User talk:MONGO/Archive12

SoftPaleColors
Since Grafikm brought SoftPale to the noticeboard, I started a discussion of your indef block, WP:ANI#A plausible sockpuppet / Request for community block review. As I said on the arb talk page, the case is not a reason to start a Mongo pile-on, and the block was unrelated to ED, so I thought it should be reviewed at ANI. I was going to wait for SoftPale to let me know his intentions, but since Grafikm started the ball rolling, I posted the unblock request there. I see your logic, but it's probably better to review at ANI than in the Arb case. Hope this is not too much of a problem. Thatcher131 (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Signature
How can I personalize my user signature so it looks nice and bright? Is there a guideline that explains this? Regards, Ya ya ya ya ya ya 20:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You'll notice I have made zero alterations to my username signature, so best to ask someone that has a signature that you like the looks of to see how they did it...but also read this.--MONGO 20:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Ultramarine at it again on Capitalism
I thought unprotection was premature. Her first action, as I would have thought, was inserting the same chart that at least a half dozen other editors have opposed both as not being relevant to the article and as violating WP:NOR (and that no one else supports). I'm pretty sure that as long as it is unprotected, she'll make the same change 3 times (but not 4 times) in every 24 hour period. LotLE × talk 20:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Mirror Vax vandalism
At Template:AfdAnons. I would appreciate it if you would take a look at his entries on that template, and consider a block. Thanks. Morton devonshire 18:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Banff
I have restored the FAC nomination, as I'll be around to address any concerns. --Aude (talk contribs) 03:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Please userfy Kelsey Jarrell
At 05:28, 3 September 2006 MONGO (talk • contribs • [ page moves ] • block user • [ block log ]) deleted "Kelsey Jarrell" (CSD A7). This was perfectly reasonable, but I would have been tempted to usefy the article, since it seems like a harmless autobiography. You might want to restore it to the user's user page. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Looked like a vanity page, but I have moved it to the editor's talkpage.--MONGO 05:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, please point out to me...
Hi, we haven't met yet so let me take this opportunity to thank you for your contributions and efforts to improve wikipedia. I'm puzzled by your recent reversions of each edit I have made to the collapse of the WTC article. Please help ? Starting with: "The combined effects of the airplane impacts and subsequent fires caused the buildings to collapse. The impacts severed load bearing columns and dislodged fireproofing from the structural steel. Heat from the fires then gradually weakened the structures, causing the floors to sag and the perimeter columns to bow inwards. The towers collapsed abruptly when the perimeter walls finally buckled. Once the collapse was initiated, the enormous weight of the portion of the towers above the impact areas overwhelmed the load bearing capacity of the structures beneath them. Total collapse was then inevitable."

Since you removed the citation tags from this and several other passages, could you please point out to me where the references are for the following being factual assertions rather than opinions? thanks... (My point is this, that all of the sources I see referenced regarding these details cite these as opinions rather than facts. If there is no source stating these are facts, I would like to introduce text to the effect that these are opinions, or conclusions or whatever would be the appropriate way of describing them.) Also, could you explain to me why it is 'unneeded' to include that the woman standing in the hole is alive? And why it is unnecessary to point out that this is not a mere gash, but the hole in the building through which the aircraft passed? Plainly we can see she is alive, but remember that captions and alt text are expected to make sense to the blind as well as those who can see.
 * 1) effects of the airplane impacts and subsequent fires caused the buildings to collapse
 * 2) Heat ...weakened the structures, causing the floors to sag and the perimeter columns to bow inwards.
 * 3) the enormous weight...overwhelmed the load bearing capacity
 * 4) Total collapse was then inevitable.

Thanks, I appreciate the time you've already devoted to this, and I apologise for using more of it. User:Pedant 10:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason you can't contribute more constructively than by just adding fact tags all over the place and you've been around long enough to know this. Much of the information is in other places in the article. I think adding to the image in question the fact that she is "alive" is self explanatory.--MONGO 19:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Boundary Waters Canoe Area
Hello Mongo. I’m suggesting a reorganization of sections within Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Given your interest in wilderness areas and your past contributions to this article I thought you might be interested in expressing your views at Talk:Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Thanks. Kablammo 18:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your immediate response and contributions. Kablammo 19:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Didn't mean to sound insulting
I suppose I am as familiar with Masssiveegos' editing as anyone, so perhaps I expect that others will be aware of his patterns to the level I am. Hope you don't misinterpret my comments as anything other than suggestions that explain why many have zero patience for him anymore...but that is why I didn't block him myself.--MONGO 08:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your nice note, Mongo. I share your concerns about this user, and I appreciate that you took the time to leave me a note on my talk page. It seems we disagree on some things, but rest assured I know you are a fine user and a good admin, as are all who have been involved in this debate. I have been at the "zero patience" limit myself, so I can sympathize. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester  08:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Jones
Hi Mongo. I'm sure you are aware of the "edit war" that has been going on at the S.J. article. Well, before you unprotected, Tom B. asked for the consensus of editors re: changes he wanted to make. No matter how the votes are counted, the majority of editors (even some on "his" side of the issue), opined that the status quo was preferable to the edits he was suggesting. He then went on and spent the entire day attempting to edit the article to fit his POV. I have, after comparing the edits made, reverted the article back to the incarnation which was favored by the majority of editors. I am concerned, with 9/11 approaching, that this article is going to continue to be a "war-ground". I see that Peephole has requested protection and, since you are an admin, I was wondering if you think the article should be re-protected? It seems this may be preferable to the article continually going through huge shifts. Thanks for your time, Levi P. 02:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Categories
Thanks for your note about categories. I think I've got it now. --Droll 08:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Locator Dot problems
There are a couple locator dots out there. Image:Locator Dot.gif (see Bryce Canyon National Park) seems to be working okay -- but Image:Locator Dot.svg (see Green Cay National Wildlife Refuge) has a problem. The background is supposed to be transparent, but for some reason no longer is. It does not seem to be a problem with the image itself, as it has not been modified in some time, and worked a couple weeks ago. My guess is it is some kind of browser or wikipedia-wide issue -- but that is as far as my expertise goes. You will have to ask elsewhere.

As far as my presence on Wikipedia, I have changed my habits drastically based on available time -- just don't have much of it. I will use it as a reference, and occasionally write a brief entry, but I am not contributing as much as I used to, nor keeping track of articles I have started/contributed to. &mdash; Eoghanacht  talk 13:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

CSD I9 deletions
Hi, I noticed that you have been deleting images tagged with NowCommons. However, can I just ask that you check usage on en.wiki before you delete the image. For example Image:Hurricane Bonnie.gif was still used in 2 articles, before deletion; CSD I9 states it may only be speedied if "If the image is available on Commons under a different name than locally, it must not be used on any local page whatsoever." If you are deleting dupes like that can you please first orphan the en.wp image? At the very least, ensure that in the deletion reason you give the filename of the commons version, or else other editors will have a painful time tracking it down. Thanks.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Must have missed that one, as I generally do include the new file name and or orphan the image and replace it with the newer one from commons.--MONGO 18:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica
Hi MONGO, obviously I can't discuss the deletion of Encyclopedia Dramatica, so I wanted to understand why it was deleted by talking with you (or somone else if you want). You said it was an "attack site". Even if it is an "attack site", how does a notable "attack site" violate Wikipedia's inclusion policy? Thanks! -AlexJohnc3 My Talk Page 19:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The article did not pass our policies of Verifiablity because it couldn't be reliably referenced to a point in which inclusion of the article was notable. It therefore was nonnotable.--MONGO 19:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you answer the rest of my previous question too? And how does WP:V allow for deletion of an article? I thought that applied to the information presented in an article, couldn't the unsourced information just be removed? As for being nonnotable, I already addressed Encyclopedia Dramatica's notablility, and so did many others (if you want me to repeat myself and look through the old discussion, that's fine too). -AlexJohnc3 My Talk Page 21:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have yet to see anyone demonstrate, by following our policies and guideleines, that ED was notable enough to remain on Wikipedia as an article. As an attack website, I strongly support removing any links to the website here immediately. Each deletion nomination is a discussion, and if the discussion fails to demonstrate that an article is notable, then it is deleted. The closing admin on the deletion nomination stated that the arguments that the article was notable were weak. The world isn't just black and white...there are grey areas, and what matters most is what makes Wikipedia a better place...I think a large majority of folks believed that having an article about ED was more harmful to our project than it was beneficial.--MONGO 21:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, Wikipedia is not a democracy, although I disagree with a "large majority of folks" believing that the article should be removed, regardless of that, I know of no rules that require articles to be deleted without any reason based solely on a majority. If you'd explain why it's more harmful than beneficial, that would be nice. A great example of an attack site is the GNAA. Why do they have an article and what Wikipedia policies support "attack websites" from being excluded in the project? As for your first sentence, does that mean you want me to give examples of why Encyclopedia Dramatica is notable enough to have its own article? It would be nice if you were to more directly address my questions too, thanks. AlexJohnc3 (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know if a notable attack site violates Wiki policies for inclusion...that would depend on the situation on a case by case examination...can the GNAA be verified...yes, they can. The ED article had a few external links, and not one of them was substantive enough to demonstrate verifiablity. All I can do is point you to policy pages, which I imagine you are aware of already. I do not know of a policy which ensures that websites that attack wikipedia or it's editors is to not have an article here. There are a few examples such as wikipediareview and Brandt's hivemind site that do not have articles on wiki, maybe mainly due to their focus of wikipedia editor harassment, but I would say neither should have an article for the same reasons that ED shouldn't, and that is because they fail to be verifiable.--MONGO 22:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand exactly, an article needs to have verifiable facts, but the site an article is about does not have to follow WP:V. All information regarding Encyclopedia Dramatica that did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy in the article should have been removed. I don't know what was in the article, of course, but the information that shouldn't have been on Wikipedia could have just been removed. Right now I'm not sure if you are saying an article that relates to attacking Wikipedia or other websites is allowed to have an article. I've never heard of the websites you mentioned, but wikipediareview seems fairly notable and I've heard of Daniel Brandt before (who is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article apparently). I doubt they don't have articles on the grounds that they are against Wikipedia, and if they do that's not a good reason unless Wikipedia has a policy that states otherwise. --AlexJohnc3 (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with MONGO. We are open to criticism, but to give publicity to a website that exists solely to disparage the volunteer workers on our own project would seem to be taking it too far. --Guinnog 23:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the point I've been trying to make for ages--look at the content on ED. The WP stuff is like a fraction of it. 30 articles tops? Out of almost 4000. How does that mean that the site exists solely to trash WP? rootology  ( T ) 23:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia Dramatica appears to be about Internet memes more than anything. If it has some articles you don't agree with, point me to where I can find any policy that allows one to delete an article based on its subject's content. Wikipedia is not censored for websites that have been created to be anti-Wikipedia, even though that's not why Encyclopedia Dramatica was created. I just want to know why Encyclopedia Dramatica had to be deleted, there's no policies it violated that couldn't be fixed, a rewrite could have always been done if the sourcing problem was that bad. --AlexJohnc3 (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There’s one really big reason that ED should not have an article on Wikipedia: It sucks. Big time, as Dick Cheney would say. Oh, and did I mention it isn’t funny? Not even remotely. Uncyclopedia, now that’s funny. Encyclopedia Dramatica – just pathetic and sad. Smoke that, dude. Morton devonshire 21:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Good job providing yet another example of why I think Encyclopedia Dramatica was wrongly deleted. You're not even in this discussion, but I'll respond to your comment anyways. It doesn't matter if it's funny, it exists and it's notable. Funniness or "suckiness" isn't related to Wikipedia's inclusion policies I believe, but correct me if I'm wrong. AlexJohnc3 (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You're wrong, and its still pathetic and sad. See WP:BALLS.  Morton devonshire 00:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Until their site gets more press, it's a non issue. Of course, when/if they do, I have to admit I will look forward on principle to it's immediate recreation should they gain notability/noteriety in the press to merit inclusion. rootology  ( T ) 00:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Rootology, there are many website (even Wiki) related articles on Wikipedia that are much less notable than Encyclopedia Dramatica. I see no reason for not having an article on it now. Example: Yellowikis. Morton devonshire, how much you like a website has nothing to do with WP:BALLS nor it's inclusion on Wikipedia. An article about Encyclopedia Dramatica could easily conform to NPOV and WP:V. Of course, Encyclopedia Dramatica will grow even larger to provide even less doubt that it's definately notable as Rootology said, but notability doesn't appear to be the problem here. --AlexJohnc3 (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me be serious for a moment, and say this. ED is not referenced in mainstream reliable sources, and as such, doesn't meet WP:WEB and WP:NOT reqs.  That's why it was deleted.  And it still isn't funny.  Morton devonshire 01:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Response from User:Tom harrison's talk page

 * He was being disruptive. He was responding to every single comment and numerous admins made it clear he was being disruptive.--MONGO 21:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * " He was being disruptive because numerous admins said he was being disruptive, " is a nonsense argument. Note the preceding was a paraphrasing, not a direct quote, of MONGO's comments. -- N  scheffey (T/C) 21:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Then if they are all wrong, I suppose the block was a bad idea...especially since there must be some admin cabal that refused to overturn Tom harrison's block?--MONGO 21:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Multiple people being wrong about something, even admins, is not unheard of. -- N  scheffey (T/C) 21:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I admit I am wrong often...I never claim infallibility, and admit possible bias as far as Badlydrawnjeff is concerned, however, looking at the discussion on Jeff's usertalk and on AN/I...I think he was arguing with just about everyone, so my perception is that he was an army of one, was acting in a knee-jerk fashion and being disruptive.--MONGO 21:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I also wanted to state that you put in quotes above, a comment I did not make...I stated that, "He was being disruptive. He was responding to every single comment and numerous admins made it clear he was being disruptive."...I did not state that, "He was being disruptive because numerous admins said he was being disruptive"...if you're going to quote me, please don't misrepresent the words I type.--MONGO 21:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I thouroughly apologize for appearing to misquote you. I thought reprinting your comment above my own would show I was paraphrasing, but regardless you are correct, and I have stricken the quotes and added a note. I do understand people's frustration with Jeff's continued arguments, but I think the solutions that have been attempted are counter-productive and not in the spirit of Wikipedia. I appreciate your reply, and perhaps you would be interested in commenting on a discussion I have started at WP:BLOCK. Thanks again. -- N  scheffey  (T/C) 22:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

RNP
Hey! I was just looking through the article on Redwood N. Park and saw that you seem to be heavily involved in it. Well, I work for a hydrology/geomorphology company and we work all throughout RNP (I especially work on Lost Man Creek). I guess there is no real reason for telling you this, except I saw your name in an unexpected place and thought it a coincidence worth mentioning. Anyway, if there is ever anything that "a man on the ground" could help clear up, let me know. Cheers Levi P. 03:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Apology
You may never see this edit, but I mentioned your name in a recent AfD you voted on. I removed the offensive comment. My apologies sir, happy editing. Travb (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I told you it would be only a matter of time before an admin threatened me
Well I told you it would be only a matter of time before an admin threatened me. I will address all of your allegations on the ANI. I was done with the arbitration, the message I sent was ending it, but you couldn't let it go could you? I guess calling me a troll is being "excessively zealous" whereas my actions are bootable. Why is there one standard for yourself, and another standard for everyone else? I asked you pointed questions on the arbitration, and you called me names, alleged that I was a "buddy" of the person, brought up irrelevant edit histories, and you did not follow: WP:AGF WP:Civil WP:Consensus. Travb (talk) 05:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments
Thank you for your comments, I am going to archive your comments as per Talk page: etiquette.

Please WP:AGF and refrain from calling me a troll. I would appreciate an apology.

In addition, you state that I meant you when I said: "season[sic] POV warrior". The talk page has no evidence of this. I included absolutly no names to avoid a ANI and anymore hard feelings, I wanted to let it go, but now because of your ANI I have been dragged back in. Although you assume that I stated you were a "season[sic] POV warrior", you have repeatedly explicity called me a troll, or used the adjective calling my actions "trolling".

"In the last 24 hours, not less than 40 comments and edits have been made to my arbcom case by you, and I think you are harassing me." How many comments have you had on the arbcom case? I notice that each section has a "Comment by others:" subsection. Do I qualify as an "other". Are only people who support you postion supposed to comment on the Arbcom? "my personal opinion" is that I have the right to comment as an "other", "that is my opinion and I am entitled to it." But unlike your lack of evidence on the Arbcom page, my personal opinion is supported by evidence: in this case wikipedia policy. "other" means that "other" people, not involved in the ArbCom are welcome to comment on the ArbCom, even if those comments do not support your position.

Now that we are scutinizing each others edits again, in regards to the "40 comments" you have probably noticed go through my edits to build your ANI case against me, that I often change my words, and rewrite my words. I never use the "show preview" button. Further:
 * 1) What is the official number of edits before an editor is harrasing another editor?
 * 2) Could your ANI be considered harassment, especially when I had clearly indicated I no longer was going to be involved in the arbcom?
 * 3) If I make 40 edits on your ArbCom in response to your 40 edits, which was the case, is this harrassment?

I am sorry, but your argument simply has no merit.

But this "40 comments" is really another side note, yet another diversion you have created from the main point:
 * I have every right to comment on the ArbCom, as an "other".

"If this doesn't end, I will be forced to write up an Rfc on your actions."
 * It already had, before you called your ANI.

I have made my point on your ArbCom page, and I was willing to move on. I am still willing to move on, and put this disagreement behind us, unless rootology requests my assistance.

Best wishes, Travb (talk) 07:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry you had to deal with this user MONGO, I have had to deal with them before, you can see they dont understand brevity, many times when someone writes such long books they arent actually writing anything important. I have never seen a user apologize as much as some that have commented on your talk page. Dont get pulled into any drama, passive agressive. -- zero faults   ' '' 08:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah...thanks...I've never seen such a long winded response at AN/I.--MONGO 09:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

My mea culpa
As you suggested, I apologized to Fred today: You were 100% right about Fred, and I was 100% wrong.
 * User_talk:Fred_Bauder.

I will repeat again what I have said many times before: it is wrong for Encyclopedicadramatica to post private information about you. No one should go through such harrassment.

On a completly unrelated note:

RE: Articles_for_deletion/Bob_Mcilvaine FYI, I think the 99% of the 9/11 conspiracy theories are total bullshit too. I am holding out on the Flight-93-being-shot-down-theory. If you have any good wikilinks on the Flight-93-being-shot-down-theory, which cover both pro and con, please let me know. Travb (talk) 10:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: Your comments on my talk page, I am archiving them. Thanks for the link, I am looking at it now.
 * Lets both put this unfortunate misunderstanding behind us. We see things differently, but more importantly, we share some fundamental common beliefs:
 * We both believe in and love the idea of Wikipedia.
 * Rootology is gone forever. He will never be able to harrass you again using that handle. I am happy about this. In the end, once again, Wikipedia consensus, and the Wisdom of Crowds worked incredibly well.   Travb (talk) 11:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Lightning picture
Congratulations on Image:Picture 006.JPG, it is excellent. I've tried many times to photograph lightning strikes without success and am rather envious of you for your success.--Guinnog 20:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism (always)
Hmmm... Ultramarine seems to have headed off to mess with something else. But we have a new editor, Economizer, who has become intent on putting a bunch of POV stuff into the lead (and never touching anything outside the lead). I wonder if it mightn't be a good time for another quick article protection on Capitalism. LotLE × talk 20:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much. Do you know if there is something weird going on with protection and edit history.  I just noticed the article itself no longer shows up in my watchlist's recent changes (the talk page does though).  I can view the history and all, just not from my watchlist.


 * Btw. Is this pushing it to ask about the {sectOR} tag that Economizer stuck at the top right before your protection. That just seems like the wrong tag to have there.  I'm happy to chat about OR issues on the talk page, of course, but I'm not sure about that template at top.  Oh well, maybe it's just best to leave locked as locked.  LotLE × talk  21:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It's Over for "Truth Professor" Jones
BYU has placed the good professor on paid administrative leave. See. Morton devonshire 21:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoa....it must absolutely be because of the U.S. Government trying to cover up the truth....NOT.--MONGO 21:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit request for Jones article
Hi Mongo. That was quick. Thanks. But the idea was also to delte the criticism section, which is where most of the material really came from, and is now redundant and messy. I'm going to mention it also on the talk page to see if there is consensus.--Thomas Basboll 22:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that.
I didn't know. Maybe some troll was disguising himself as you?  Sir Crazyswordsman  08:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe you, but I doubt the admins there will perform a CheckUser, since those with that power are almost never around anymore. And even if they were around, they don't like their buttons pushed. (read How to get banned for some more information).  Sir Crazyswordsman  08:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Full disclosure
Letting you know that I lengthened your block of DaffyDuck619 to indefinite, only to compel him to discuss; I'm letting you know since you put in your 31 hour *seconds* before I put in my indefinite. :) --Golbez 08:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem...I checked his block log after I blocked and I saw he has been a big time repeat offender--MONGO 08:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Complete(?) list of 9/11 Conspiracy AfDs
Given the sheer number of recent 9/11 conspiracy AfDs, I thought it would be useful to create a list. See User:GabrielF/911TMCruft. Thought you might be interested. Please feel free to add anything I might have missed.

GabrielF 01:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you do this?
Hi. Regarding a grand scheme of mine, I was wondering if it was possible for an admin to edit an IP's monobook.js, since it says it is protected. If not, do you know if the IP can edit it? Thanks. Xiong Chiamiov   :: contact ::   01:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

MONGO is the best
Thanks for all your help MONGO you are definitely a counter weight to the insanity. God Bless you. LoveMonkey 01:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem--MONGO 05:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sock
This is no good. You don't need to protect us from input. Almost all of us have checkuser. Fred Bauder 18:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

spam blacklist
I noticed you being harassed by ED trolls. That site needs to get on the spam blacklist at the meta. I'd like to help get it on somehow. Anomo 01:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong
All things being equal I'd probably still smack ya around. Toodles! :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat/Sep11/Yeah I agree...
... -- Cat out 09:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I couldn't think of anything to say that would be appropriate, so I just have some dates. Best wishes.--MONGO 09:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Feel free to use that template btw. -- Cat out 09:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

9/11
"locks everyone out of wiki" What do you mean? --Golbez 09:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's user error on my part, but when I clicked the link, the page froze and I had to close my browser...I tried it again and the same thing happened, so I reverted him...guess I should mention this on his page?--MONGO 09:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Pictures
On commons, I have uploaded a category of photos: commons:Category:Fifth_anniversary_of_the_September_11%2C_2001_attacks. Do have higher resolution ones, but not the time to prepare them now for upload. Nor the time, to see if/where they might be useful. Anyway, they are there and will add more later. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 10:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you.--MONGO 10:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Pictures are currently at Flickr. We ran into Dylan and Alex here, and were less than civil.  Alex's behavior was particularly outrageous, as were some of the regular ny911truthers.  We didn't come here to argue today, but things got quite heated at times.  Well, all these pics on Flickr are tagged with "loosechange" and other such terms, with links to debunking sites that dispell the myths and lies.  Will see about uploading some here. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 04:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice, thank you.--MONGO 05:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:vandalism
Well, crap.

I was trying to get this out of the article, but Laurenjf had already edited over it by the time I got to the page, meaning that her good edit was over the jibberish and I'd have to go dig it out manually. (It's been insane for the past 8 hrs on RC patrol. How insane? AOL had to be blocked for an hour.) For some reason I couldn't select just a section of the article to edit (the problem was in the 'Government response') so I had to use my browser 'find' command to find 'abcdefghi...'. It took me a couple of minutes, but I found the jibberish, removed it, put in the edit summary you saw, and saved. I honestly thought I'd get an 'edit conflict' message telling me I'd have to go dig through the article again - but I didn't, so I took a big sigh of relief and moved on, and a few minutes later I got your message. All I was trying to do was get 'abcdefg..'-something out of the thing.

Forgive me if that doesn't make sense, but Omi8 and I are pretty tired. I didn't have time to get up to go to the bathroom for a couple of hours. Baseball Baby  12:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Sorry I kinda ranted (eek!) - no good deed goes unpunished, does it? ;-) I just knew that fix wasn't going as smoothly as it seemed. I hope the page doesn't have to be protected or semi-protected and that everyone plays nice today.


 * I wasn't by myself all night; I had plenty of partners who had nothing better to do but sit here and clean up after vandals who had even less to do than we did - did that make sense? ...LunaSantin, Omi8, Ryulong, AmiDaniel and I all played "guess the name of the next AOL sockpuppet pretending to be Randy Moss/try to be the first one to ID him in IRC", which was pretty fun until he stopped bothering to create user accounts... LunaSantin got to do his first AOL range block, so watching him squirm over that thought was a group exercise (that's when we sent out for the six pizzas and charged them to Jimbo)... I got my 37th and 38th user page vandalisms... and for the longest time I couldn't figure out why Rudolf Vrba was being hit over and over all night long, so after about 3 hours I finally had to ask and felt pretty silly after I did. (Tells you how often I look at the main page, doesn't it? Gotta make a note to do that more than once a week.) The September 11 articles weren't really being hit that hard last night, but I can already tell it's going to be a wacky Wikiday. I'm about ready for bed – Omi8 has been at it almost as long as I have and he may be seeing spots or something.


 * BTW, before I go off – my husband said that NPR aired an unflattering story or item or something about Wikipedia on Morning Edition this morning, so maybe somebody should see what that was about. Not me, 'cause I'm going to be asleep. :-D Have a good day - Baseball  Baby  12:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Doing what I can to think of other things today
Here in nyc you can't get away from the 5-year memorializing. I'm trying not to remember. in any case, here's a photo I took a few weeks back, from Long Island. The sea misses you! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

9-11 image
Sorry, but the picture as cutlined made no sense. How about foreground and background? The smoking building is to the viewers "left." Otherwise it needs to state that the smoking tower is to the right of the foreground tower in real estate terms. The cutline needs work.--Cberlet 22:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the south tower was the 2nd hit, it is on the left side of the picture. The north tower is on the right. This picture was from the north. You can tell the north tower is in the foreground b/c it was from the north, and because the north tower and it's smoke overlaps the south tower. --KCMODevin 17:51, 11 September 2006
 * Hi, thanks, I know.--MONGO 03:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

POV Fork?
You, on the VfD for Controlled-Demolition Theory (9/11 Conspiracy Theory) stated as your reason for deleting it as it was a POV fork. POV forking is when you fork off an article in order to avoid the NPOV policy; this is not my intent in making the article. I didn't write the majority of the content in it; it was split off from the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory page because it was too large and this was 32kB on its own. It contains criticism and is well sourced; it has 40-odd sources. The reason this material hasn't been taken off the main page is because one person complained when I acted bodly and tried to split it off, so I didn't delete it from that page and summarize it. Once that is resolved, it will be summarized on and linked to by the main page.

You claim the original article is too big; it is. This is my way of fixing it. It isn't poorly sourced, and the fact that most of it is silly is not relevant - what is relevant is that it is sourced and a lot of people believe it. Creationism is silly, but there's dozens of pages related to it. According to recent polls, more people disbelieve the official 9/11 report than disbelieve evolution. Please reevaluate your position and vote for keeping the split; the articles are well sourced and are relevant to society. Even though they're about crazy theories, when a huge number of people believe it, it is noteworthy and this is worthy of several pages on Wikipedia as much as Creationism is. Titanium Dragon 06:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I voted the way I want...don't hassle me about it. If I had my way, the main article on that nonsense would be only a few paragraphs and I don't care what a few polls have to say..it's not my fault some people wish to believe the ridiculous.--MONGO 06:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Question I received about the backcountry
This may seem like a strange question, but at least it isn't an admin matter. I figure you might be able to help because you're knowledgeable about wilderness and backcountry stuff.

I received an e-mail from someone who's working on the French Wikipedia. He thought that since I worked on the Backcountry article that I'd know the answer. (Actually, I just gave it categories, but now I'm curious about the answer.) He was asking if a remote island, isolated and rarely visited, could be classified as backcountry. My first thought was that it wouldn't really be backcountry, since backcountry is usually accessed from more populated places. On the other hand, a place like Isle Royale National Park would qualify as backcountry, because it's roadless, has no permanent population, and is only accessible by hiking. As another example, would some islands of the Florida Keys, not accessible by roads and having no permanent population, count as backcountry?

Also, could you use terms such as "backcountry sailing" if you're exploring the islands by sailboat?

I might be starting to answer my own question, but I'd be interested to hear your opinion. Thanks. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 13:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as National Parks in the United States, backcountry refers to areas that cannot be accessed by a road vehicle, or, to be more precise, areas that the public is not permitted to access by road vehicle. Therefore, all visitor centers, lodges and campgrounds that one can drive to are in the front-country. When Congress decided in 1964 to start creating Wilderness areas on already federally protected lands, the objective was to set aside areas that were remote from the front-country and to preserve them so that further modifications and improvements would not happen, thereby ensuring that no vehicles of a motorized nature (including bicycles), oil, gas, mineral extraction and logging would not happen, and no buildings or other modifications would be permitted...so Wilderness is the ultimate backcountry. The term backcountry is best applied in the United States as all areas that the public may not drive their vehicle to to access. I would consider that an island one must sail to to get to is backcountry, unless that island is so built up, that it is too tame to quaify otherwise.--MONGO 20:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Feedback
The following comment by me was brought over from the admin noticeboard

Who are the contributors that are leaving for fear of being blocked for speaking their minds?--MONGO 22:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am. Here's my views of the matter. -- Ghirla -трёп-  07:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am a friend to Tony Sidaway, and I do not know all that has happened to you. I am well aware of your contributions and I deeply appreciate them all. Feel free to explain to me what troubles you as I am not aware of the entire situation, but feel free to speak openly here or via email if you prefer.--MONGO 07:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The following comment by me was brought over from the admin noticeboard
 * What, like 40,000 edits and you want to propose a community block? I find this to be an effort to "out" another Wikipedian pretty disgusting.--MONGO 22:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And how many of these to main space? OK, I will send you a letter to discuss the situation. -- Ghirla -трёп-  07:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand. There is a definite divide between article writers and those who are focused on policy and procedures.--MONGO 07:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Not that much of a divide. I have about 8000 edits in article space, which probably puts me comfortably into the top 5 percentiles of article editors, but even saying that is just falling into the silly pissing game.  We're all here to produce an encyclopedia, and nobody who has shown a commitment to Wikipedia deserves to be attacked as routinely and in such open and unashamed bad faith as Ghirlandajo attacks anyone who doesn't edit articles as much as he does. --Tony Sidaway 08:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * My point is mainly that we all have our strengths and weaknesses. Some simply are better writers and some are simply better at the policy and procedures. I feel that when I try to do both, I get spread too thin, so I asked Ghirlandajo to explain so I can understand. As someone who really would like to see all these parties find a resolution that doens't mean arbcom or something else, I'll be more than happy to mediate. I have a fondness for all the major players in this ongoing issue, so I am completely neutral.--MONGO 08:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Please don't forget to check your mail. -- Ghirla -трёп-  14:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiLove!
<div style="float:center;border-style:solid;border-color:blue;background-color:AliceBlue;border-width:1px;text-align:left;padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Here's a plate of mangoes for you! Mangoes somehow promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others using Template:smile! Happy editing! --<b style="background:red; color:#FFFF00;">TBC</b> TaLk?!? 22:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Get it? A mango for MONGO? Anyhow, you've contributed a lot of great edits to Wikipedia, so keep up the good work! :D (another ackward attempt at comedy by <b style="background:red; color:#FFFF00;">TBC</b> TaLk?!? )

Crossing the Line
Peephole and I could use your help with an Admin who is editing one of the conspiracy cruft articles. I could be mistaken, but I suspect that he is somehow invested in the outcome (I am choosing my words carefully here). He has now threatened both of us with "further action", including blocking in Peephole's case, for edits that fall well within the bounds of proper editing. See and. Rather than get into an AN/I, I think a few gentle words from you could help calm the situation, as he won't seem to let the issue go. Thanks. Morton devonshire 01:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's be civil
Hi Mongo, if your comments were mainly directed at me you should have taken them to my talk page, where you are always welcome. It is unclear what the citation issue has to do with my suggestion that we trim the construction section, so its a new topic. Unless, of course, you're simply trying to get some sort of jab in. That's not like you. Your citation issue is substantial, and interesting, but there is (explicitly) no policy on it, so you will need to win consensus. To be honest, I still don't know enough about the various templates to be sure that I will be of much help in standardizing that aspect of the article. I don't mind you making changes in that direction. That said, I can understand what the policy means when it mentions that people find the templates "annoying"; it makes it more difficult to edit the prose. Perhaps you know of some way to get around that problem?--Thomas Basboll 09:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh? I don't have to "win" consensus to ask editors to keep the article standardized...it's really quite simple.--MONGO 12:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it's what the policy you cite states. But, no, of course you don't have to win consensus to ask people to do something. In focusing (and then refocusing) the remark in my direction it just looked a bit like a reproach for something I had failed already to see was my duty. I think I understand your intention now.--Thomas Basboll 13:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Useless link?
You've just removed a "useless link" which contained a page reference to the NIST report that identifies the exact source of the quote. Was that intentional?--Thomas Basboll 12:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Where? What report...? All I saw was a word and a page number...that's not a reference. Find the reference, use the cite template and fix it accordingly.--MONGO 12:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * NCSTAR1 is the formal designation of (the main volume of) the final NIST report (a familiar reference in the article.) Surely you are not proposing to delete all the sourcing that you can't immediately decode, or, worse, that [does not use] the (optional) template. The reference is incomplete, but not (to my knowledge) wrong. It is more informative than nothing. The quotation is now not just somewhat obscurely sourced; it is unsourced. That's an improvement?--Thomas Basboll 13:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Notability (books)
Hi, you were recently involved in a debate where Notability (books) was cited. This proposal is under development and would benefit from being assessed by more editors. Perhaps you would be interested in expressing an opinion at the project talk page. NB This does not have any bearing on the previous debate in which you were involved. JackyR | Talk 19:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for deleting the page. I was wondering what the rules are for fraudulently tagged images. Incidentally, I have blocked the uploader for it, and for creating vandalistic attack pages. Hope I was not too harsh. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If the image is less than 48 hours old (since uploaded), and especially if it is deliberately tagged wrong (in this case a U.S. Government tag on a standard photograph), it is a speedy delete...I think!? Oh well...no problem. Best wishes.--MONGO 11:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * At any rate, a valid speedy. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the week long block to that IP. It's appreciated :-) --HappyCamper 04:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * My pleasure...the next time he gets like that, hopefully whoever catches it will make it for a month.--MONGO 04:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I looked at all of the edits from that IP, and simply put, most of them don't help to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. --HappyCamper 04:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, multiple warnings and two previous blocks, so a week is being too kind I think. Oh well.--MONGO 04:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss on appropriate page
How can you say that we discussed it when those are two different pages and they have completely different extent. Your arguments do not apply to that page (and didn't apply to the other one, neither). See you on Talk:7 World Trade Center --SalvNaut 19:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff
9/11 conspiracy absurdities. Unfortunately I had to prod it. :-( I thought you might enjoy reading it before it's gone. Weregerbil 11:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe move it to the userspace of the person who created it. But, will check it out...thanks.--MONGO 11:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Best interests
MONGO: In response to your note on my talk page, my post on Tony Sidaway's usertalk page was intended to be supportive of his request for cooling off on the part of everyone involved in the current round of heated discussions. I had no intention of being critical of him or anyone else in any fashion whatsoever. I certainly did not remotely anticipate that the discussion would develop as it did. Since my intentions seem to have been misconstrued, you can rest assured that I have no intention of pursuing the matter. Thanks for your input. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Gannon
Welcome to the Gannon wars. I and a few others have been trying to get the article not to label Gannon as a prostitute, since it is a crime and there is no evidence he ever actually engaged in prostitution. One admin has been obstructing us bringing it into BLP compliance from day one. So I'm glad to see another admin get involved with the proper perspective. Check out List of famous prostitutes and courtesans too. Crockspot 17:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

admin rollback
Why did you use admin rollback to undo the formatting change to my own post? Per policy that is only for undoing vandalism. Also, you will stop immediately refactoring others' work to AfD per policy. · XP  · 13:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I was rolling back your vandalism...if you persist to attempt to revert my own reverted comments, you'll be blocked.--MONGO 13:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not replace your comments, I quoted them, which is quite allowed. Please take it to AN/I if you disagree. · XP  · 13:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I had removed them myself, so your replacing them is just asking for trouble. You POV pushers keep it up and it will be the end of your editing rights on this project.--MONGO 13:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm no POV pusher, read my editing history. I'm simply arguing based on policy, and editing thus. Pleaes AGF and do not make threats to ban based on things that are not policy violations. Good day. · XP  · 13:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Linking to a previous discussion repeatedly is not good faith. That discussion has no bearing on the current one and yes, you are a POV pusher and have also violated my reversion of my own edit and WP:3RR.--MONGO 14:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Afd policy states you cannot remove others' comments, ergo my edits violate nothing whilst mine were undoing policy vios. Sorry. · XP  · 14:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Wrong...you are edit warring over a link to a completely outside of policy previous discussion, which has nothing to do with the current one...and you twice replaced a comment I made which I had striken myself in an attempt to deliberately harass me.--MONGO 14:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you read the other AfD? The AfD was for BOTH. · XP  · 14:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read it...so what? THIS is a new discussion and the previous one has nothing to do with this one. Okay...let's see what happens next.--MONGO 14:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Your tone
Hi Mongo, I'm sure you know your policies well enough stay formally inside them. However, your accusations on the controlled demolition AfD that some of us are only Wikipedians in the interest of pushing a 9/11 CT POV are now too much. At this point, I'm just informing you that I object to your tone and to the content (however implicit) of your remarks when they target the intentions of Wikipedians who are for the most part simply trying to introduce material they sincerely think is relevant to the articles. They are sometimes mistaken, to be sure. Everyone makes mistakes, and no one is perfectly NPOV. Your accusations that "we" are intentionally (i.e., according to our "agenda") misinforming readers are both baseless and untrue. We can't both be right about this issue, and over the next few weeks I'm going to be pursuing ways of resolving this issue about your sense of my motivations, and those of others who want to see this articles develop. If your actions and remarks in regard to my editing are in the spirit of Wikipedia then I have misunderstood it seriously enough to withdraw from the project. We will see.--Thomas Basboll 17:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * My recommedation to you is to work on other things in addition to articles related to the events of 9/11, ensure that when I demand that POV articles be made NPOV you do so and not act condescendingly, , , much as you have also now done on my talkpage. It's a big wiki, so surely you have more to add than just to articles related to the events of 9/11?...if not, then I'll assume you're here for a singular purpose.--MONGO 17:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You're sticking to your guns, I see. Fair enough. A wikipedian has to start somewhere, editing things that need editing and that he knows something about. That's all I've done. You have taken my first focus as an indication of motives beyond simple curiosity and a desire to help others satisfy theirs. And you have interpreted my very first, very cautious, suggestion (on a talk page, not even as an edit) for the article on the collapse of the World Trade Center (which I have contributed to in ways that in no way push the POV that you claim is my agenda) in terms of my (not even hinted at) ideas about who was complicit in 9/11. The examples of condescension you cite were in one case nothing of the kind (just me being taken aback at your "demand" that I comply with your suggestions) and in the other two cases at best an attempt to keep things cheerful in the face of what looked on the face of it like (but couldn't possibly have been, right?) bullying. With your absolutely unhelpful (and, I think, quite helpless) demands, you set things up so that anything other than cowering would necessarily appear as condenscension. So, I thank you for your recommendation, but it simply emphasizes your presumption of bad faith on my part. That's just not nice. Keep it sunny.--Thomas Basboll 18:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't own the articles. You were hardly ever reverted while you made huge alterations to the Collapse of the World Trade Center article. When Steven E. Jones was protected, I almost always added the exact wording you wished into that article. I assume that you think we will always agree but I assure you that there is no one on wiki I always agree with, though of course, I do have some I tend to agree with more often. My general impression is that you are only interested in articles related to 9/11, but that is not my only focus. I do many article deletions, deal with vandalism, block repeat offenders, write (over 200 starts) articles, even managed to get a few featured. When I see editors working just on one small facet of wikipedia and in that circumstance oftentimes endorsing the collaboration and development of articles that are, in my honest opinion, nonsense, I have trouble assuming that their goals on wikipedia are geared towards the overall enhancement of the project. I find it in fact, a bit self serving. What gets my respect (and I know you don't care about this) is when I see someone who can make routinely good edits based on facts backed by the most reputable sources, can understand that the projects best editors are those that have no agenda, and can keep their politics out of their ability to make sound judgements about what is and what isn't encyclopedic or worthy of inclusion. I hardly "bugged" you when you made those big alterations to the Collapse of the World Trade Center article, but I was miffed when all I asked was you add the cite templates and you seemed to act as though I was being picky or something, when all I wanted was uniformity with the rest of the article. In reponse to your comment about the template taking up too much space in the editing window...I agree..see Ref reform...but until we get the developers to make the improvements, it's the best deal we got for now. There's not much more I can add to this.--MONGO 18:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I will not be the first to point out that you act like you own the controlled demolition article. In any case, you could do one more thing: you could apologize to SalvNaut, myself, and that unspecified gang of "crufters" for calling our motives into question because you, for your own personal reasons, "have trouble" believing we are acting in good faith. That really is your problem, Mongo. When you make baseless accusations it becomes mine. You make it sound like my "huge" edits on the WTC article were done to enhance my ego and that your implementation of my edits were somehow intended to please me. In both cases they were obviously just good edits (in so far as they have lasted.) I can't start 200 articles tomorrow in order to win enough your respect to avoid your insulting and obstructing behaviour today. Offence has been taken. It has been communicated to you. And, just like last time, no apology seems to be forthcoming. Since you are of course completely right that I will get no immediate emotional kick out of winning your personal respect, I am asking simply that you show me that completely impersonal sort of respect that is implicit in policies like WP:FAITH and WP:CIVIL.--Thomas Basboll 19:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You simply ask too much. I don't owe you an apology. Where's you apology to me for acting like a jerk when I asked you to stick to using standard cite templates? Move on.--MONGO 20:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I honestly didn't know you had taken offense at that. And, no, I don't believe I acted like a jerk. Certainly, the "you apologize first" approach isn't going to get us anywhere. I asked for an apology first, I might counter. But there's a difference in scale of these two complaints, wouldn't you say? Perhaps I irritated you a bit by turning what may have been a simple request (but really did sound like a harsh demand) into a consensus issue. You have accused my editing of being wholly opposed to the spirit of Wikipedia (and have falsely attributed a set of motives to my work here). This has got me thinking that "moving on" simply means closing up my account here. A simple apology from a much respected and opinion-leading Wikipedian, who can now see that he's probably violated WP:BITE (though it's fast becoming too late for me to claim I'm new at this) because he thinks anything related to 9/11 conspiracies sounds "nuts", would put my mind at ease. I don't think I want to keep working in an environment that accepts your behavior. If you yourself promised to stop, that would be great. Incivility "drives away contributors, distracts others from more important matters, and weakens the entire community. ... An apology is very much recommended when one person's perceived incivility has offended another." (WP:CIVIL) For good order: I did once say that you rock; I hope to be able to say that again sometime.--Thomas Basboll 21:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Block
I've blocked you and XP for 12 hours per. You both went over 3RR and yours was particularly egregious since it is in fact normal to note previous AfD discussions. Even it if could have been done is a less loud fashion by XP that did not at all excuse your removal of it. And your use of the rollback tool was also uncalled for. JoshuaZ 02:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I was reverting his continued efforts to troll that afd. His last attempt to add a link to a previous discussion was also reverted by a third party. JosuaZ...did you bother to read the information, that thisother editor was also in violation on another page for 3RR/ Furthermore, why the late block? I haven't even been online for some time.--MONGO 03:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out what good this block is supposed to do...I haven't been online in 10 hours almost and that 3RR report was from 12 hours before this block was applied. Did JoshuaZ bother to read that this other editor had also been edit warring on another article and in fact broke 3RR there as well...yet he gets the same block length? I've never noticed previous discussions from previous afd's posted on current afds...maybe this is routine, but that's news to me.--MONGO 04:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm looking over the relevant difs. One moment. In the meantime, note that two examples of where the previous discussions have been listed are here and here it is in fact very common on AfD and I can give you more examples if you want. JoshuaZ 04:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've unblocked you under the presumption that there will not be further edit warring over the matter. I am also unblocking XP because the block there also seems to be non-preventative in nature. JoshuaZ 04:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, to clarify one thing- I gave you the same block lengths since a) you used the rollback tool b) as an admin should have known better than to go over 3RR anyways even without rollback and c) as I pointed out above mentioning earlier AfDs is by itself a common practice. JoshuaZ 04:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I sent you an email.--MONGO 04:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Autoblocked still:I can email my IP to an admin but will not post it here}}
 * You can post the block # and we can unblock with that. :) <i style="color:#FF00FF;">~Kylu ( u | t ) </i> 05:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll email my IP to you.--MONGO 06:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 259213...can someone please reset this autoblock?--MONGO 06:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) 259213 hello....

Thanks.--MONGO 07:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Mtnbox start
So I just finished converting all the articles that used the deprecated Template:Mtnbox start. I notice you are an admin. I was thinking it might be a good idea to fix it so no one is likely to use it if that is possible. It still appears on some user pages and some Wikipedia: type pages. I did not think I should take the liberty to edit those. You can see the pages I left on this Whatlinkshere page Note that there are two other similar templates on the To Do list that I have not worked on.--Droll 05:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Badly formatted article
The article Squaw's Tit besides being poorly written and offensive is very poorly formatted. Is there some template I could use to mark it. Thanks. --Droll 06:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I would delete the entire section that starts with Squaw Tit, United States occurrences, leaving the last links and the categories if they are appropriate. I am not currently able to edit aside from this page so I can't help you much.--MONGO 06:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I deleted that section. Thanks for the speedy help. --Droll 07:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks
Hey MONGO, thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It finished with an amazing final tally of 160/4/1. I really appreciate your support. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi
I've consulted an admin about your inexplicable warning after I contributed to a talk page, I would like to discuss what your problem is but judging by your immediate issue of a final warning, and removing my warning from your talk page about removing content, i doubt you would listen to me --Frogsprog 14:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Your editing history and block log clearly indicate you are a troll. Buzz off.--MONGO 14:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * and thats a personal attack --Frogsprog 14:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep...I can't see any justice in supporting your trolling attempts by lying and stating that your edits are helpful. Go away.--MONGO 14:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Block of
Tbeatty's second statement was that Jones had been suspended for misrepresenting his research and the Daily Herald cited to support this. The article states:
 * School officials suspended Jones over concerns that his paper on the subject has not been published in traditional, peer-reviewed scientific journals

It does not say he misrepresented his research.

The article also says that Jones stated it had been peer-reviewed in the "Journal of 9/11 Studies". The university wished it to be reviewed elsewhere. There is no statement of misrepresentation. Indeed the conclusion of the article is:
 * They will determine if Jones's version of events is plausible or if he has been irresponsible in his research, either by going beyond his expertise or ignoring facts that contradicted his hypothesis.

This clearly states there is as yet no conclusion on misrepresentation or otherwise, since the purpose of the new review is to determine this.

Therefore Tbeatty's second statement is no more validated than his first.

Bearing in mind the first comment that Tbeatty made, and my response, I would have thought a sensible course would have been to have backed off, rather than made the trollish rephrasing of his initial statement with the words, "not to be confused with lying because lying is ... different", clearly implying that he thinks in this case there is no difference, i.e. essentially restating what he said before.

I hope this explains.

Tyrenius 06:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as defamatory comments go, I don't draw a great distinction where they are made, because of the Foundation sensitivity over this. As seen here google stores and retrieves user and user talk pages, and will bring up an individual's name. (The google lag means the latest comments have not been cached.) The block was preventative, but if you feel it was harsh (I don't) then I have no objection to you shortening or removing it. I think a stiff warning from you as well would be very helpful. Tyrenius 07:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. Cheers. Tyrenius 07:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Earlier block
I'm a bit busy right now, so I will take a look again sometime today or tommorrow (if it turns out no 3RR occured and you want I'll add a 1-second block noting that so it will be permanently linked in the block record). However, as I understand 3RR, it doesn't matter that the material reverted was different only that 4 reversions occured in 24 hours. As to the 10 hour issue- while I agree I should have considered that while making the block that is an enforcement issue and thus not relevant to the issue of whether there is a problem with the block in the log. In any event, I'll look at the difs as soon as I get a chance. JoshuaZ 11:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I read what you said on Joshua's page right, but you do realise that reverts don't have to be the same to qualify as a 3RRvio, right? They just have to be reverts.  Guettarda 13:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know I'm being a pain, but indeed, the one revert I did was to remove a silly comment that I had made that I had earlier removed myself and which the other fellow replaced against my wishes. Here I added the comment and here I removed it myself, and it was readded by the other guy and later I removed it since I believed he was harassing me by replacing a comment that I made that I had removed myself earlier (diff reported at AN3RR) and with the report being 12 hours bevious and also being almost 10 since I had been online...my first edit was about an hour after the block, I just think this is really a grey area.--MONGO 19:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. That makes sense.  (I know, I know, I should have looked at the diffs)  Guettarda 19:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't like being this way, and I will "eat it" gladly to avoid any further baggage as I have zero interest in taking this further as I have a lot of respect for JoshuaZ's work here...I don't even wish to label what he did as a mistake, I suppose after the poorly recieved 15 minutye block that Kelly did on me (most were not pleased and she even admitted she shouldn't have done the block), I usually work to keep as clean a record as I can. Oh well, whatever Joshua wishes to do is fine. Best wishes.--MONGO 19:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

A lively RfC you might be interested in
Talk:Jeff Gannon. Crockspot 23:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The AfD
Well played, good luck. · XP  · 06:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * XP, it's not about winning or loosing...I have always supported the policies and believe me, if there was any real proof that the WTC was imploded...I'd be the first person to grab my shotgun and march on D.C. I am not a strong advocate of global warming...I believe it is true, but I'm in the crowd that things that human impact on global warming is less than what some scientists believe...but I am not an expert on the subject. So I started the article Retreat of glaciers since 1850 and trust me...I looked really hard to find evidence that glaciers weren't retreating...there wasn't hardly a one that was reliable...but what was found, was put in the article. If, and when there is some real proof that the WTC was imploded...I'll be the first person to have an article on it.--MONGO 07:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know. As I often say, if it <I>were</i> true--I'll admit a small part of me half-suspects--a patriot in America would have revealed the truth, likely been assassinated, and Bush, Cheney, et al would be in shackles or before a firing squad. That said, I know it's not winning/losing. I just meant well played as in argued. · XP  · 07:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A lot of folks think that the event was a precip to war. But if you know U.S., war is easy to achieve and there was more reason to invade Iraq (in my opinion) than there ever was to be involved in Vietnam. Strategically, Afghanistan plays no importance to the U.S. and since everyone else who ever went there ended up losing, the U.S. would have been hard pressed to find a rationale for going there. I have read that, and I believe that, the events of 9/11 may have been preventable...certainly foreign policy issues may have contributed to motive. But, if the WTC was going to be used as a rationale for war, all the feds would have needed to do would be to remote control (which is easy) a half dozen explosive laden semi's adjacent to the WTC and blown the bottoms out of the buildings...Thermate installed explosives is simply too hard to cover up...it's ridiculous and there would be many easier ways to do it. As an example of the amount of effort to pull off an implosion one 4th the size of either WTC tower, look at this... and magnify the amount of work to fit the 1350 foot towers X 5 at least...no how does anyone cover that up?--MONGO 07:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't believe you guys are arguing about MIHOP. It's all true. Here is all the proof you need. This is HUGH!!!!111. I'm SERIES!!!!1111oneeleven. ;} Crockspot 14:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The truth or otherwise of 9/11 theories is irrelevant as to whether we cover them in articles. The only consideration is whether they are notable enough to gain public interest and media attention, which they have done. This merits inclusion. Then the article itself should examine the subject, and it should be quite apparent, if normal wiki policies are followed, as to whether the theories have substance or not. It is wiki's job to present the information from a NPOV. Having an article on a theory is not an endorsement of the truth of that theory. If it is a false theory, then the article will show it to be so, which is a service to readers. If readers are not given the information accurately via wiki, then they will find other sources, which may well fail to give them a balanced view. Those opposed to such theories are undermining their own goal by seeking to exclude them from the encyclopedia, which normally has no problem in dealing with such things, as can be seen in List of conspiracy theories. Tyrenius 13:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand, but when I vote to delete an article, it isn't because I am trying to eliminate information, but because I am trying to uphold policies. Implications that I am doing otherwise might be construed as an insult to my integrity. Back on subject, Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center is a POV fork of Collapse of the World Trade Center, but I am not going to argue that here since there is another place to do so.--MONGO 15:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am certainly not implying any insult to your integrity, and have no doubt that you are acting for what you see as the best interests of the encyclopedia. I am concerned with trying to find a meeting point for editors in a contentious situation, so that we can work as a team, not in a battlefield. As you say the POV fork is being discussed already. Keep well. Tyrenius 16:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI
-- User:RyanFreisling @ 08:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Taken care of, for now...expect more charades coming soon.--MONGO 08:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I inquired on Checkuser about the 'unexplained decline', and asked them to try to communicate better in order to avoid contributing to problem situations. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

DRV
Would you please look at my proposal re 911tRtT? Thanks, &mdash; Xiutwel (talk) 08:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi...I prefer to keep the article deleted. I don't view it as notable and I don't even like it being userfied...to be honest, I see it as profiteering at the expense of a lot of murdered people.--MONGO 08:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The CT link farm and my work on collapse of the World Trade Center
Hi Mongo, thanks for the kind words about my work on the article. I've tried to bring this up a number of times in the AfD discussion but my point seems to be getting lost. When you say, "Basboll did a fine job rewriting the Collapse article, but consensus was to not have all these links (link farm) in that article, so now they are here," you seem to be implying that as part of the rewrite I was involved in these links were discussed (they were not). You are telling people that (a) I rewrote the article (that's partly true at least), (b) that I tried to get these links in there (absolutely false), and (c) that because I could not have my way in that regard I created the CD article (also absolutely false and simply speculation about my motives). (b) and (c) are perhaps implicit, or try to establish guilt by association, but they are in any case related to something that happened, as far as I can tell, before I arrived on the scene. The link farm already existed at the 9/11 CT article before I starting editing the WTC collapse article.. Please review this information and let me know if I've misunderstood what you are trying to accuse me of. On the AfD you are now saying (I think) that I should be ashamed of myself for creating this article, like any other POV-pusher.--Thomas Basboll 07:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Geez, Thomas...I'm not perfect...it's hard to not group folks, but for what it's worth, you always maintain a high level of civility and other things. I thought you did an excellent job on the Collapse of the WTC article, so I am "surprised" that this one we are debating even matters to you at all. If the article is kept, I have spoken my piece and I sleep well knowing that I did all I could do to remove this stuff from Wikipedia. If my comments were insulting, it wasn't intentional. I see about rewording it, or adding something.--MONGO 07:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thomas, what else interests you? By that I mean, I can see you have a talent for writing...surely other areas aside from the events of 9/11 are interesting as well. You'll notice that I have interests in glaciers, parks and related things...I think the best way to be "happy" on wikipedia is to try and get involved in numerous areas and work on those articles in addition to articles that are controversial. When I create articles on parks, etc...it's just me generally and it completely takes me away from the stressful areas.--MONGO 07:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Do keep in mind that you are trying to remove (and bar) information from Wikipedia that I came here looking for and, upon not finding it, proceeded to contribute. These issues are really what got me seriously interested in becoming a Wikipedian. Until then I had been a pretty satisfied passive user (mere reader) of this thing. Sure, I fixed a couple of sentences anonymously, but I felt that I was being informed by the articles and their input in my investigations usually led me in fruitful directions. In the case of the collapse of the WTC and its possible controlled demolition there was suddenly something I felt I knew substantially more about than the articles were telling me. (I had of course hoped that the articles would settle some basic factual questions; but the collapse mechanism and collapse sequence in the article was simply a mess, as was the coverage of the controlled demolition hypothesis.) I'm just starting here, being a Wikipedian is not the only writing (or even editing) I do. I'm pretty happy on the whole with my intellectual life and I'm don't really need Wikipedia to feel that way. I just thought I could help, and at the same time see what this project is all about. And I do think I am learning something there. But if this article gets deleted, like I say, then Wikipedia just lost an editor, at least for a while. Anyway, happy editing.--Thomas Basboll 07:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

fbi
Hi, I've continued the discussion on: Talk:September_11%2C_2001_attacks/FBI_poster_controversy. Would you please take a look? &mdash; Xiutwel (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Acadame North
I have a favor to ask of you, I have written the Artical Acadame North with Nuetrality and also given proper refrences like the UM [united micronations] along with the Aerican Empire and of course government websites. Can you help me write an artical without breaking some sort of Policy or nonsense? thanksHelloan 20:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Why the Reversion?
Why the reversion on G.W. Bush without even the pleasentry of a comment as to why? From my understanding of the policies on wikipedia, the edit is correct. See: EisenhowerHollyWolly 21:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense?
What did I add that was nonsense? I moved his nickname per established guidelines, and readded a pice of trivia tot he trivia section. BY DEFINITION, trivia is nonsense: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/trivia HollyWolly 21:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

September 11 Attacks
Just wanted to take this over here. I understand you preferred the original edit (Attacks Section) but there are wording issues with it. It would read better with some work. Also, I'm not sure how much of the information there is needed since there is a whole article for the United Flight 93 hijacking. Can you look at the new paragraph on the discussion page and see if you'd revert it if I put it in?

I'm new so I'd also like to know how much detail is necessary in a main article when there is an existing sub article or is it left up to consensus? --PTR 21:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll look over the sub article later and see if the main article can be trimmed.--MONGO 21:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --PTR 21:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I restored your version, but kept the phone call info.--MONGO 21:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm adding the part about Todd Beamer praying with the 911 operator to the United Flight 93 page since it's not included (as I supposed it was).  --PTR 21:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Frogsprog
I honestly don't know how we tolerated him as long as we did. FYI, I also blocked a sockpuppet of his that I identifed as his by his edits and voting record. I declined to block it earlier because he stopped using it the moment I warned him, but I saw no reason why it should be allowed to remain active after recent events. – ClockworkSoul 21:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey...long time, no see..hope you're well. Yeah, no surprise he had a sock or two...probably more yet to come.--MONGO 21:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am well, thank you. :) I'm not exactly astonished either, but I would be a little surprised if he didn't reincarnate. I think it shocked him when he realized that somebody was onto him, because he behaved for about a week afterwards. – ClockworkSoul 21:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, but that's what makes wiki so fun! Not! I see you've been active, we just haven't bumped into one another for a while and it's always nice to run into editors you haven't heard from in some time. It is interesting when a troll who is just below the radar realizes that someone is on to him/her, and they do start to be "good" temporarily. I often wonder...how many people are so bored that they just want to vandalize wiki...sometimes i think there are about 50 dedicated vandals and they simply go from one IP and username to the next. I was watching the newly created names category and noticed that out of 20 I decided to watchlist due to them having trollish usernames, after a few days of the username creation, (and once the semi-protection would no longer block them from editing pages protected under semi-protect), 14 of them immediately started vandalizing! It was actually, err, funny to watch in a way....and made the semi protection feature obsolete in dealing with them immediately. Anyway, nice to hear from you again.--MONGO 21:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * He (?) isn't a simple vandal or troll but is operating on the basis of some very extreme political views. Specifically, he bears a genuine hatred for America and Americans, and is somehow convinced that North Korea is a shining beacon of pluralistic democracy. Such views per se would not be a problem (lots of people around the world don't like us) but unfortunately he has insisted on using Wikipedia as a medium to lash out against the U.S. He will return; he's convinced that he Knows The Way Of Truth(tm) and doubtless feels that the block is unjust persecution by capitalist running-dog lackey imperialists.  I realized a week or so ago that his first block only taught him to try and keep his vandalism under the radar, and I thought that he would get away with an ongoing campaign of low-level vandalism. It's interesting to see that others were watching him too.  (PS:  possible sockpuppets include NoJoyInMudville, The_duck and Brian_potter, all of whom persistently commit the same grammatical errors and post on the same or related topics). Raymond Arritt 04:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Those links are all to articles...what userpages does he have?--MONGO 12:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Gack. Sorry about that. Try The_duck, NoJoyInMudville, and Brian_potter to see their (his?) edits. Oh, looks like The_duck is already tagged...Raymond Arritt 13:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you...those are all taken care of...let me know if another one pops up.--MONGO 13:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I see that you reverted edits by. I'm pretty sure she(?) and are the same person. Do you think these might also be sockpuppets of Frogsprog? — CharlotteWebb 02:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Certainly worthy of a CheckUser, methinks. – ClockworkSoul 02:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I thought of this because I mentioned Eisenhower on the talk page (perhaps a mistake) as an example of presidential nicknames being widely known, rather than "trivia". Next we get another unusually new user deliberately misinterpreting the Eisenhower thing . Originally I thought it was somebody actually upset about the use of "Dubya". Now I'm convinced it's just a troll. — CharlotteWebb 02:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Pardon me for eavesdropping (I don't recall now why this page is on my watch list), but "Dubya" is how Bush himself says it, if you listen to him. I wouldn't call it a nickname in the same way that "Ike" was Eisenhower's nickname, though. The article doesn't say, but I think "Ike" went back to his younger years and was a true nickname, like "Bill" instead of "William" Clinton. In contrast, the FDR page doesn't say Franklin D. "FDR" Roosevelt. That was a media nickname, methinks. And, aha!, there's the difference, maybe. Wahkeenah 03:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry folks...I have been away...good chance Frogsprog has multiple sock accounts. Yes, Dubya is a nickname George Bush has even used on himself....I reverted the one addition of it since it was already mentioned that this is his nickname in the very first paragraph of that article, and didn't see any reason to have it mentioned twice.--MONGO 04:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Now Frog Returns is a new sock. --Reuben 09:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

And now we have Frogbaby. As expected he will not go away. Maybe worth checking to see if he has a static IP, and blocking it. Raymond Arritt 21:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

User:The big moose is also a suspicious candidate. His userboxes certainly look like Frogsprog's... He reverted Frogbaby's vandalism on Raymond Arritt's talk page within a couple minutes; could be playing games. Thanks for your help with this. --Reuben 03:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the additions on Daniel Boone National Forest, the infobox looks great. I haven't spent the time yet to learn much about making/adding infoboxes, maybe I should. :-) Pfly 01:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * NO problem...let me know if I can be of any assistance--MONGO 04:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks for the Barnstar. I put it on my User Page--Droll 07:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem...it is well deserved. I am myself involved in three separate projects and I have found that as of late, I have been neglceting them a lot...so seeing all your efforts on the Mountain project is motivating.--MONGO 07:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Mancs (2nd nomination)
Hey MONGO ... would you mind taking a look at Articles for deletion/Mancs (2nd nomination)? This was an article that got on the front page a couple of days back (not as the featured article; I think it was one of those "Did You Know" deals), and some idiot SPA came along and tried to pull a bad-faith AfD on it, so I shut it down as a speedy keep. It's gone from the front page now, but now another SPA has come along and put it up for AfD again. On top of that, Martylunsford pretty much admits in the discussion that he created that second SPA (Sam1174) as a sock in order to do the 2nd AfD! (Martylunsford's just barely beyond SPA status himself, as you can see from his user contributions .) I don't want to close this down again as a speedy keep myself since I don't want it to look like I have some sort of obsession with this article, and I'm not an admin anyway so I probably shouldn't push my luck regardless. But obviously I think the whole thing reeks of bad faith, so if you could check it out, I'd appreciate it. (I don't really care about the dog, or the article, one way or the other, but I do care about process, for some silly reason.) Thanks, --Aaron 17:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI, I voted delete, and objected to discounting contributions based on the lack of an edit history. Don't tell me you actually believe that this editor has some personal vendetta against a dog. That's a very moonbatty attitude, and I know that you're not a moonbat. Crockspot 17:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, weird situation...but I will let it run it's course and that way, there won't be any folks screaming..."But MONGO...that guy who always wants to delete all the conspiracy theory articles...now closed this 2nd Afd on a no-name poor innocent little doggie...he went and closed this as a speedy keep and that's out of process...he should have his admin tools taken away...he should be flogged...he is a menace to Wikipedia...just who the heck does MONGO think he is, using WP:SNOW as a criteria...I'm taking him to arbcom...if for no other reason to waste his and a lot of other people's time."..........Sorry about that, but that is the kind of junk I have been dealing with lately.--MONGO 22:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you checking it out, MONGO, even if you decided to let it run. To Crockspot: No, I don't think anybody involved has an issue with the dog; I just know that sometimes people can take it too personally when an AfD gets shut down in any fashion beyond the "expected" way (that is, a nomination leading to at least five days' worth of discussion followed by a close by an actual admin) and then toss it right back into the fire when it really doesn't deserve it. (I've been guilty of that at least once myself, back in my newbie days.) I wanted an admin to look at it, MONGO did, and I'm satisfied with that. However the AfD plays out at this point is fine by me. I will admit I'm very much anti-SPA when it comes to AfDs, but that's because they usually either are there only to attempt to save their one pet article and couldn't care less about Wikipedia as a whole, or else they're just too green to make a meaningful contribution to the discussion. (Almost invariably, they vote "keep" and give some variation of the long-discounted argument "How come we can have articles about Pokemon and porn stars but not this?") It's just my opinion, but AfD shouldn't be the first playground of the ultranewbie editor. Read first, make a few edits, start a couple of stubs, and then ease into AfD once you've got at least a baseline comprehension of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. That takes a couple of weeks, in my experience. --Aaron 00:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You mean your not a menace to Wikipedia? Not what I've heard, bub. I also hear you're responsible for global warming and Britney Spears ;) Derex 02:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Monad
Hello, you locked the disamg page Monad. I proposed a compromise, which it seems that all sides have agreed to. Would you look and see if you think its ready to unlock? Thanks Bmorton3 19:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Unprotected.--MONGO 22:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * HEY! This is wikipedia things aren't supposed work themselves out be this easy!

Just kidding thanks again MONGO and Professor Morton. LoveMonkey 05:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Barrett
Hi Mongo. There is a new editor over on the Kevin Barrett page who has started an edit war over the notion that Barrett "was suspected of planning to teach CT." He keeps deleting sourced material ( lying in his edit summary), and screwing up the sources, both in the reference section and in the article. If you look through the edit history you'll see he has tried to insert several different unsourced assertions. He has called me a liar when I have deleted his unsourced contributions. I've tried to reason with him, but he just keeps reverting to "his" latest version, despite never having demonstrated a deficiency in the status quo. He seems intent on theorizing about what Barret was "planning" to do. Anyway, on the talk page, he has said he hopes an admin will look things over. If you have the time...Cheers, Levi P. 19:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Building 7
[Removed per Mongo's request. Sorry.--Thomas Basboll 11:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)]