing cabal. Prometheuspan 02:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


Yes I remember that. The conspiracy theorists working the 9/11 articles are single purpose editors that have no intention of adding anything but nonsense to the articles.

Now thats sheer poetry. You have reduced a groups quest for truth and to allow facts to make a factual case into pov pushing, used predjudical terms equal to an attack, and violated AGF, all in one single sentence! I like you, your easy. Prometheuspan 02:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


Yes I remember that. The conspiracy theorists working the 9/11 articles are single purpose editors that have no intention of adding anything but nonsense to the articles.

Now thats sheer poetry. You have reduced a groups quest for truth and to allow facts to make a factual case into pov pushing, used predjudical terms equal to an attack, and violated AGF, all in one single sentence! I like you, your easy. Prometheuspan 02:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


There is no such thing as a PoV pushing cabal, please stop and leave MONGO alone. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 02:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


wow, i just can't leave it alone... its like shooting fish in a barrel. This is the kind of thing non-admins get banned for. I got blocked for a whole day once, and the best anybody could claim was a personal attack based on personal observation. You on the other hand are using trollese. Prometheuspan 02:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

...Wikipedia only looks moronic if we post stuff that not a single reputable newspaper will touch with a 50 foot pole. The crap they litter those articles with isn't based on any factual record, it's just conspiracy theory cruft and is about as close to vandalism as it gets....but just a hairline over adding erect penises. Your failure to see the difference between Lulu and a bunch of nitwits is your problem.--MONGO 14:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Lets see, thats "moron",1 "crap", 2, "litter articles", 3, ignorant claim versus factual reality, "conspiracy cruft",4, "just a hairliine"...5, lulu nitwits...thats 6 attacks and the best you have for anything left for pseudo content is "those articles with isn't based on any factual record, it's just conspiracy theory cruft " Which simply is factually wrong.Prometheuspan 02:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Maybe you should take a wikibreak.

Do not post anything else on my talk page.--MONGO 02:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


There is no such thing as a PoV pushing cabal, please stop and leave MONGO alone. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 02:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Amen, we all appreciate Mongo's great work as an admin, your comments here are unproductive, and having debated Mongo before, he's definetely not easy. --kizzle 02:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, no such thing. So whos going to carry out Mongos Threats? Prometheuspan 02:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I already asked you to not post anymore on my page.--MONGO 02:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Prometheuspan, you're begging for a block. --kizzle 02:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)::
Please note that I have warned Prometeuspan. Bishonen | talk 02:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC).
Yes, thank you...I was just about to head over to your page and say thanks:)--MONGO 02:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
No need for that, I was only pointing it out to suggest that people should avoid blocking him if he didn't post again after the warning. Didn't work.[20] :-( Bishonen | talk 03:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)..
I understand...Tony Sidaway has my endorsement, but I wonder how long before the block police show up to question him on the block...any minute now, for sure.--MONGO 03:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

All done with Capitalism Harvardization

Sorry for the conflict. I'm done with it; at least well enough to be stable, and ready for any improvements you have. LotLE×talk

Ann Coulter poll

Hi, you have participated in Ann Coulter discussions in the past, please see here to cast your thoughts about whether Ann Coulter should be described as a "civil rights advocate" in the intro. --kizzle 07:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  • That's funny. Tell us another one. Wahkeenah 10:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Definitions of capitalism

Hi. There are many different attempts.[21] I would just like to point out the diversity and not only state the Marxist definition, which also uses "commodity" differently from how most people use the term.Ultramarine 08:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Capitalism is simple. Under capitalism, you have two cows, and you sell one to buy a bull. Then you put both of them in your wife's name and declare bankruptcy. Wahkeenah 10:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    Ha. Story of my life.--MONGO 10:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Fighting talk

Hey, MONGO. The whole project seems to be overrun with acrimony all of a sudden. All kinds of people, including ones I hold in high regard, fighting it out on the Talk and Project pages. I can't explain it. Just zis Guy you know? 11:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, we're long past a full moon...I think these periods come and go...a week ago, it seemed that things were pretty quiet...the thing about me that only those that know me best understand, is that I come across a lot harsher than I ever mean to at times. I am never really stressed and I don't mean to be harsh, so I have to remember to go out of my way to be pleasant.--MONGO 11:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
We should all love our fellow man. I realize there are those who do not love their fellow man, and I hate people like that! Wahkeenah 11:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it may be the Request for arbitration on Hollow Wilerding, myself. She always did have enough negative energy to power a medium-size town, and now it's spilling out all over the project. :-( Bishonen | talk 12:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC).
Yikes...yes, I saw you working on that...arduous. Even Beckjord was almost funny at times with his zaniness at least....Hollow Wilerding is most unfunny. What a waste of our time...but somebody has to do maintenance.--MONGO 12:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Ha, you obviously haven't read Hollow's Requests for comment/Bishonen ! Not funny?? Bishonen | talk 12:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC).
Cool! One of the others that supported the Rfc, happens to be none other than User:Siblings WC...special...well, at least you got some tasty treats for your trouble...imagine if we could take all the Kb's we waste typing while arguing with trolls and webspammers and convert that into FA's...--MONGO 12:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I think we could all do with a smile, so here's a new policy for you to peruse: WP:NCR :-) Meantime, let's keep our energies for fighting the barrow-pushers and be so relentlessly nice that they have no alternative but to follow suit. Note to self: that means no more baiting Troll:Rdos. Oh bugger, I did it again, didn't I? Just zis Guy you know? 13:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I concur with the findings at WP:NCR--MONGO 14:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism

I agree. I hope this applies to the other involved parties also.Ultramarine 12:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, MONGO. I just want to note that I understood all along that you were trying to keep the peace and that you were operating on the basis of good faith and intent. I just noticed your comment on AN3, and wanted to make it clear that I never questioned any of this. Best, El_C 03:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

WTC rebuilding fotos

I happened upon the bathtub last year by accident - I took the PATH train and inadvertently emerged from below. It was awesome and terrifying and I wasn't ready for the impact. The last time I was there was on that fateful, and fatal day. I'll consider a trip back... and it sounds like a great idea to help Wikipedia and perhaps my own psyche. Just please know it's a very very difficult thing for me. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

(continuing the thread on my page)

NSA flash video

No, 'chicken salad' is not a code word. I promise! :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Good one. I wish I could do that kind of work:-) Tom Harrison Talk 23:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested redirect and history clean-up

Hello. I need a bit of assistance with some template redirects. Could I ask you move the history of {{Mega Man X}} to {{megamanx}} and delete the redundant redirects of {{Mega Man X}} and {{Mega Man X Series}}....? Thanks. -ZeroTalk 00:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone beat me to it.--MONGO 05:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No they didn't. {{megamanx}} still redirects to {{Mega Man X}}. I would like the history and data on {{Mega Man X}} to be transferred to {{megamanx}} and then {{Mega Man X}} and {{Mega Man X Series}} to be deleted. -ZeroTalk 11:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Hokey...hows dat.--MONGO 12:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh that's lovely. Thank you. -ZeroTalk 14:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Crazy talk page antics

Hi Mongo, I wonder if you can help. There are some antics occurring on the Fidel Castro talk page. No it's not a content dispute surprisingly, it's a user named User:Teemu Ruskeepää attempting a radical experiment in talk page restructuring. He's trying to have all comments pinned to his "discussion tree", rather than in the traditional chronological manner. He tried this on the blocked Cuba page which had some merit - but subsequently attempted it on the busy Castro page. Users gave it a go but universally became bamboozled by the lack of clarity and the apparent loss of comments.

Teemu took this badly. He tried to move everyone's comments to various points of the page - unilaterally rejected the concept of archiving and insisted that he had the answer to wikipedias problems. Of course, a consensus poll proved otherwise. This has not deterred young Teemu, and he is now adding lengthy polls to each discussion! With some rather uncivil comebacks to users calling for him to come down from his "discussion tree". I've laid out a programme of response if he continues causing talk page chaos [22], but need an administrator to enforce the will of the people if he continues. Do you know of any such admin?--Zleitzen 12:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks MONGO, have replied on my page.--Zleitzen 15:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Useful Site

You might be interested in using this site. It is a compilation site that monitors how many articles are published in newspapers about specific topics to show the most widely covered stories in the media.--Jersey Devil 22:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:megamanx

Any way to retrieve the history back from Template:Mega Man X so it can go into Template:megamanx? I originally tried to avoid a plain copy-and-paste when the nice move function is already there. Kevin_b_er 22:34, June 29, 2006 (UTC)

Give me a minute...I may have to do another deletion and then recreate the template...--MONGO 22:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Hows that? History fully restored...I was confused that you wanted a move, rather than simple deletions.--MONGO 22:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. You did fix it. Don't confuse my unsigned comment there with another user, though, which I hope you didn't by accident. I didn't want to burn history to see a move undone, and that final move needed an admin anyways. But hey, everything is good now. Kevin_b_er 23:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
At your service. Have a good day.--MONGO 23:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

unblock

hey mongo, can you unblock User:Tlizzle? he's my friend and was just drunk last night and vandalized my userpage while i was there, he'll make constructive edits I promise :) --kizzle 04:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism

It is explained Talk:Capitalism#Large_scale_deletions_and_violations_of_npov-- Vision Thing -- 09:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters archived the discussion before it was finished. Discussions on neutral intro [23], [24] and Marxist POV were still [25] ongoing. Can you put the tag back? -- Vision Thing -- 09:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Block again?

You might want to block again the individual responsible for this vandalism. Netscott 21:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Appears he has made one edit...albeit a bad one...it may be a proxy as the person who used that IP to complain about me has a username and simply used that IP address to lodge a complaint.--MONGO 22:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, thanks for looking into it. :-) Netscott 22:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Beep Back

The two endorsements you pointed out are not necessarily incompatible. The situation does need to be controlled to an extent, but when you're front and center in the situation you cannot be considered neutral in enforcement regardless of what stance you take. This is why I admonish my staff at TWL to avoid conflicts of interest like the plague.

I also agree that some policy changes to NPOV enforcement for contentious articles could benefit Wikipedia. As an example, a citation requirement prior to significant topic changes with the citation placed in the Talk page for comment and perhaps a 24 hour comment phase prior to edit to allow both sides a chance to support, dispute, modify and/or clarify. It doesn't need to be a monumental shift, just something to "leave a paper trail" for both sides, cover backsides, get (hopeuflly) useful feedback and try to head off or minimize edit wars.

Cheers,

Torinir 05:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Article

I just created 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium, could you take a look? Peace. --Striver 13:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

From above

MONGO what is it with wikipedia and goethan? First I made an edit that is an outright FACT about plotinus and goethan reverts it out trying to start a revert war AGAIN. Second goethan is reverting other people's work and engaging in person attacks read his talk and the new poster universaltruth's comments. Personal attacks (hell last week on the plotinus talk page he compared me to nazis) and deletion requests-all of these tactics DISRUPTIVE. All patterns of abuse. LoveMonkey 16:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)