User talk:MONGO/Archive26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

happy Mango season

'TIS MANGO SEASON....
Have a shlice of mango cheek...well, I am up to my armpits in the things. Yuletide means lots and lots of mangos, as well as turkey and ham and ice-cream and pressies. Were on special so I bought 3 crates for AU$20 and now I have both crispers in the refrigerator full and even with everyone eating two of the ##$@& things every mealtime... I am a bit mangoed out so I thought I'd spread the goodwill around....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Casliber...happy new year.--MONGO 02:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Your arb request

Hi,

A word off the main RFAR page. The difficulty is mainly, that despite the description, and the agreement there is a genuine conflict, there is little to no evidence of real attempts to settle it, to the extent that justify sidelining all other approaches to submit it for arbitration. It hasn't been discussed at RFC, nor have the two of you tried mediation, nor is there evidence of behavior by any party so problematic that these would not help.

It is true that sometimes these processes aren't directly helpful (though they often can clarify communal views anyway), and some users undertake these processes with an intent to basically ignore or game them, and nothing comes of them. Equally, other users do enter them with good faith, and may find they help. But with no evidence of trying -- nor the exceptional case with strong evidence of a communal consensus that such efforts are doomed from the start -- it's hard to see the criteria for an arb case being met yet. I'd urge documenting examples of the points that concern you, and seeking RFC on the conducts in this dispute and the view of the community how to approach them.

(If you feel - as you implied in your statement - that there may be abuse of process and a wish to see you sanctioned when that's not merited, then any user will find it difficult to obtain a sanction on another user who doesn't provide cause. At best it might be an annoyance not to react to.)

Hopefully this clarifies where my own thoughts came from. At the least it may help to explain the reasons a bit more. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I appreciate the time you have spent coming to my talkpage and discussing the matter. I see Rfc's as kind of ineffective overall. Basboll filed one on me and it was pretty soundly revoked with the majority of those supporting his and similar comments coming from conspiracy theory advocates or what are now banned editors. Yet he persisted in his efforts to see sanction brought against me...forum shopping....even though, just as you have stated now, there is no strong evidence either of us has been sanctionable. He withdrew from editing for awhile and then upon his return he has continued seek sanctions. In a nutshell, my perception is his neverending efforts, since they have been generally soundly rebuked, to get me sanctioned, is harassment. That is my perception. If, as he states now at that case, that he is withdrawing from editing, perhaps this won't be a problem any longer, but even that wasn't my goal...all I wanted was to get the guy off my case....and leave me alone so I can get the spirit to contribute again.--MONGO 19:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawing

Hi MONGO, Sorry we couldn't work out our differences. I'm moving on and have notified ArbCom [1]. Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Your experience with geographical features is requested...

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willow Creek Pass (Montana).  :) Cheers, Iamunknown 13:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

rollback

has been turned on for you. NoSeptember 19:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

? Hi NoSeptember...haven't heard from you in ages...ah, what's this deal with rollback?--MONGO 19:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A new permission WP:ROLL for non-admins just went live, exactly the same as the admin rollback. Cheers, NoSeptember 19:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh...well, thank you very much! I do often try and do some vandalism reversions and get frustrated since I oftentimes cannot beat out those with the rollback tool...it will come in handy when dealing with obvious overt vandalism. Best wishes!--MONGO 19:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Raggz

You seem to have been involved with him for longer than I, so perhaps you can shed some light: what the heck is going on? It seems like he's trying to clean up some articles that have had long term NPOV and SYNT problems and being showered with abuse in return. Jtrainor (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think I have ever heard of him before. However, I would concur that you are likely correct in regards to his efforts to remove some pretty egregious violations of SYNTH and make some article NPOV. As far as whether he is being incivil or not, I haven't looked over his edits to be able to determine that.--MONGO 03:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm.....

You felt like coming by my page to "politely leave a suggestion" and then you never pursued the conversation to its end. So i stopped by to make sure you saw that last of the entries:

Do you mean to say that using the word "fascist" is worse than insulting someone as being a "liberal"? Stone put to sky (talk) 11:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

So --

What's your say? Stone put to sky (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Your choice to refer our discussion to AN/I suggests, to me, a dishonorable inclination; in light of that, I shall honor your demand to never refer to you or your friends' political bent as "fascist". This is, however, upon a condition: that you, in turn, will never refer to me or anyone i care to call a friend as "liberal", "socialist", "communist", "progressive". or "left-wing".

While it may not seem so to you, my personal sense is that each of these terms is used as an insult by U.S. citizens who call themselves "conservatives". For those of us who do not agree with your particular world-view the usage is particularly painful and bitter. Of course i may be wrong, but then this is not for me to decide; rather, it will be something for the Administrators to take up at that time when people who feel insulted by your rhetoric decide to take it up with them.

You may rest assured that whomever might present their case may count upon my support.

Sincerely -- Stone put to sky (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...[2]...look at your editing history...do you think anyone here is fooled by what your mission here is...?!!!--MONGO 04:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh ho ho. Now that's an interesting little tool. Jtrainor (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And from that, it's pretty easy to document the level of disruption Stone has been up to..this is just a cursory glance....

Stone put to sky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), 218.160.178.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)([3]) has over 1,300 edits...almost half of them are to one article, Allegations of state terrorism by the United States...his first edit was over two years ago...he knows what the rules here are by now, even though he is not very active. This is also likly a Stone edit via an IP....[4]

Stone's first edit...doesn't look like a newbie to me:[5]...that's pretty impressive if he was a newbie...maybe he used an IP before that[6]...it certainly seems as though he did later on.

Actually, he's said himself he's a rereg of someone else. Jtrainor (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I see...I think I remember that.--MONGO 02:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrongful accusations against other editors:

• After being asked by another editor to not refer to him as a sockpuppet without proof, [7] Stone responds: "Refrain from being a sock puppet and i will. If not, then the label will remain."[8]
• more easily available

Spamming other editors about how to vote on an afd

• [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]

Warnings about commenting on editors

• [18]...Stone's response: [19]

Attack accounts

Below copied from a RFCU dated 2/17/2008

• UntimelyMaroon (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Ultrastoopid (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 118.165.218.235 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 118.165.219.150 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 118.165.219.98 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

These accounts showed up at Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States trolling on the talk page and making disruptive edits. The names are an obvious attack on User:Ultramarine. Familiarity with Wikipedia jargon such as reverts suggests a sock puppet. The ip showed up and restored the blocked accounts edits [20] Two very similar ips also showed within hours as well. Dance With The Devil (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed - all of the above, also:

1. Thecryptthing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
2. Stone put to sky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - likely sockmaster

- Alison ^❤ 20:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hi...

Hmm... quite. Seems their is quite a POV, just look at the contributions. Regards, Rudget. 13:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Parking spot

82.37.85.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Undelete request

You once deleted Psychotronics. I would like to have this article, all revisions (and talk page) included, copied into my user space so that I can attempt to process its content into an acceptable article. Would that be possible with your help? __meco (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't do it personally, but if you ask someone from this group you'll probably be able to get what you need done.--MONGO 00:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I knew I had seen that category somewhere around. I'll poke one of them! __meco (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA Issues

Hi MONGO,

Rather than clutter up the RfA page with extended discussion of the matter, I just want to say that I agree with a lot of your opinions and points of view regarding so-called "attack sites", my main problem is with the way you go about registering said opposition. I'd also like to take the opportunity to say that I've taken a better look at some of your other non-controversial contributions as a result of this RfA, and I'm quite impressed with your article writing. If the RfA fails, I do hope that you'll stick around and continue to contribute as a non-admin; certainly our articles on geographic features wouldn't be quite so good without your constant assistance, and of course your work in keeping crankery out of the 9/11 articles is invaluable.

Best Wishes, Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 05:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

Oh, I intend to stick around. Thanks.--MONGO 05:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to second this. I've also opposed, but I really really really would be saddened to not have you at all. And I really really really would like to support you one day, if you should choose to run again. Besides, I'm told that adminship is nowhere near as much fun as writing FAs! Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 11:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion that may be pertinent to you

Hello Mongo. I just thought you may want to see this discussion and this discussion as your name comes up several times, and some people think that your opinion would be most welcome. Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally I would ask that you avoid this one - it's about generalities. If you do feel the need to comment, focus on the goal, not the process. PouponOnToast (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

E-mail

I've sent one. Acalamari 18:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for saying what you just did and for clearing up that matter re. WR. I'm sorry if I caused you any distress at the time as that was never my intent. I think we'll both continue to disagree on certain matters but that we both know where were stand, and we can respect our differences of opinion - Alison ^❤ 20:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely...best wishes.--MONGO 06:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yo

Can you give me a hand with cleaning up [[21]]? It's a huge freakin' mess and I'm not entirely sure where to begin. There's a resident group of editors with WP:OWN issues who wish the page to present a certain POV as well, which complicates cleanup considerably.

The largest problem with the article (well, other than the fact that it's inherently POV) is biased sources. Jtrainor (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I do what I can to help where I can, but I don't think I can be much help on that article. I did try long ago to get it more NPOV but was not successful. I think if you start from the title...which has the word "Allegations" and recognize that mostly, that is all you're dealing with, that keeping the allegations and then tryiing to put them into contect without going off on long tangents about who made the allegations and what their rationale was for doing so, you might have better luck. The effort to get it NPOV would be centered on trying to find resources that put the evidence in context, or evidence where particular bodies (like the UN, etc.) have stated that the U.S. is not a sponsor of terrorism...that is a bit of a strawman argument to do so, since it's not the kind of thing neutral representative bodies traditionally do.--MONGO 18:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Another good start would be just trying to clean up the execrable writing in the article. :( 75.175.22.16 (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Directness

You are a fair and direct person, but at the moment, your RfA would need over 100 additional support votes. Even if it seems incorrect on the face of it, please consider withdrawing your self-nom just to save the closing bureaucrat the few minutes it will take to close. Letting the bureaucrat do the close will nor provide you with any additional feedback. Withdrawing will signal to others that you are able to mix additional sophistication in with all that gritty, well-intentioned (and respected) determination.--75.37.10.88 (talk) 06:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

While I definitely don't want it to be a drama magnet, I think it has been very calm and both the supporters and opposers have been reasonable with each other. Obviously, I can't now regain my admin tools, and might not ever...but I prefer to let it close at the time it normally would.--MONGO 07:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Which was certainly well within your rights to do. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 20:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Your RfA was unsuccessful

It is with regret that I have closed your RfA as not demonstrating a consensus that you should regain adminship at this time. I hope this outcome will not discourage you from continuing the good work you do for this project. Some constructive comments were made in opposition and you may wish to give those some thought. These controversial RfAs have always seemed to me a little like demanding that the candidate keeps smiling quietly while rocks are pelted at them. For what its worth, I thought you weathered the experience with dignity. Best wishes, WjBscribe 16:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated...the outcome was better than I ever expected. I'll certainly take the opposers comments to heart and make adjustments. I was pleased that the drama was minimal, that virtually everyone maintain a high level of decorum and that so many took some time out of their day to voice their opinions.--MONGO 16:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to be the first to congratulate you on your recent failed run for admin. Please don't be too hard on the community for not loving you more than we already do. Run again someday soon. User:MONGO 2008! BusterD (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hehehe...a retry in less than 3 months would be disruptive and I doubt I'll try again anytime soon. I don't take such things personally...I was pleased the turnout was so huge and that even many opposers expressed their sentiments that a future admin bid may result in a reconsideration of their position.--MONGO 16:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I know many editors (including myself) appreciate the fact that you were willing to serve as a sysop. Most who gave their input there had a positive note to say. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 16:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Surely...I am pleased the Rfa got so much attention.--MONGO 16:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You'd have been a fine sysop and it's a shame that it did not succeed.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above, and I was happy to support your nomination. I hope we can see MONGO 3 in six or so months time. Congratulations for making it into WP:100 as well. The way you behaved during the recent nomination, and the way you're behaving now, is very positive. Good luck, MONGO. Acalamari 17:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I am disappointed that the community consensus was not sufficiently forgiving at this time. I hope to be able to support you again in a few months. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 18:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Echo the above. Although I've grown increasingly sceptical as to the community's forgiveness in general, the proverbial glass is more than half full. Suppose that's something. User:Dorftrottel 18:43, January 26, 2008

Obviously we've had our severe differences in the past, but I meant what I said in the RfA about it being likely that I would support you for adminship next time around. I was very impressed with your answers and comments to other uses in the RfA. Six months ago I would not have even voted neutral for you as I ultimately did this time, and six months from now I might well be in the support column. I think that's strong testament to your efforts to improve on some of the things that folks have complained about in the past and you should be congratulated for that--particularly since it's often difficult to deal with criticism (and to top it off some, though by no means all, of the criticism directed at you in the past has been rather unfair). If you can convert someone like me into supporting your RfA next time I think that bodes well not only for your chances of regaining the tools but also for the general level of collegiality on the Wiki overall. Happy editing in the meantime!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely echo all of the above, MONGO. You would have been a great admin. You've got my support next time around. Best wishes, GlassCobra 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

A pity that your RFA failed, although the controversy you sometimes step into means I was not too surprised at the outcome. I agree with WJB who wrote that you held through the RFA with dignity, and I really think that is very admirable. Well, a lot of good work can be accomplished without admin tools as well, so hope you'll stick around. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry ....

You got a majority, that means something. If you don't mind some cheap advice: spend the next sixth months avoiding all conflicts, stick to writing new articles, developing stubs, doing a lot of housework kind of stuff, and try again. We need you, and more admins like you, and in time many more people will see it. Keep you rchin up, Slrubenstein | Talk 18:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It was really sad - please remember that time is dynamic, and yes, please be around with all the valuable works ... --Bhadani (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I do feel bad for you

I hope you realize that I would have loved to vote for you. But some of the things you did as an admin are things that I would have wanted a permanent desysopping for if anyone else had done them... and I couldn't bring myself to bend the rules even for an amazing editor like yourself.

(No, I wouldn't have supported a ban for you, but I think a week-long-ish ban is something we should look into. Most admins who break those rules are not people we should have editing the 'Pedia, period. You're a puzzling exception, but I kind of understand why you broke the rules--everybody does it and gets away with it. =/ That's what we need to be taking care of and solving.)

Happy editing. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 20:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

A disinterested comment

I noticed on my watchlist that you'd failed on a (re-)RfA. I didn't even know that you'd lost adminship! Quite happily, I don't watch every Arb decision. I'm not going to look up what the decision was—I can guess at the confluence of factors that led to it, given incidental understanding of your edit history.

I've only directly interacted with you on Elk. My friend, if you're blue, go back to the article space. I was quite happy to see a herbivore on FAC and was truly impressed by your contributions. Do it again! Seriously, an editor only matters in the article space. The rest is incidental nonsense. (Why does this hobby matter to you?)

I'm calling this disinterested because I honestly haven't read the RfA. If I read it, I might support or oppose. I'm posting because I know you can make good contrib's in the main space and I hope you continue to. Marskell (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Heck, looking at your contribs, there's always Red Deer...or you could really throw down the gauntlet and do September 11, 2001 attacks or Collapse of the World Trade Center with some other folks...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Your RfA

I'm sorry to hear of that. Over 100 supports is usually more than enough to get, well, anything  :) Good luck for next time. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.} 11:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I, too, am sorry that it didn't work out. I hope you try again when you feel that the time is right. Best wishes, Jakew (talk) 11:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

On my (and other, I assume) talk page you said you will do "what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves". Stay away from controversy. When drama finds you either turn off the computer for 24 hours, or edit some other page. Turn drama issues over to other people. There is no reason for you to continue editing a page that has become a drama-fest - notify others and then do something else. When you have proved skill at walking away from drama, then you are ready for the buttons that can so easily create extra drama. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not notice your RfA, I am sorry as I would have participated. _{(1 == 2)}^Until 15:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry your RfA failed and I hope sincerely that you try again and win! cheers, --Samiharris (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I didn't know you were up for rfa either, shame as I would have participated too, better luck next time. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That's ashame. For what it's worth, I think you would have been a great admin, if you were given the chance. Sorry to hear that you didn't get the sysop flag again. Glacier Wolf 18:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• You're welcome for the support: I think you'll make a great admin again, and easily a better one too. :) I responded to some of the opposes for you, rather than having you respond to them. I hope MONGO 3 will be more successful. Good luck. :) Acalamari 19:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I saw those comments, Acalamari and they are very much appreciated...it was nice to see the entire affair remain calm and pleasent overall.--MONGO 05:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks - no hard feelings. For what it's worth, I have developed a more positive opinion of you during this RfA than I had previously, and I'd doubt I'm the only one - it is possible to see someone at their worst in a number of different places and extrapolate from there, and your work on other areas of the encyclopaedia (especially nature topics) is exceptional. As others have said, keep it up (also agree with WAS's suggestions and WJBscribe's comments above). Orderinchaos 19:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks for your note. Remind me the next time you're up, and to be honest based on all your contributions I'll be willing to support it. Good luck! Lawrence § t/e 20:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• I was actually on the verge of supporting based on the fact that the RFARB you recently filed against Thomas Basboll was rejected due to the civility of both parties, but I didn't see how "filed an RFARB that was rejected for civility reasons" could work in itself as a reason for support. Also, from my perspective, more effort at engaging in DR before filing such cases could have helped both in the resolution of such conflicts and in building a case for future adminship promotion, as at the very least then you could say "you tried everything" to resolve conflicts within WP's various third-party mediation formats, rather than continually going mano-a-mano and pushing 3RR and other conduct violations with various antagonists across article and policy spaces. Beyond that, I appreciated your civility to me while I was operating as AL. Amerique^dialectics 21:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that; you got a huge number of supports, 4 times as many as most successful candidates, if that's any consolation. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Though they belted you and flayed you, by the living God that made you, you're a better man than they are, Mongo Din!--Mantanmoreland (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Good luck on the next one I'll be there.--Ѕandahl 00:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• As I mentioned, the time wasn't right. Good luck. Modernist (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's all right. Just work hard and you will gain back the trust from the community. bibliomaniac15 05:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind thoughts presented here...best wishes to all of you.--MONGO 05:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll echo what I said a few sections up - writing FAs > adminship. If you really want it, you'll get there one day - best wishes. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 05:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA note

Hi MONGO. Thanks for the message on my talk page. Re. your RfA. While, I didn't support you, I must agree that you handled the whole process with dignity and honour. I appreciate that you took the time to address my concerns and I was especially heartened to see this comment in particular. Regarding our own somewhat wrong-footed history, I think we can both hopefully put that behind us now. I think if you are to re-apply for adminship at a future date, I will certainly give things serious reconsideration given the above and will certainly be looking at things with a fresh perspective. Best regards - Alison ^❤ 05:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed (just give it a year)--and thanks for the note on my talk page too. I look forward to a positive, productive, and cooperative year with you as a fellow wikipedian, and then many more years to come. Best.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

My best as you continue your good work here. As I said, I can be convinced to support in the future...keep it up. Cheers, — Scientizzle 07:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Just give it some time and keep up the good work. If you do that I see no reason why the community shouldn't support you. The way you handled the RfA was most definately admirable. I think you managed to surprise a lot of folks with this. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's good of you to have taken the time to respond to the community's comments. Tiamut^talk 12:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi

How's it going? Not here to stir things up ;) I haven't been here for a long time and I have a day or two where I might make a few edits, so I thought I'd say hi. I see things are as interesting for you as ever. SkeenaR (talk) 08:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's going decently...hope all is great with you too.--MONGO 16:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A comment from the sidelines

I don't know you well hence I voted neutral; but I expected your nom to fail as any controversial nom would. This only proves that the system is in need of fixing - controversial people may make good admins, too. I doubt many existing admins, myself included, would pass if they had to stand for RfA today again. Please don't hesitate to notify me of any future discussions which would be addressing this issue. Take care, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with Piotrus, but I do think it's not entirely the "systems" fault. Each controvertial nom I've observed that has failed has failed for differing reasons. The only common thread is that the editor was controvertial, and was unable to get over the negative interpretation hump. I do think that a period of time without a blow up item (such as with Alison), or similar and a fair number of the neutrals and even opposes might switch. While there are some "not until hell freezes over" types, most seem willing to let go of the past, if it appears to have been moved on from. all this of course is just my opinion. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that you mention it

Let me know if there is anything I can do for you.

Well, I could use a spare decal sheet from an AMT 1957 Tbird kit.... Gzuckier (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hum...I could arrange such a thing if it was a lifesize vehicle and I was permitted to drive it once a week....but I'll look anyway.--MONGO 17:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey MONGO

Although I didn't support your RfA, I would just like to say that I think the work you put into your atticle writing is amazing, and I hope you keep up the effort. Viridae^Talk 21:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Saw this, thought of you.

I saw this article and it made me think of you, wanted to link it for ya. Dureo (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...Mongo went to jail for various offenses and good to see she will as well.--MONGO 17:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

reply

You are welcome. I noticed that some of the more thoughtful participants changed their opinion after you answered those questions, and I was glad I asked them. [22]

Let me give you some wiki-love, in return. I checked your RFA periodically, and I grew impressed with your restraint. Many unpleasant comments were addressed to you. And you resisted the temptation to respond in kind. Patience and show restraint are exactly the kind of qualities we need in administrators.

IMO there are a couple of areas where the wikipedia's policies and procedures have not get up with it phenomenal growth -- and where those policies and procedures are in need of reform or a total rewrite. The way administrators are chosen is one of those areas.

About ten days ago I replied to a comment on someone else's RFA -- they had suggested it was very unlikely that someone would go to the effort of making 2,000 acceptable edits -- just so they could apply to become an administrator. I told them that the very first RFA I participated in was an example of just that. User:KI. I had an unpleasant disagreement with KI less than a week before their 2nd RFA. I saw reference to his RFA on his talk page, and went to check it out.

KI, in his answer to one of the questions, claimed he had no unresolved disputes. I posed some civil questions about concerns I had about his candor and willingness to acknowledge error, he responded by accusing me of harrassment, and, when his RFA failed, initiating the only RFC I have had addressed to me.

Two months later he was outed as a sockpuppet. His other known ID was User:Freestylefrappe. Like the KI id freestylefrappe had made two runs at being an administrator. The second run succeeded. Freestylefrappe was an administrator. So the puppetmaster behind these two individuals was willing to put in the time to build credible histories for several IDs at once.

I've got a confession. I have only participated in a few RFAs -- less than a dozen I think. Usually because someone whose talk page was on my watchlist got nominated. Yours was different. I'd refreshed my memory, and taken another look at KI/freestylefrappe's RFAs to see if there were obvious clues that they were sockpuppets. One of the participants in the very first RFA seemed very foresightful, seemed to have seen right through him. I decided to leave him or her a note to make sure they khew he had been outed as a sockpuppet. They were semi-retired, and said they prefered email. So I sent one. They replied. In my reply to them I mentioned an administrator I found abusive. My new correspondent gave me a heads-up about your RFA -- said you were an ally of this other abusive administrator. They didn't recommend I vote against you. But, FWIW, I think they weren't pleased I voted for you.

But, like I wrote above, I liked your answers to my questions. And when I returned, cause the page was on my watchlist, I grew more impressed as I noticed your intelligent restrained response to provocations.

If we find that we work on some of the same articles we may find that we disagree on policy, or other issues. I like finding people who can stay civil when they tell me where they disagree with me. I figure I am much more likely to learn of weaknesses in my arguments, the references I use, or how I interpret them, when I am discussing them with people who disagree with me, than with people who share my views.

I just put Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MONGO 3 on my watchlist.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 09:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind thoughts. It's a pretty big wiki, and I have trouble keeping up with even my closest editors. When I started here, it was a much kinder place with a lot less infighting and ongoing drama...people were busy writing articles and that was the main objective. Now we have many who seem to think this place is more of a blog than anything else...this transformation is a bad thing. I intend to set an example once again of why we are here.

I too was duped by Freestylefrappe, and unknowingly nominated him for his successful Rfa. Though he never once trolled me of course, after he became an admin he subsequently went downhill, and was banned. Interestingly, my original successful admin nomination was done by none other than Karmafist, who also went downhill in later months. Karmafist and I continued to discuss matters off wiki via email and I understand where he is coming from to a degree, but never agreed with his opinion regarding this website overall.

I spammed no one about my Rfa...and very few of those that had previously been known to be close editing allies of mine even "voted". I wanted to "earn" the adminship the right way and hope that those that have expressed their current opposition will be willing to reevaluate after a period of time. Again, only one other person aside from you bothered to ask me any questions...people seemed to have had their minds made up generally going into it and your questions demonstrated that you were willing to get more feedback and judge me based on what my responses were. My "restraint" wasn't hard for me as I expected to have an unsuccessful bid but I did want to clarify a few things that happened so my responses were primarily to address those issues.

Everyone on this website, including me need to do a lot more AGF of each other, and stop fighting so much! I look at a few long time contributors who have had almost zero drama associated with them...such editors as User:Antandrus and User:Mav are the models we need to follow. They quietly go about their business, write numerous articles and avoid drama. They are also models of civility and are astute in policy and ability. If more of us, myself included, followed their examples, we'd all be better off.--MONGO 18:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Someone vandalized my Userspace! But a little angel came along and fixed it! Thank you! You can thank others by using {{subst:Vangel}}! NHRHS2010 11:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed by this edit, the vandal seems to be someone I know from school. NHRHS2010 11:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well...thank you very much. Best wishes!--MONGO 18:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Congrats

Rich Farmbrough, 15:48 31 January 2008 (GMT).

Ah, sorry, commiserations. I thought you had been re-sysopped. Rich Farmbrough, 15:42 5 February 2008 (GMT).

Locator maps

Hi, with regards to the national park articles, my interpretation so far has always been that a locator map is used if no other representative image can be found (this probably the case for most things on the National Register of Historic Places, for example). However, some parks have locator maps and some don't (see Lassen Volcanic National Park before I put the poster in, and other National Monument or National Historic Site articles). I don't care if you remove the poster, but either we should either have the map there or another image, and we should be consistent about it too. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 19:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the addition of the historical posters is great, but not in the infobox. The vast majority of NP articles and related Protected Areas Wikiproject pages use the loc map so people worldwide have some sense of where a given park area is located. There is usually enough room to add historical posters and supporing images in the text body...or by adding a galley somewhere in the article. So, loc maps are the standard. I just moved the Lassen loc map back and put the general area map under the infobox. There was an effort that would permit the infobox to have an image as well as the loc map, but no one seemed to know how to adjust the infobox template to accept such parameters.--MONGO 19:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I just readded the posters for Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon...I couldn't find room for the one for lassen...but seems that article is a little too overlaoded with images and maybe you can replace one of those maps or lower resolution images with the poster as I think it does add history to the article.--MONGO 19:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! howcheng {chat} 06:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much

Thank you very much for the Barnstar! I appreciate it! With your RfA, I mainly responded to the more unfair opposition, and opposition that had reasons which I believe were uncalled for. Thanks! Acalamari 00:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Mammal collab

OK, I'll set this up here - feel free to nominate and foraward to any other editor interested in furry critters. We'll see how it flies and I'll drop a note in the signpost.

Nominating key articles is ok, even if you can't work on them. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar

Hi MONGO. I am really thankful for the Barnstar. However, I am tempted to add that my comments pertaining to your recent RfA were not out of seer compassion but were based on my considered opinion about your suitability as a sysop of the Project. I am sure that people around here will recognize it again at the earliest. In the meanwhile, it is heartening to note that you are continuing with the same spirit and vigour to add value to the project. Regards. --Bhadani (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

recent edit of Dookie

hi mongo. thanks for your suggestion of using the sandbox. however, this was not an experimental edit. please note the Dookie discussion page where i properly documented the minor changes i made. i'm sure you will agree after following the links that the edit was helpful. 99.233.78.122 (talk) 07:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw that...I reverted myself. Sorry for the confusion.--MONGO 07:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

RCP

Good work [23] , you beat me to it. Later... JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm fast, buddy...and don't you forget it!:)--MONGO 02:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That rollback button is nice. I have read where it saves bandwidth. Just need the block button now for the persistent vandals... ;-) JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd be glad to nominate you, but not sure my doing so would be in your best interests...let me know.--MONGO 02:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I would have to get back with you on that one. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 03:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your consideration for my nomination. I thought about it and decided to wait and get more experience. Also, I have plans sometime in the future to write some new pages, so sysop duties may hinder that. Again, your offer is much appreciated. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure...the tools are no big deal anyway...they're just used to help maintain the website and nothing more.--MONGO 16:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"Multi-licensed into the public domain"

I don't understand this statement on your userpage. Releasing something into the public domain means you renounce your copyright on it, meaning you no longer have any authority to grant licences for its use. Is what you claim you're doing legally possible? --superioridad ^(discusión) 12:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Great Falls Nat'l Park

Part of Great Falls Nat'l Park IS in Maryland, and part in Virginia. It is on both sides of the Potomac River. I have been on the MD side before.Sebwite (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The Maryland side is administered by the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park, the Virginia side is administered by George Washington Memorial Parkway...they are two different entities. I see your changes have already been reverted. If you're still confused, please see this link for clarification.--MONGO 18:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar Awarded to Mongo

"The Resilient Barnstar may be given to any editor who learns and improves from criticisms, never lets mistakes or blunders impede their growth as Wikipedians, or has the ability to recover/finish with a smile."

		The Resilient Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Mongo for his respectable behavior during the RfA Sallicio 08:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I am new to the RfA, AfD debates and came across your resubmittance to adminship. I have observed many debates and participated in a few. I will be looking forward to your next RfA.--Sallicio 08:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I deeply appreciate this...thank you very much!--MONGO 08:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

TBNT

Thank you for your support, MONGO, but I'm walking away from this one. Keep your powder dry. PouponOnToast (talk) 09:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

He's had recent disputes with you...a neutral admin should have been requested.--MONGO 09:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

what dispute would that be MONGO? I havent crossed paths with Poupon on any matter except the RFCU/Samiharris one and as far as I know there has never been a comment exchanged between us. You keep repeating the "recent disputes mantra" as if repeating it will magically make it true. A difference of opinion on an issue in which i am only tangently involved is hardly a recent dispute MONGO. Viridae^Talk 09:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay....and I'm sure you're in agreement on the subject matter? Have you seen this?--MONGO 09:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Who the hell cares whether we agree or not? There has been no dispute. Stop continually lying about this now. Viridae^Talk 10:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Facts are, you are on the opposite side of a conflict issue...you should have asked a neutral admin to examine the situation. Please don't say I am lying...it is not appreciated and is a violation of our civility guidelines.--MONGO 10:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

NO it is a lie, and one which you repeat often. Being that I was not one of the people involved in teh dispute, I am not a party to it - and neither for that matter is Poupon. Being aware of a dispute and holding an opinion about it does not make me a participant in it. This is the second time in recent times you have accused me of being in a dispute when I am not, and judging by the last time you tried to pull this one, I am not the only one who thinks you are talking through your hat. Viridae^Talk 10:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Viridae...please calm down. My observation is that you are on the opposite side of a dispute then that which PouponOnToast is...you should have asked for a neutral admin to perform that block....it is simple to do such an action, and having an itchy trigger finger is unbecoming an admin. There are lots of real trolls out there for you to go and block.--MONGO 10:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hardly an itchy trigger finger MONGO, just as I was not in a dispute. Poupon has been uncivil about this matter across multiple pages for days on end - something I had noticed but until today did not reach the level where enough was enough. He got a civility warning for his language on Durova's talk page, and then proceeded to troll the RfC. That is hardly an itchy trigger finger - the block was performormed in full knowledge of Jimbo's recent example that incivility cannot be tolerated. Furthermore, under your "interperatation" of a dispute it would be nigh on impossible to find someone neutral because all they have to do is hold an opinion - something that has been pointed out to you on more than one occasion by people other than myself. Hell even arbitrators follow disputes before they reach RfAr. Now how about you see sense and stop screamigng admin abuse every single time i make a block you disagree with? Viridae^Talk 11:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You crossed the line on that block, as you done a lot of times lately. You've protected pages you shouldn't have, you've been aiding banned editors, you've been highly incivil at times, like here, calling me a liar, and recently where you told me to put up or shut up...it's amusing watching you scream about others being less then perfect when you yourself are behaving so miserably.--MONGO 18:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah pull the other one MONGO, it plays a tune. The protections have been endorsed every time I have performed one - you are the only person who has a problem with them. Aiding banned editors? Yeah go on - I would like to see that one stand up. Incivil calling yu a liar? You ARE lying, whil that may not be the most civil i have been that is hardly anything like your horrific track record. So once again MONGO, either put up or shut up.Viridae^Talk 21:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Viridae, please cease calling me a liar, telling me I am lying and making other baiting remarks.--MONGO 23:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

WOW! Is this guy, Viridae, an admin? I think you should get another barnstar for the constant beratement and personal attacks. I'm surprised no one has warned this user of the obvious multiple violations of WP:CIVIL. Unbelieveable!--Sallicio 07:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

He said he was going to take a break from editing for awhile...I know that what I have learned from my experiences is to recognize that not everyone on this website is going to agree with me and it seems that he and I find each other to be incivil. The best thing for both of us is to avoid each other...I know I haven't always done this, but will do so as much as possible. However, what this exchange stems from was my comment regarding his block on the editor who started this thread and Viridae did ask for a block review at AN/I. It's not like I showed up at Viridae's talkpage to bug him there about it.--MONGO 07:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's strange, as I was reading it, I could "see" him yelling (if that makes sense). From what I can see, very disgraceful from an admin or even a regular editor. Hopefully he won't have to go through what you did to learn the same lessons. I wonder what all his supporters at his RfA would have done if they saw this block of text during their decision-making at his RfA? As an unaffected third-party, I am considering reporting this behavior. What do you think ?--Sallicio 07:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No, please don't report it...it's from almost a week ago and I don't want to see more drama than we need. If this pattern persists then other steps will become necessary...but if we avoid each other as much as possible, then escalating this to further levels will become less likely.--MONGO 08:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Constantly trying to besmirch me by accusing me of being "involved with a dispute" is hardly an attempt to avoid me MONGO, but yes my dealing with the issue was not to the best of my liking so I am only semi active now and do not actively seek out MONGO. Viridae^Talk 08:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no doubt in my mind that PouponOnToast and you have been diametrically opposed to each others POV's about various issues. I'm done commenting on this issue.--MONGO 08:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Okilee Dokilee (OK). Here's a mini barnstar for putting up with it.

		The Minor Barnstar
		For composure in the face of a meanie.

Ha..well thank you...very much appreciated! Sometimes we have bad days...but there is no doubt that Viridae and I have had some difficulty getting along. Best wishes!--MONGO 08:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The reverts

Thanks for the talk page reverts! :) Acalamari 20:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

my pleasure..not everyone likes it when others revert stuff from their userspaces...but this appeared to be obviously unwelcome nonsense.--MONGO 07:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

collaboration -to start the ball rolling

Sure..I'll help as I have time.--MONGO 08:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

neutrality

Hi MONGO, I would appreciate if you could tell me which of the 12 points at Talk:9/11#attempted summary / Heart of NPOV (4) you can agree on, and which not. Thx  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 01:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Just looking at your user page here, and wanted to thank you for all of the wonderful contributions you've made to geography-related material over the years! So that's my sappy thank you note. Take it or leave it :) Okiefromokla ^questions? 02:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I still have a lot more I want to write and expand, but my time is more limited than it has been in the past.--MONGO 02:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Further reverts

Hi Mongo: Just a heads-up to let you know I undid your revert to Nairobi in order to revert to an even older version, since the one you reverted to also had some vandalism in it (lots of moos). MeegsC | Talk 23:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem...I need to check better and make sure I have eliminated all the junk next time.--MONGO 00:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

RFB

Hey MONGO. Re my RFB: "Neil is no where near my expectations for crat" - you didn't give any reasoning, so could I ask why? What are your expectations? Perhaps it's something I can work on. Thanks. Neıl ☎ 14:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Almost perfection....in other words, I expect crats to be 10X better than the average admin candidate.--MONGO 14:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That's reasonable, thanks. So where've I fallen short? Am I only 7X better? 8X? :) Neıl ☎ 14:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And also, if I may ask, why did you "deeply regret" supporting my RFA? Neıl ☎ 17:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

On a personal note, from my vantage point, most of our interactions have not been the best...maybe this is my fault, and if so, I hope we can find a way to put whatever those issues are behind us.--MONGO 06:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

ISO an injection of calm rationality

Hello. With your excellent understanding of Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines, and coupled with your track record for injecting calm rationality into heated discussions, I was wondering if you could take a gander at the North American Union article and offer some insights before the brewing edit war turns hot? Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to set aside some time to read the latest exchanges there, but for the record, I have never heard that a real union between the U.S. Canada and Mexico is being hatched behind any closed doors with any real serious belief that it will ever happen in the near future. I doubt it would in another 100 years even. I'll try and chime in, but it's not a subject matter I am very knowledgeable in. I do appreciate you kind considerations regarding my ability to remain cool...not everyone would assess me that way, so thanks!--MONGO 06:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

My RFB

MONGO, thanks for your comment, albeit neutral! I understand your concerns - rest assured should the RFB pass I'll be taking things real slow to start with. I want to continue to build the community's confidence in me. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

An apology

Hi MONGO, I just wanted to apologize for my responses to opposition in your recent RfA. Although you appreciated my comments, I don't think I helped your RfA much, and I'm concerned I actually did more harm than good. I am sorry if I ended up garnering more opposition than settling it. Acalamari 21:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I gave you a barnstar for your support and I meant it...I doubt very seriously anything you did made others feel more interested in opposing me. I was happy so many took some time to register their views and intend to use that as feedback in ways that might make me a better contributor. The entire admin thing is no big deal...when I first ran, I was reluctant then, and when I was desysopped, I didn't let that deter me from still contributing, any more than this latest Rfa did. I have been very busy in real life lately though, so my edits are down a bit, depending on the day. Seriously, I am still appreciative of all you did for me.--MONGO 08:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Iraq war

Hi. This is the closest I ahve ever come to canvassing, but it's only one page, and currently, it's in atrocious shape. That is: Iraq war. You may see my comments on the talk page to simply get an idea of one of the problems posed on the page. I will not ask you to speak in one direction or another, as that would be wrong, however, I believe the evidence of the page itself speaks loudly enough. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, it's horrible. I doubt I would have any luck getting it neutral and for the record, I myself am very divided about that war...while I think that Saddam had to go, especially since he had violated every single UN backed sanction brought against him, the way the war has been handled leaves a lot to be desired. But my general impression is that the article is an anti-Iraq War piece. That kind of article attracts very polarizing views and guys like me, who are pretty neutral on the issue actually, would have a lot of trouble getting the pros and cons to agree to NPOV. The war is pretty unpopular, even in the U.S. and much more so in other countries, so it's no surprise the article has an anti-Iraq War perspective.--MONGO 07:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Popo Agie Wilderness

Hi,

Can you verify that Popo Agie Wilderness is really pronounced pohpoh zhah?

Thanks, — kwami (talk) 07:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Pardon my jumping in - that is certainly the correct pronunciation (original research). Perhaps MONGO can point to a verifiable reliable source, but numerous sources of some degree can be found with a google search on "Popo Agie" + pronunciation. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup...it can be referenced...[24].--MONGO 18:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

pallid sturgeon

Hi, Mongo,
May I please offer to you atention some info about pallid sturgeon: 1;2;3
The pages might take a long time to load.You might have this information already. May I please ask you how could I access a raw format of your reference links that I would be able to check it against the links I found.
Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for those links...surely something can be gleemed from them. I am not sure what you mean by raw format...so far, most of the links I have used are listed on the article...hopefully I can set aside the time to add more info...after the Distribution, habitat and food preferences section, I have a lot of cleanup to do...much of that was added by someone else and I have yet to get to it and make sure it is accurate. Hopefully by the end of this coming week, I will have a much improved article...thanks for keeping me motivated!--MONGO 06:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I just duck in and say that when I saw this section name on my watchlist, I spit Mt Dew out my nose? Something about pallid sturgeon...poor thing. Ok, sorry to bother you, carry on. RxS (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Not much to look at for sure...I think the things that make it an important article to get featured include that first fish species listed as endangered in the Missouri River, it is very large and it has an interesting history, having been around virtually unchanged since the dinosaurs...there is a lot of info out there about this species and it should be pretty easy to make for a comprehensive article once I get myself moving again.--MONGO 06:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I don't usually care much for barnstars but this one is a keeper! Thanks - Raymond Arritt (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure..he's actually a Steer...not a bull, but close enough.--MONGO 06:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

9/11 dispute

I was wondering if you could please stop by here to offer some insight on the edit war consuming the 9/11 page. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 01:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

request your input in a consensus survey re 9/11

Dear MONGO,

At Talk:9/11#defining consensus I started a survey to get a better picture on how editor's opinions are varying with respect to the following statement:

"The current form of the 9/11 article is at odds with the WP:NPOV policy, and the proposed inclusion of the fact that Michael Meacher alleges the US government of willfully not preventing the attacks, would make the article better, in stead of worse.

I would appreciate it when you could take a look.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That article reflects the known factual evidence that can be cited. There are other articles that dwelve into conspiracy theories, so I suggest you add that sort of thing to them instead.--MONGO 17:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Just found you reverting Mental disorder, and dropped in for a check-up :) --Bhadani (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

HI yourself...just working the recent changes...do that form time to time. Having rollback is very helpful. Hope all is good with you!--MONGO 17:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

After talking with you after weeks, I am feeling better. Regards. --Bhadani (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

My editing has been reduced lately due to work and even now just have a short time to contribute. Have one article that I am very slowly working on to get to featured level, but still have a ways to go on that. Need to get the conservation section there in better shape. I've been putting in steady 50+ hour weeks for a while now and between that and other matters, sadly, I am not currently as active as I would like. After I get all that one article completed, I am going to do some Asian related articles on glaciers...the info is hard to come by, but is negelcted and needs better documentation and links to their coordinates so they can be clicakble via google earth. It will allow me the opportunity to add info and learn about it myself...but I suffer from tunnel vision and have trouble moving from one thing to another when I have something that needs to be completed first. It's good to see you around.--MONGO 17:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Hi MONGO, thanks very much for your kind comment - it is quite appreciated. You and I have certainly come a long way in the last six months or so! I think it's a lesson for all the kids out there. I'm trying to severely restrict my Wiki presence in the next couple of months because of academic demands, but I'm glad to see (per your previous comment) that you're still finding time to do your excellent article work despite your job commitments. Happy editing!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hi. Do these IPs look similar to any of those you have seen in Arbitration cases?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/76.126.64.74
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/67.188.208.91
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/67.188.208.203
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.204.160.68

-

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/60.48.29.10

Ultramarine (talk) 10:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

First 4 are all San Francisco..last one is not familiar. A hunch would indicate User:Fairness And Accuracy For All aka User:Bmedley Sutler.--MONGO 13:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The title move has the probably unintended advantage of widening the scope to include terrorism against the US. Will try to improve the article.Ultramarine (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't mean to butt in here, but I noticed this discussion given that I commented above. I actually proposed that title change awhile back before I de-watchlisted the page (I'm not editing there for the time being) though I did not move it and have no idea how it was decided to do that. Someone else had suggested that title to me months ago and I began to think it was the best solution. By suggesting State Terrorism AND the United States I was indeed trying to expand the scope of the article as Ultra suggests. I was not envisioning it including terrorism committed against the United States (unless of course it was state terrorism committed against the U.S - I can't think of any instances offhand though there are probably some possible examples), but I was definitely imagining including cases where the U.S. accused another state of state terrorism. Comments Cheney made about Iran a couple of years ago leap to mind, but I imagine there would be a lot of other stuff as well (perhaps some interesting historical references going back to the Cold War and perhaps even earlier).

It's obviously been extremely difficult to make that article NPOV for a variety of reasons, and I saw the suggested title change as a way to push more in that direction. I have no idea if that will happen but that was my hope. For what it's worth my original rationale for the page move can be read here.

I must say, I've enjoyed not having that article pop up on my watchlist!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Me too...when I see a situation that is almost beyond repair, I tend to walk away if possible. My only exception has been some of the 9/11 related articles.--MONGO 07:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have named you as an involved party at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#9/11 conspiracy theories. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK § 19:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Beware of the zombies

They will eat you alive! Guy (Help!) 10:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hahahaha...there is no doubt about that! Thanks!--MONGO 02:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Moby Dick

Hi, as a person familiar with the relevant dispute, I was wondering if you would mind reviewing what could be a continuation of that case. Relevant discussion is here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Davenbelle. Thanks. -- Cat ^chi? 12:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That guy again...wow. Well, looks like it has been closed with no action, but reading over the info, I'm inclined to believe that there are some Moby socks there.--MONGO 17:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

grammar question

I was wondering if you can verify something for me. I was about to revert this edit when I started to have doubts about it. Should it be "an historic municipal park" or "a historic municipal park"? Thanks for your help. --rogerd (talk) 06:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think "an" would be the correct word if the next word had it's first letter as a vowel. But in this case, "a" would be correct I believe.--MONGO 17:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, you are right... I just found this that explains the rules for "H" words. Since the "h" in "historic" is not silent, it is indeed "a". I must have forgotten that from my long time ago English classes. Thanks. --rogerd (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a notoriously bad speller so I usually use Word to correct my mistakes whenever I am working on an article. It usually corrects those "a" and "an" issues for me.--MONGO 16:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

A bit fast on the revert?

Where you a bit fast on the revert here?[25] Or is there something that i haven't noticed? Peru shouldn't be in Oceania? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please chime in at Talk:Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850#Oceania_and_South_America, since this apparently made an editor wary of making changes to the article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I mussed up...odd that that section was moved at some time...thanks for correcting me.--MONGO 17:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Np, errors happen. It was the reaction from the user that worried me ;) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)