User talk:MONGO/Archive14

hollywood undead
can you please explain to me why i cannot create an artical on the hollywood undead? if the fact that so many people keep trying create the artical doesnt mean its notable, i dont know what does. hollywood undead is the archtype of how myspace made it so that a band can truely be an overnight success.JoshDinger 23:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Need your help
Since you were the user who welcomed me here, I was wondering if you could provide me some assisstance? The trouble is that some users find the content on my userpage "offensive" and have been pressuring me to censor it, despite the fact that I have posted a disclaimer on the page to the effect that my views do not reflect those of Wikipedia. I have no problems with agreeing to their demands, but the problem is that, as I have pointed out, other users are allowed to have much more offensive content (such as "This user is anti-American", "This user believes George Bush is a neo-Fascist", "This user supports the Nazis", "Who are you calling an illegal immigrant pilgrim") on their userpages. My repeated protests againt being singled out in this manner have fallen on deaf ears. Would you please have a look at the AN discussion and share your thoughts with me? Thanks. Cerebral Warrior 10:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please comment (the Cerebral Warrior issue)
User_talk:Cerebral_Warrior crazyeddie 15:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you...
...for your support during my recent RfA. Your vote of confidence is especially meaningful since I have been a fan of your work since joining the project. If you need another admin hand at working with various articles of Nat'l Forest, Parks, etc. or just need a pair of fresh eyes to review an article, do not hesitate to ask. Cheers.  young  american (ahoy hoy) 16:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Dysgenics‎
I wonder if you'd be kind enough to put Dysgenics on your watchlist, please? I tagged it noncompliant and listed some of my concerns on its talk page. However, other editors have tagged it npov, and that tag has been removed at least twice. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Should the article be protected until the issues are resolved?--MONGO 06:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's hard to say. So far, at least one editor seems willing to talk. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

So...
I saw Blazing Saddles for the first time a day or so ago. Anomo 21:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's pretty average these days, but the jokes then were deliberately tailored to mock racism and well, Mongo was, for his brief few minutes in the picture, one of the highlights. I met Alex Karras, the former NFL player who played the part of Mongo in that film. He's actually shorter than I am, but a lot wider.--MONGO 22:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Until I put it in a few minutes ago, Alex Karras had no picture of him. Anomo 22:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Blazing Saddles is on the short list of movies that had scenes I laughed so hard at that I almost hurt myself. The movie as a whole might be pretty average, but a few of these scenes were hilarious—like where Mongo knocks out the horse. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 22:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Good job on the image Anomo...if it was free use, I'd tack it on my userpage...thanks. And the part in the movie I like the most is where the entire town is terrified of this Mongo character and the new sheriff asks Gene Wilder who Mongo is and Gene replies something like "Mongo is more of a what, than a who.--MONGO 22:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Elk
What's going on here? No discussion in advance? Can you explain your intentions, and let's work together to make it make sense. See Talk:Elk. Gnusmas 08:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and clarification. But please see my further comments on Talk:Elk and Talk:Red Deer. I'm quite happy to discuss it. I disagree that the clear primary meaning of "elk" is C. canadensis. I also think you have slipped up in not discussing this move with elk people as well as red deer people! I really do think that Elk should be the disambig page, not a page devoted to one interpretation of the word. But don't worry - I'm not going to get involved in an edit war. I believe in discussing things with all interested parties before making such changes. Gnusmas 08:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being so responsive - and apologies for the tone of some of my earlier contributions to the debate! I am delighted with the end result. Yes, the name of the new article is a bit cumbersome, but it is at least crystal-clear and unambiguous, and I think even the least mammal-literate wikipedia user will now understand what an "elk" is in all its shades of meaning - I think there was a serious danger of confusion the way you were heading. Incidentally, the photo of an Elk (or should I say "Elk"?) at Elk (Cervus canadensis) is so utterly unlike a European Red Deer that it seems "obvious" ;-) that it's a different species! Gnusmas 09:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Please consider looking at my editor review
I'd love some feedback from you if you can spare the time. If you choose not to participate, thanks too. BusterD 02:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Peer review needed
Aside from working on 9/11 articles, I am working on criminology topics which is an area that Wikipedia sorely lacks. Last weekend, I discovered there was no article on "Gun violence", so started one. Most of the research literature pertains to the United States, so the article has become Gun violence in the United States. Obviously, people have strong POV on this topic, and I'm perhaps entering a minefield here. To try and rise above politics, I have only included the highest quality reliable sources (most are from peer reviewed, scholarly journals). Personally, I really don't have a POV on this. The article basically presents the current state of research on this topic, and I think is close to featured status (if POV pushing can be kept out of the article). Nonetheless, someone has already come along and place a neutrality tag on the article. I could really use some peer review on the article, at this point. Do you at all agree with the person who placed the neutrality tag? Do you have any suggestions on improving the article or making it more NPOV? are there aspects of the topic that are missing? Any help would be appreciated. --Aude (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a complicated issue...I'll take a look.--MONGO 06:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
(copied from my talk page) Thanks everyone. Although some of the opposition was dissapointing, I was also really encouraged by the constructive criticism, particularly the very engaged and positive give and take you gave me, MONGO. I can't recall seeing such a constructive or engaged oppose to a RFA in the last year; it gave both of us a chance to revisit some conflict in a much more positive light, and I certainly learned something both about how I was seen and came across, and hopefully it helped clarify in your mind where I'd been coming from. It would have been so easy for you to just oppose and walk away; you didn't, and that was a real class act. I pinged Lar about doing something on enwiki along the lines of the meatball wiki "Defend each other" and I'd like to invite you to discuss it. I am certainly not ultimately discouraged; I got supports from a lot of people I respect a lot, and some I didn't think would support me. I learned a lot from the opposes and they give me some stuff to work on as it were. I'll send out the usual cute thank yous when my bandwidth allows, but I wanted to make sure I did something more personal first for some of the particularly valuable participants in the discussion. Again, thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 09:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't be discouraged. Being an admin doesn't make you "part of the team" or "better" than anyone else. Give it a few months and try again. I am always open to any criticism one might have and never expect editors to back me up no matter what. Le tme know what you come up with on the meatball thing, but I don't think we need a guideline or certainly not a policy on this. Maybe you're just too nice? Maybe it is a natural inclination for you to protect what may on the surface appear to be the underdog? Regardless, I know you have the project's improvement at the forefront of your desires and that's the most important thing.--MONGO 12:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't thinking guideline or policy on "Defend each other", but it would make a good essay. It's just a good idea...   Thanks.  Georgewilliamherbert 19:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

A question about dysgenics
Hello Mongo. I noticed you seem to be on some sort of crusade against dysgenics, both in the eponym article and in others which refer to the term. I also seem to understand it stems from your feeling that dysgenics is more of a pseudoscience than anything else. On this, we totally agree. However, the term is still used here and there, and removing it from every article in the encyclopedia that carries it doesn't seem to me like the best solution. Rephrasing references to it by saying people use this term to describe some sort of revers eugenic effect without implying in any way shape or form that it is a legitimate science would, IMHO be a much better way. The way I look at it, I agree it's a pseudoscience, but as a concept (that somehow, selection conditions favor what is perceived as a weakening of the gene pool) is a legitimate concept, if not legitimate science: who is to tell that proper evolution has to go one way (e.g. humans always increasing in intelligence) rather than the opposite way? I don't think we can be the judges of where evolution should lead. However, this does not change the fact that some people think they can. Well, I'll stop from miring myself any deeper in philosophical considerations, but I'd urge you to reconsider your campaign to remove the word "dysgenics" from the encyclopedia. As I tried to explain, I feel there are better ways to address the problem. Please feel free to drop me a note if you wish. Good day!--Ramdrake 14:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Warning for your recent vandalism of pages containing the term dysgenics
(PA removed)... --Zero g 15:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Content disputes are not simple vandalism. Please make use of the dispute resolution process, instead. Luna Santin 21:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Inclusion of a "blatant vandal" warning (or any warning) on MONGO's talk page is not an appropriate way to address your concern about usage of a disputed term. At least two highly respected administrators have already removed it. I am not an admin but I agree with them that this is not a proper use of the warning template. The title of this thread, though I haven't changed it, is also uncivil. I strongly suggest that if you are going to pursue this issue you do so in an entirely different fashion. Newyorkbrad 21:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine, after re-reading the vandalism page, I gladly concede the point. Sorry if I misinterpreted the exact meaning of vandalism. I apologize to all concerned for the trouble I caused, but I would like to stress to User Mongo to please re-read the comment in the section immediately preceding this one. I truly believe these edits were misguided. I am open to discussion.--Ramdrake 21:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, a better understanding about what is and what isn't vandalism will help you ensure you don't make a further editing error which may cost you your rights to further editing opportunities. I'll discuss my changes on the talk page at dysgenics, but my time right now is limited.--MONGO 21:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC
I opened an RfC regarding Fairness And Accuracy For All, it is located at Requests for comment/Fairness And Accuracy For All and would appreciate you comments if you have any. This message is being posted to anyone's talk page who it seems has had much contact with the user in question. --Nuclear Zer0 22:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Fakir005
As the blocking admin, I thought you should know about this apparent retraction of his legal threats. There has been a related conversation at WP:AN here. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yellostone
Please dont save bad edits like this one you altered the picture sizes in and it caused them to clip the text (in the geology section). Oversized picture settings causes photos to cascade. I managed to fix it in my previous edit but for some reason you decided to revert it.

The article is already cluttered enough and it's partially due to over sized pictures. (yeah, I know every wants their prized shot to stand out) If people want a better view they can click to enlarge each photograph.


 * Camperstrike, with all due respect, you're messing up a featured article and you're the one making the mess...if this keeps up, I'll be forced to protect the page from editing.--MONGO 19:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

a few rs suggestions
Started thinking about reliable sources. Here's a few thoughts on academic sources, since it's what I know.

I think the most practical approach is to have a consensus checklist of criteria which satisfy a (rebutable) presumption of reliability. Things not on the checklist are not to be deemed automatically unreliable, but rather subject to debate and consensus. Here are some suggestions for such a checklist.

ISI listed journals. These are all peer-reviewed. If it's not on the ISI list, it's probably not really credible. Australian universities, for example, don't receive credit for production of non-ISI journal articles.

Books by university publishing houses. These are generally carefully reviewed, as the University reputation is on the line. Major universities are fairly obvious reliable sources. Full membership in Association of American University Presses should be a sufficient indicator of scholarly credibility. There are probably similar university press associations internationally.

Books by serious academic publishers, for example: Springer + Kluwer, Blackwell, Academic Press, Elsevier, Prentice Hall, Palgrave + MacMillan, Wiley, Horizon. The unifying theme of such publishers is that they have a focus on scholarly work, and thus a reputation to lose for publishing bunk. These could be given as examples, though an exhaustive list is probably not possible. A test for fringe academic houses would be if their books, as a whole, are widely carried by university libraries.

It would be tempting to allow individual non-fiction works if carried by several major university libraries. However, I think that's unsatisfactory, because universities may carry books because of notability, controversy, or interest rather than reliability. For example "Unfit for Command", absolutely riddled with falsehoods, is undoubtedly in most major libraries. Derex 08:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Derex...I will look these over in the next day or so...I hope we can figure out a way to get RS to be policy, but lately have been very busy with many matters. I will do a better job of contributing to discussions there this coming week. This isn't going to be an easy task...but if we can reach some kind of agreement with all parties, I think it will be a real benefit to the wiki.--MONGO 08:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

btw,,. alone, no big deal, but you know as well as i what the context is. you can bet plenty of emails were already enabled. Derex 05:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh now, don't be jealous just because I have friends. I'll be your friend too if your feeling Left out in the cold.  MD

At this point...I'm hoping that blogs and private websites that are under the editorial control of only a few or one webmaster can be better regulated. As far as published books, I doubt much can be done to determine what is and what isn't to be used as a reference base...but of course, in articles that deal with science, I think we could be more specific as to what constitutes a reliable source.--MONGO 08:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that blogs is an easy case. They are simply not reliable, nor are private websites. They should only be cited for facts about themselves. Now, lots of news organizations ABC, MSNBC, WashPost, are starting "blogs". I think that's a different matter as "blog" is just a buzz-word for them, and the credibility of the news organization is on the line. Depends on whether it's a news- or an opinion-focused blog.


 * An interesting example is the Killian documents case. It is an important part of the story that a blog started the investigation. However, most of the detailed 'evidence' in that article came off blog posts, lots & lots of it. The situation was that way for a year till I started looking into. Virtually all the claims didn't hold up to scrutiny. Now, I don't doubt that the documents were forged, but that was a real lesson in using blogs as sources because most of it was just flat false. Basically, if that stuff had posted directly to Wikipedia it would have been blatant OR, but some random person posting it on a blog first somehow made it OK.


 * The harder part comes when dealing with media groups like Gannon's Talon news, CNS, CapitolHillBlue, or The Guardian which have histories of some dubious reporting, though they are superficially legitimate. I don't yet have a clear idea how to handle these. Derex 02:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * IN the last examples you mentioned, I think, since they have not always been reliable, then maybe what we demand in these examples will be a secondary source that is as least if not more reliable than they are...more mainstream overall. This isn't going to be an easy task, but I think if policy can be written so it reduces the ambiguity as to what does and what does not constitute a RS, we'll at least be trying to establish higher standards.--MONGO 04:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello!
Just dropping by to say hello. Sorry I didn't call first. :) – ClockworkSoul 07:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What's up...I've been a bit slowed lately in my editing, but turning the corner and going to get back to my land management articles and glacier articles as well. I see you're still kicking around and that's good to see.--MONGO 07:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've been keeping busy with various Wiki and real life projects. I've been acting as the coordinator for the Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject lately, and that's been enough to fill up most of my wiki-time. – ClockworkSoul 20:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Dalbury's RfA
My RfA passed with a tally of 71/1/0. Thank you very much for your support. I hope that my performance as an admin will not disappoint you. Please let me know if you see me doing anything inappropriate. -- Donald Albury 03:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome, anytime :)
I've actually added this page to the CVN watchlist on IRC as it seems its a troll magnet these days.  Glen  22:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep...trolls like me a lot. Thanks again!--MONGO 22:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Friendly support
Hey Mongo, I was away while you were under attack (and it's apparently still ongoing). I may not wield the correct bits in my profile to help out much, but I just wanted to let you know that if you need anything I'll do what I can. I realize that's probably more moral support than practical, but just wanted you to know. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 02:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and much appreciated. Likewise, never hesitate to ask me if there is anything I can do for you.--MONGO 04:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I answered your questions on my talk page...I'm about to go to bed. If you have any other issues, I'll answer them tomorrow.  Thanks for your confidence in me. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 11:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

ED trolls
User talk:Glen S - up to you what to do about them. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 07:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * They can see that I am most definitely a secret government agent by my response on the bottom of this section.......they can even go for the extra points.--MONGO 07:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

At DRV
Just letting you know. Other issues may have to be dealt with later, and I'm still open to mediation on it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep...saw that...thanks.--MONGO 14:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yellowstone
Before you remove changes to the article, please discuss the issue as a group and let some time pass so others can comment on the drastic changes you are making to articles. I had put in a little bit of research and you reverted it back to the previous version. Please be more carefull and thoughtfull of the community effort that is going on here. Yellowstone is a public not a MONGO article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CamperStrike (talk • contribs) November 17, 2006.

Yes or no...
Is it wikistalking when an editor goes around intentionally reverting your edits and only voting against you on AfDs where you have voted? Yes or no? And are admins supposed to put a stop to such things? Yes or no? --Aaron 18:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * yes..I would believe that is a fair definition--MONGO 21:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Then why isn't anything being done about it? --Aaron 22:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It's ready to go
I answered the questions. One favor I'd ask is if you could reword your nom so as to avoid any chance of giving the impression that I'm in any way a part of Esperanza. Let me know when you are ready for it to go live. Thanks again, I do truly appreciate your trust, —Doug Bell talk•contrib 20:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Keeping POV tag on to allow fair vote
Hi Mongo. user:Sparkhead is at it again. Another Editor (not me) put a POV tag on the Richard Dawkins article. Spark has removed it twice, including once while a vote is on. IMHO it should be left on for at least 24hrs to allow people to look at it and vote. But I can't re-instate the tag any more per 3RR. Could you oblige, in the interests of fairness? NBeale 23:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I would try to hammer out all the issues on the talkpage if possible...I have no knowledge of this person, so I can't say whether the article is POV or not...it there an issue with WP:BLP that needs to be addressed?--MONGO 05:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * MONGO, there are various BLP, NPOV and OR issues in proposed additions the article. For an interesting read, take a look at the edit history of said article, as well as the talk page, especially this section.  Other editors note why the addition of the POV tag was viewed as inappropriate in the first place. The last few comments in NBeale's talk page, as well as his contrib history,  might give you a little more information.  Many editors have been reverting him in that article and in The God Delusion, and I'm getting to a point where I'm wondering if the constant addition of OR and POV can be considered disruptive enough to warrant a block.  Thanks.  *Spark*  13:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Mongo. Thanks for your reply to my query. The OR point is interesting and I'd very much welcome your guidance, and wider discussion of the query raised here. Is there a way it could be tagged for comment? Many thanks NBeale 19:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey there
Hey there. I just shot you an email about an article. Later - JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  00:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Taken care of...and I responded via email, so let me know if that issue reappears.--MONGO 06:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Response to my third question
True, though there are cases where the article(s) is(are) the center of attention. Sometimes an assessment of the article(s) at the center of a dispute is unavoidable. As well, conflicting policies may arise where a stand needs to be made as to which policy overrides. For example, if an article meets WP:V but fails WP:NPOV, and cannot meet it due to a lack of verifiable, reliably sourced balancing information, either for or against the subject, which policy would stand above the other?

Good luck in the election! :) Torinir ( Ding my phone  My support calls   E-Support Options  ) 08:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC
I have opened a request for comment at Requests for comment/Seabhcan. Tom Harrison Talk 20:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Where's your bumper sticker?
You need a campaign manager apparently: see Image:G bumpstick.gif. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 20:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think my campaign is without high likelihood of success...Maybe "vote for MONGO, or else he'll come terrorize your town" may be a great slogan though!--MONGO 06:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey you never know. I recall you saying once that you were surprised you made it through RfA, so maybe you'll be surprised again. :-) —Doug Bell talk•contrib 07:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer not to leave a Vandalism warning
But you might for this. It's his user page that was vandalized. --Tbeatty 06:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Since tbeatty is apparently so upset over a little playful fun between other users that didn't even concern him he must be opposed to any and all such stunts. Or not. Take a look tbeatty's own sock puppet - he created an entire sock puppet account User:Fairness_and_Accuracy_for_Aquaman Tbeatty's Super Friend Sock Puppet account solely to 'vandalize' my FAAFA page and taunt me. (did I run to an Admin?} see Is it OK to create a sock just to play with another editor's page? Thanks - F.A.A.F.A. 07:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That sock account, or whatever it is hasn't even edited anything aside from their userpsace and a comment on your talk page...which may have been a taunt...but that was three weeks ago...(two edits) since created on 10/31/06. Demonstrate how that account has vandalized anything you have done...--MONGO 07:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Follow the links again. That was a sock puppet created by tbeatty - created specifically as a play off my user name, then he edited MY user space adding his new sock puppet user to a 'friends list' I once had. In other words the user complaining about MY actions (that I see as light hearted fun) did the same, and actually created a one-time sock puppet just for his prank. - F.A.A.F.A. 07:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * NOTE, I will take your advice and not play anymore lighthearted good natured pranks on other editors, unless I know they would welcome such actions though. - F.A.A.F.A. 07:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * All you editors should take the rest of the weekend off and go have some fun.--MONGO 07:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I honestly considered my actions lighthearted goodnatured fun, just as I honestly believe that was tbeatty's motivation when he created a username spoofing mine, and 'vandalized' my friends list. Have a good weekend - F.A.A.F.A. 07:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Jerky (food) article dispute
Hello. If you get a chance, could you please stop by the Jerky article and help resolve a dispute regarding proper WP:External links. The relevant discussion is at Talk:Jerky (food), and I am seeking third party opinions since another user and I seem to be at an impasse. I am sending this to all editors who have recently edited the article or its talk page. Thanks so much for your time, Satori Son 17:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the only edit I did there was to fix a link to a new article I split off, so not sure i can be of much help.--MONGO 17:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and sorry for troubling you. (I just didn't want to be accused of selectively canvassing.) Have a good one! -- Satori Son 17:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

An offer I can't didn't refuse
Does the offer you made a while back still stand? I'm finding myself limited in some of the ways I can help the project, at present... -- nae'blis 23:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Accepted; thank you very much for the !vote of confidence. Only thing I was confused about in your nomination was the phrase "in keeping with this self evaluation..." - what self-evaluation? Do you mean User:Nae'blis/Review? I don't think I linked to it from the RfA... -- nae'blis 16:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like your judgment was not in error, and they flipped my bit today. Thanks so much for the excellent nomination, and let me know if there's any way I can repay the favor in the future. Cheers! -- nae'blis 18:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You owe me nothing...best wishes!--MONGO 18:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome and question...
...is it just me, or are there more bone-headed ideas, hypocritical RfC's, and rock-idiotic DRV's going on nowdays? -- Elar  a  girl  Talk 07:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Communism
I like your suggestions on the communism talk page. I have to go online now, so I can't add the references and draft and post a reading list at the moment. If you remember, could you do me a little favor? I tend to be pretty forgetful. If I forget to do this in the next day or two, could you post a reminder on my user talk page? Thanks again! 172 | Talk 17:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep...will do.--MONGO 17:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you know?
You are the third biggest contributor to the article with the most revisions! s d 3 1 4 1 5 talk • contribs 01:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That doesn't include my 700 plus contributions to that article's talk page I don't think. Thanks!--MONGO 06:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick fix!
Wow, I guess I should be flattered by the attention. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs)  20:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Looks like anyone who assisted Rjensen is getting hit. BusterD 20:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What did Rjensen do?--MONGO 20:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * He was the first of the mil hist cluster I saw have pages blanked (18 times in 8 hours). After semiprotection and admin blocking of certain ip ranges for 48 hours, the vandal or vandals started blanking a number of user and user talk pages of people associated with unblanking Rjensen's pages (Jim Douglas, myself, others). Now that's my characterization of what's occured; I don't know what's true other than several users have been getting this weird blanking from multiple ip addresses, all within the last 31 hours or so. BusterD 03:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and Happy Thanksgiving
MONGO,

Well, barring some unforeseen train wreck, it looks like your RfA nomination of me just might squeak by. With Nae'blis looking like a possible WP:100 unanimous addition, that give you a good batting average in RfA nominations. I'm going to be signing off for the evening soon and probably won't be back online until after it closes, so I just wanted to say thanks for the nomination and to wish you a Happy Thanksgiving!

If I'd known the RfA process was so much fun I probably would have accepted the first time you asked me if I was interested. I really mean that, it's not facetious—I suppose some people might have found this stressful, but for me it was simply stimulating and thought-provoking.

All the best, —Doug Bell talk 09:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. My RfA almost caught up with your ArbCom Q&A: 79K to 84K as of now. :-)
 * Yeah...I was hoping I would have been grilled in more detail on my nom...I don't think the arbcom noms are monitored the way the admin noms are...a lot of people simply have no idea that the arbcom candidiates are available for questions. Happy Thanksgiving.--MONGO 09:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion request
I noticed your remarks on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Discuss and Vote; I would appreciate it if you could take a look at WP:DDV, and indicate if it accurately represents the way Wikipedia works (and feel free to reword it if it doesn't). Basically it states that AFD (etc) are not decided by vote count, and in general voting is discouraged (but not forbidden). Thanks. ( Radiant ) 10:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am looking it over, may be busy for the next few days, but added a few ideas that can be reverted or altered as everyone sees fit. I am watchlisting the page and agree after looking over the editing history that discussion is the core and the vote is simply a way to gauge consensus, but even a supermajority can be defeated if policy is not followed by the arguemnts presented...I'll continue to tweak areas and you won't find me edit warring on anything there, so adjust or remove my work as seems appropriate.--MONGO 16:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Admission of wikistalking?
Somewhere in all of this yammer is, I believe, a thinly veiled reference to you. - Crockspot 13:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe, maybe not...I'm not really concerned as I have always given myself a less than 50-50 chance of being promoted to arbcom. Though there has been some reform as of late, continued comments made by that editor are only marginally better in their delivery than when he was known under a different username and was repeatedly blocked for various reasons.--MONGO 17:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't even give him the "marginally better" qualification. I'm involved in a pointless ruckus with him now. Crockspot 17:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Take the weekend off...life is too short to waste it dealing with the galactically inane.--MONGO 17:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, if you have a sec, and this link hasn't turned red already, please delete this for me: User:Crockspot/Conservative Underground. I saved the content into the history of my personal sandbox, don't need the article anymore. Crockspot 18:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Nevermind, another admin caught it. Crockspot 19:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving - a request
Happy Thanksgiving Mongo,

I asked the following of Ruthfulbarbarity, as he continually refers to me as 'Neocons':

"Please refer to me by my handle FAAFA. People unfamiliar with my 'history' or my previous FULL user name could think that "Neocons" indicates an endorsement of Neoconservatism - which couldn't be further from the truth. Thanks for your cooperation...."

My previous username here was NBGPWS, it was never anything else. RB insists on using a name that I never used on Wiki, that I consider insulting, and that could cause others to think I embrace Neoconservatives or 'ism'. I have asked him to stop to no avail. He seems to listen to you. Would you be so kind as to ask him to stop? Thanks in advance.

P.S. "galactically inane"??? I'm no Scientologist! - F.A.A.F.A. 22:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a joke.--MONGO 04:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It was also a 'joke' that you would have warned me over, if I had made it.


 * Was this your fulfillment of the serious and important administorial request I made of you? "AAFA has asked he not be called a neocon...so I guess I ahev fulfilled my admin reqirement for the day...Happy Thanksgiving" I'm a little confused. I had already asked him to stop, and told you that. Was your comment an Admin request / warning advising / requesting him to stop? Did you perhaps email him with an administorial advisory?


 * Congratulations on being the third most active editor - and having the most revisions ever on the Bush article. Truly an accolade-worthy extraordinary feat of almost superhuman effort and commitment! You must be very proud! - F.A.A.F.A. 06:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I looked over his talk page and he seems to have some complaints about you as well...when I see that sort of thing and only have one voice asking for my help, I usually just leave a comment. Is there evidence that either he or you have been more incivil than the other? I spent three months on the Bush article arguing about whether some passages about whether he should be referred to as a "Dry Drunk" were notable enough for inclusion...in the end, a minor majority felt it wasn't, but it is still available at the linked subarticle. I'm a lot more proud of my stubs and the few featured articles I have started or was the major player on.--MONGO 06:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Inane. I wish wikipedia had an ignore button.  Take your advice and take the weekend off with a full ignore.  If he thinks it's so important, he can take is requests to WP:PAIN and serve them the sarcastic platitudes with his whine and cheese.  Tbeatty 06:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I let the guy off a one month block after only keeping him blocked for 3 days and I am stil the "bad guy"...galactic.--MONGO 06:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Mongo, my request to you was friendly and civil, even after you insulted me by calling me 'galactically inane' a snide insult now you claim was a 'joke', rather than take responsibility for, and admit was conduct unbecoming an Admin hoping to become part of Arbcom. I asked you to instruct another editor to stop breaking WP:CIVIL, using an insulting nickname towards me. He insisted that I stop calling him 'Ruthbar'. I did. I now see that Crockspot feels I am insulting him by calling him CP! I will gladly stop. I asked  a simple request of you as an Admin. I'm sorry that for whatever reason, you refused to honor my request that you advise / warn another editor who doesn't want me to post on his page to follow WP:CIVIL. I will ask you again.  Will you advise/warn Ruthfulbarbarity to stop breaking WP:CIVIL by calling me 'Neocons',  and to call me FAAFA, or do I need take my concerns elsewhere?   - F.A.A.F.A. 08:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Can I call you FAlAFAl? --Tbeatty 17:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Awright...I don't think that helps....--MONGO 17:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Where did he call you a "neocon"...is that his greatest offense? I see on your Rfc that he made some comment about Noeocons, but can't see what he is directing it at. Please provide links to the evidence that he has insulted you. I am NOT a personal dispute solver...if indeed you feel slighted, you can post the evidence to WP:PAIN. You have been accussed of incivility yourself and have been blocked numerous times for multiple violations....please provide me with the evidence I need to act on...this evidence is based on diffs and examples.--MONGO 17:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Coming later today Mongo. I'm talked about a single, very simple issue here. Refer to me by my user name, not one I consider offensive and insulting. - F.A.A.F.A. 21:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Is it even an offense? You have to be pretty smart to be a "Neocon" so I am not sure how it's offensive.  So I agree that it would be very confusing and difficult to confuse FAAFA/NBGPWS with being a neocon and RB should stop calling him that.  --Tbeatty 18:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Response not merited. - F.A.A.F.A. 21:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont understand how "Neocons" can be uncivil if its the first word in your old name. While I prefer people call be Nuclear, I wouldnt be offended if they called me zer0, which many still do. I am not sure where the insult is in reffering to you by your old name that you picked out. If you worried that people would associate you with NeoConservatives, perhaps you shouldnt have made a name with a shortened version of it. --Nuclear Zer0 18:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I expected more from you someone with your smarts, NU. My handle here was never anything but initials. My handle somewhere else was 'NeoconsBeGone'. Refering to me without the BeGone implies a different meaning, and could cause others to think I endorse Neoconservatism. Seeing of how even many the architects of Bushs disastrous Neoconservative policies have de-embraced this failed ideology, who could want that?! Thanks for your thoughts on what my handle should have been somewhere else two years ago, but it's a little too late now. Ruthfulbarbarity demanded I quit calling him 'Ruthbar' and his PW handle 'Wrathbone'. I did. Crockspots now demands I quit calling him CP! I will. I insist that he quit calling me 'Neocons'. He should, and he will.  Having explained to you what you already knew, the fact that a number of editors are following me to around virtually every page I post on Wiki, commenting on my every action including Admin requests that have nothing to do with them, analgous to untrained puppies nippping at my heels is not lost on the observant. It makes me feel so special too! - F.A.A.F.A. 21:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, since this has been going on on both sides, about all you can do is to not cal anyone a nickname they might find offensive, ask them to do the same and if they don't stop, then something can be done about it...don't expect folks to just alter their style immediately...allow them a day or two to see that you are acting accordlying first. If you feel that you're being wikistalked, take the evbidence to WP:PAIN, or AN/I and see what can be done about it...surely many of these editors simply edit the same pages as you and they have a different POV.--MONGO 21:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Example one: Ruthfulbarbarity wrote: "Stop the infantile insults NBGPWS, and if you must address me do so by the user name I have chosen. Not by any other user name I might have on another forum or website, nor a juvenile gloss on my handle."Ruthfulbarbarity 19:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC) PW Archive 10 The result? I complied. (eventually;-). I only ask the same, and I have asked it for weeks. - F.A.A.F.A. 21:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You sleep in the hole you dig I guess, as for people following you, your appearance on Ava say the opposite, I think there is a general circular following in everyone direction as many may feel other have alterior motives, quite the paranoid mess eh? Anyway if you want to seem reasonable you wont say silly things like "my handle here was never anything but initials", what an odd coincidence the random initials started the same exact way as the initials that actually meant something ... I mean I am trying to be neutral lately, but for you to do one thing then all of a sudden say "stop, I stopped, you must stop right now" is a little over the top. As Mongo said, give others sometime to adjust and see that you are practicing what you preach and I am sure they will come around. --Nuclear Zer0 22:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Know what? For the first time in ages, I posted on Ruthfulbarbarity page to inform him that an article he created, Liberty Post, was up for AfD. An act of helpfulness and concilliation! He complained about this in the RfC! I have 'buried the axe' with everyone, and even tried to perform 'random acts of kindness' to those who might hold grudges against me, like informing Ruthfulbarbarity of the AfD. Look what it gets me. Some people do not want harmony. - F.A.A.F.A. 22:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is ones past, its something I have had to work to get over and you will need to as well. You claimed you wanted harmony under NBGPWS and proved otherwise, claimed again under FAAFA and then went back on what people felt was a promise to behave with the stipulation that it only regarded the election term. We all dig our holes and have to crawl out of them afterwards, don't do random acts of kidness, just by kind ... and patient. --Nuclear Zer0 00:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I never went back on any 'promise' regarding the election. I promised I would not add any negative info into the article of anyone running for office. I didn't. Do the research. You'll find that I, unlike some on Wiki, spend very little time trying to add 'negative" info into the articles of  US Gov officials who I might 'oppose' or disagree with. - F.A.A.F.A. 00:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Note to Mongo - Re: Request to Ruthfulbarbarity Thank you. - F.A.A.F.A. 00:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Shoshone National Forest
Hey, thanks for creating this very good article, right now I'm translating it into french but I got a problem with a sentence, I can't figure out what you meant. Here is the expression : "The Beartooth Mountains in the northernmost section of the forest are granitic and metamorphic in origin, and at to 3.96 billion years old, these exposed Precambrian rocks some of the oldest on Earth". Did you mean : granitic and metamorphic rocks, who appeared during the Precambrian, are some of the oldest rocks on earth ? --Alonso49 08:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, I just had to check the associated link :P --Alonso49 08:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I meant that the rocks are granitic and metamorphic and they are 3.96 billion years old...(that is when the rocks were "created")...and are some of the oldest "dated" rocks on Earth...in other words, of the rocks that have been examined by geologists, those in the Beartooth Mountains are some of the oldest dated rocks known...
 * Let me know if you need further clarifications, and glad to see you are translating the article...thank you!--MONGO 17:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I edited the sentence. You might look at the result. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just saw that and it looks much better. The article is a bit wordy in a few spots and that helps clarify the issue I think...thanks!--MONGO 18:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

My User Page
Hey, You erased my picture on my profile page... Just wanted to know why you did so... There are no Copyright problems concerning the picture, since I am the one being photographed and the photographer gave me explicit permission to use it. Thanks in advance. --Zouavman Le Zouave 10:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC) (PS: Happy Thanksgiving!)
 * It still isn't tagged appropriately...if the photographer has allowed you to use it, then you need to provide evidence of the permission to do so from him on the page.--MONGO 17:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

WHEEL
Please look at WP:0WW. I pled on Pump for people to come over so it would have wider input but instead I got a certain special fellow who is busy razing it.

I agree that on first blush the shorter policy always looks better. But there are distinct and deep reasons for breaking wheel warring into violations of a bright-line rule and violations of a balancing test. Worse, these late edits demote bright-line policy to some sort of nut. One more edit like this and everything that 20 different thoughtful editors have put together over the last year will be rubble.

If you don't have time to dig through all the history at Wikipedia talk:Wheel war/Archive, I understand. You can start here or take my word for it that the page has gone through a great deal of careful evolution.

Before merge, both pages were guidelines; I tagged the merge as guideline, too; there it stood for a month. Major changes should be discussed on talk. Our friend first tagged it down to proposed, then brought in the bulldozer. Sneaky or not, it's not okay. These rules -- call them whatever you will -- have already been cited in ArbCom decisions; perhaps I should have been bold and tagged the page policy from the merge. I've had a lot of input on this page already and I want you in there now -- if you'll be so kind. Thank you. John Reid ° 10:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been looking all this over...are we trying to make it POLICY? Right now, it is not descriptive enough. It should state that any admin revert of any admin action is a violation of 0WW.....the core issue is, an admin has been promoted by the community to perform administrative duties...therefore, the community has the trust he/she will do this correctly...aside from egregious circumstances in which policy has been breached, no admin should ever revert another unless there is consensus to do so based on discussion of said action at AN or AN/I. Using off-wiki communication to try and achieve consensus is simply wrong...that includes IAR and email. There are very few examples of admins who have simply violated the community trust by an action that can't wait for consensus support to have it reverted. Tony Sidaway was placed on admin 1RR by arbcom, and in at least two examples, his blocks or admin actions were reverted without consensus to do so simply because the opposing admin knew that Tony could not wheel war over the issue without being sanctioned by arbcom. I have more thoughts, and may even change my tune here slightly, but allow me time to examine all the info and better evaluate the situation.--MONGO 19:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Forbes Burnham
MONGO, I'm new to Wikipedia. Please help me understand why the image was deleted from Forbes Burnham - Thanks Roopster 12:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only" or "used with permission" which was either uploaded on or after May 19, 2005 or is not used in any articles, and which lacks a fair use assertion"....in other words, the image is "copyrighted" and if it is being used "by permission" or for "non-commerical use only" then one must submit proof that such permission has been granted....and or the person who took the image must release it for use under our GFDL licenses or to the public domain, making it free use. Check the links on the image upload pages, especially the tagging links. I know learning about our copywrites are complicated for newer editors...where did you retrieve the original image from?--MONGO 17:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * MONGO, I found the pic at . On the website it stated Please feel free to use images for projects etc., and, at one's own discretion, credit this website.  In the image I uploaded, I credited their website and put the statement on use in a tag.  Did I miss something?  Many thanks for taking to time to assist.  I'm enjoying Wikipedia and plan on being a regular contributor especially on people and issues pertaining to Guyana. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roopster (talk • contribs)
 * The bottom of the page states, "© 2001 Guyanaundersiege.com"...though it does say you can use the images so long as you credit the website. Upload it using the "fair use" rationale and that should be sufficient...make such you link that website on the upload page as well and you should be fine. Please use the following information to assist you in uploading under our fair use and make sure the image is only used in article space..you cannot use it on userpages...--MONGO 06:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * MONGO, readded the photo per your instructions. However, it was removed.  Any idea by whom?  Was named Forbes_Burnham_Guyana.jpg.  Not sure how to track an entry that was totally removed. Roopster 00:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It appears the image was originally taken from GINA-Guyana, but not sure...I think it qualifies for fair use see the policy...maybe...but again, that website states that all images are copywrited "© 2001-2005. Government Information Agency (GINA)"--MONGO 10:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you unprotect Cerebral Warrior's userpage?
This is probably a moot point, since it looks like he's left the project, but could you unprotect Cerebral Warrior's userpage? The issue has been pretty much settled in this discussion. Thanks! crazyeddie 22:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at the editing history of that userpage, but I am mostly inclined to delete it than anything else...why do we want to unprotect it, especially if he is no longer editing? If it's just a matter of getting rid of the unsightly ugliness there, I can do that of course.--MONGO 06:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was to leave your version in place (which doesn't have all of the ugly unsightliness), but leave CW free to modify it. If he modifies it outside of the limits we've set, then we'll take the whole page over to MfD to be thrown out. Basically, we're handing him some rope and seeing if he hangs himself with it. Since it looks like he's left the project, that doesn't look likely, but there is still hope... :-)

Since we have a mechanism in place for dealing with CW if he screws up again, and there doesn't seem to be any likelihood of an edit war, there is no real reason to leave the page under protection. If we remove the protection, then there is the slight possibility of watching someone hang themselves. (That should prove amusing.) But that's just a side benefit - I just don't like having a page remaining under protection without sufficient cause. The cause is gone, let's unprotect it. crazyeddie 06:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Done...if he shows up and either uses his page to attack anyone or does so elsewhere with that kind of venom, then he'll be gone. Keep an eye on that for us, if you don't mind...I already have 800 pages watchlisted!--MONGO 06:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you MONGO!
While I promised not to send out thank you's following my RfA, I decided to make an exception for my nominator and the people that asked the excellent questions. I appreciate the nomination, and now you'll probably have to put up with me asking for advice as I learn how to navigate my new responsibilities. I appreciate the note you already left on my talk page regarding exercising caution and I'll try to heed it. Thanks again, —Doug Bell talk 19:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Forbes Burnham Guyana.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Forbes Burnham Guyana.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 11:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Rationale added...oh, boy, I'm talking to a robot!--MONGO 11:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Galleries in Yellowstone
Please show me the rule that states no galleries in featured articles. Also this page is still .5 beta or in development. Please show me the time and date that this article was featured. I have my doubts. Please use the talk page before delteting. This article seems to be making reverse progress.

Here is One article that was featred and also included a GALLERY. THIS IS BS AND YELLOWSTONE IS NOT YOUR ARTICLE. IT IS OUR ARTICLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CamperStrike (talk • contribs)
 * That article IS NOT featured. It's just an article...it's not a featured article....see the little star in the upper right hand corner of the article page on Yellowstone...plus the banners at the top of the Yellowstone NP article talk page? They indicate that the community voted to have the article featured...all you have been doing for weeks now is edit warring over the image sizes (since you have your resolution set at some ridiculous level) and now trying to add galleries which are discouraged in featured articles...there is a link to the commons page that has dozens of images there for further consumption.--MONGO 14:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

AN/I on your threat to block SalvNaut
My dearest Mongo,

I have started an AN/I on your idiotic threat to block SalvNaut. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney  (Hows my driving?)  14:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice comment and I responded to you and have seen your WP:POINT violation on SalvNaut's talk page.--MONGO 14:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries and comments
Okay, now I am here, warning you to remain civil...edit summaries and comments such as this are incivil...see WP:CIVIL. You have the right to disagree with me, but do so civily.--MONGO 16:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But he's right. You have been overreacting about the Occum's razor comment, about Seabhcan's signature, and now about Tango's statement and edit summary. --  tariq abjotu  17:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with objecting to someone calling you a fool, whatever the circumstances. Rx StrangeLove 17:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Precisely, rather than remaining civil, Tango has now decided to insult me.--MONGO 17:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm inclined to agree. Rather than taking it personally, make sure some other administrator is aware of the situation and walk away from that comment. I don't believe it's worth the grief on either side. -- nae'blis 17:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nae'blis, the issues are complex and interwoven. There are no completely innocent parties between myself, Seabhcan, Tbeatty, SalvNaut and others. I saw several repeated comments by SalvNaut that were incivil, one he had to stike out in which he called Tbeatty a liar, and in the same eidt, I percieved a threat that indicated a "pun" on Occums Razor...that looks as though he was indifferent to personal harm coming to Tbeatty via a razor. I may very well be the only one who saw it that way. What I didn't need was another edotor in his edit summary and comments adding fuel to the fire telling me I am making myslef look like a fool. I am not anything of the sort. Seabhcan altered his username sig recently during the Rfc about his civility and other issues that 9 people have agreed to...Seabhacan has been an active editor on articles related to 9/11 adding misinformation that is not based on the known evidence...the alteration to his username certainly appeared as a slap in the face to many people and his broad comments about "Americans" as mentioned on his Rfc indicates he is possibly violating WP:POINT. I appreciate your always excellent contributions and never hesitate to remind everyone that I am never passive agressive...if I see a problem, I deal with it. I may be wrong at times, but never for malicious reasons.--MONGO 17:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, and I was purposefully not commenting on any of the other issues going on with that article/those editors. I just think the Occam's Razor thing was a miscue. -- nae'blis 16:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Now, now Mongo, No Personal Attacks, please. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney  (Hows my driving?)  17:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What part of what I wrote above is a personal attack?--MONGO 18:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Seabhacan... adding misinformation that is not based on the known evidence" "the alteration to his username certainly appeared as a slap in the face"... You have blocked people for less in the past, Mongo. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney  (Hows my driving?)  18:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You have indeed cied websites and other material that is not mainstream. I do believe you altered your username to appear like Osama bin laden's as an insult, deliberately designed to provoke. Whether you altered your username deliberately to provoke can'r be proven. I would like demostration that I have blocked people for less than what you claim...I will be waiting patiently.--MONGO 18:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It is an outrageous and insulting allegation to suggest that I changed my username to be similar to Bin Laden. Its the `bin' part you are referring to I imagine. `Bin' mean `son of' in Arabic and about 48% of Muslims have `bin' in their name, in the same way that Scottish people often have `Mac' or `Mc'. To suggest that including `bin' in my display name has any connection Bin Laden only reflects your own narrow world view and perhaps some prejudice you hold against Muslims. I might as well accuse you of supporting `Murder' because you have `M' in your name. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney  (Hows my driving?)  18:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You changed the sig in the midsts of your Rfc...it looks to me like you did this as a provocation...much like what you are up to now. You are the one with a pending RFC about your actions, not I. In the course of that Rfc, you have refused to apologize to anyone, and have been sneering at all those that have filed the complaint. I also had an Rfc brought against me, and in it, I generally agreed with those that brought the Rfc against me, and signed comments that indicated that I had not made the best of choices, even though I also had many defendents. I learned from my Rfc...why do you feel that numerous editors are all wrong in the Rfc to the point that you basically laugh off all the evidence. We haven't even dug up ALL the diffs that demonstrate your malfeasence.--MONGO 18:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, the old trick of changing the subject. What is at issue now is that you have accused me of supporting terrorism. I would like you to retract that allegation. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney  (Hows my driving?)  18:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Seabhcan...what are you doing?--MONGO 18:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Retract your allegation please. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney  (Hows my driving?)  19:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Retract all of your insults Seabhcan...or get off my talkpage and stop sending me harassing emails.--MONGO 19:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've ever gone as far as you have, to accuse me of criminal behaviour. I e-mailed you to keep you informed. If you took them as harassment you are perhaps a little too sensitive. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney  (Hows my driving?)  19:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for admitting to this. Your emails were deliberately designed to provoke...a blind man can see it if he understands all that has transpired in the last few hours.--MONGO 19:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no need to insult the blind too. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney  (Hows my driving?)  19:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, playtime is over. I have never once stated that you have engaged in a criminal act.--MONGO 08:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What's your point, Seabhcan? Now it appears you're just trying to provoke him. Not helpful. --  tariq abjotu  18:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's nothing wrong with the fourth...
In re : That, in any case, is what I've argued. Given the "part of the problem", "many Americans ..." and "a kind of religious dogma" qualifications, these aren't even especially universal generalizations. In general, I think we should adjust for context, and what Seabhcan means is clearly (in all cases) "the editors working on the article with an apparently American bias". I have never formed a picture in my mind of Seabchan as anti-American or in any way bigotted in that regard. His remarks just display his frustration which he, understanably, traces to certain habits of mind in other editors. Every now and then he generalizes, but few readers would extend these outbursts beyond the contexts in which they were made. Even to take offense at the these remarks (given the sort opposition he's receiving -- from, among others, you) is a bit silly. To take action is, yes, I agree with Abe, a waste of time. Best, as always, --Thomas Basboll 17:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Besides myself, there are nine other editors that signed the summary of diffs which indicate his actions are to be questioned...so it's not as if I am the sole complantant. If it goes to arbcom...which at this point looks impossible to avoid, you'll get another chance to defend Seabhcan.--MONGO 17:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting argument. You contacted me to ask me (rhetorically, to be sure) whether there is anything wrong with your four examples. I explain in detail what's wrong with one of them and make a gesture at how this might also count for the others. You then tell me that there are nine other editors who are not likely to be moved by rational argument, and refer me to the authorities if I want to discuss things further. Why not actually argue your case, Mongo?--Thomas Basboll 18:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I did at the Rfc on Seabhcan...the evidence speaks for itself.--MONGO 18:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No you did not, Mongo: you have precisely only let "the evidence speak for itself" by plucking it mercilessly out of context. In the case of the fourth of the examples you cite (which really isn't very effective even on its own), I clarified the context in order to argue against your claim. You have not addressed this argument (even though you confronted me with your evidence.)--Thomas Basboll 19:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thomas, the diffs are there...he used his userpage to state "dumb Americans"...maybe that doesn't insult you, but it does insult me, other American editors as well as my country. His other generalizations are ethnocentric remarks unbecoming an admin.--MONGO 19:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am willing to explain the "dumb Americans" remark to you as well. But look: if you are not going to either (a) admit that you only have three examples where you thought you had four or (b) defend the significance of example number four, then it looks to me that Seabhcan was right when he said there is no point in arguing with you. If for every example I refute you say "me and my army got other examples", there really is very little to talk about.--Thomas Basboll 19:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I fully respect your right to take whatever stand you wish and was only trying to see, as a European, if you felt that these examples are evidence of a form of anti-American rhetoric that is based on ethnocentric generalizations. That you don't agree is not what I hoped for, but you are entitled to disagree and that is fine. I personally do not think that much can be explained that I will accept...the wording of those comments, along with Seabhcans editing efforts, indicate to me a bias.--MONGO 19:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * See, this is the problem: by bolding Seabhcan's qualifiers I was trying to show you that example number four wasn't really much of a generalization. He was talking, very specifically, about you (because I had thanked him for coming to my aid when you treated me rudely) and, a bit more generally, about people like you (in ways more specific than your nationality). Also, the context (his own talk page responding to someone who has just made your aquaintance) suggests that he's really just being friendly to a newbie (that you've recently bitten) and apologizing on your behalf (perhaps a bit bakchandedly) by suggesting that you are part of that subset of Americans that seem to be giving the rest of you a bad name. In fact, you argue like just such an "American" (familiar to us "Europeans"): you self-righteously assert your opinion and, when arguments to contrary are offered, you grant us (generously!) the "right to our opinions". Crucial to this "American" (a caricature) is the refusal to defend the position that was originally taken. I.e., "take it or leave ... oh, by the way, here are my ten friends ..." The immediate retreat from an aggresive rhetorical gesture to "you are entitled to your [presumably wholly unfounded and arbitrary] opinion", which is then followed by a doubly aggressive regrouping on strength of numbers, is offensive to anyone interested rational discussion. Also, though a minor point, I have no idea what you mean by "ethnocentric" in this context. I gather Seabhcan is Irish. The Irish are traditionally anti-American? It's part of their ethnic bias?--Thomas Basboll 20:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I got something to show you...you're name isn't mentioned, but I am alluding to you...read my response to question number 6 in this section. You may have been bitten by me initially, but indeed, your original efforts on articles such as Collapse of the World Trade Center were attempts to introduce conspiracy theories into that article. Your other excellent work on that article later is to be congratulated...however, you later have worked on related articles and every chance you can, you try to wrap the conspriacy theory issues into them. I have seen this. Seabhcan does the same thing. I asked you for your comments as a European because I was trying to deduce if as a non-American you found Seabhacan's comments about Americans to be correct. I feel they all all ethnocentric remarks, and no, to my knowledge, Irishmen aren't prone to being ethnocentric against Americans. I mentioned that 10 or whatever other editors feel that Seabhcans edits are questionable, yet you say they aren't...I was just wondering why. I asked because I respect your opinion, not because I summarily dimiss it. Sebhcan repeatedly comments that articles about American events are "protected" in a way, from viewpoints that conflict with their set beliefs...I was wondering if you felt this way as well.--MONGO 20:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nothing in your way of arguing suggests that you were "wondering why". If you were, you would be continuing the discussion about my points not referring me to your supporters and the WP arbitration system. You show no interest in understanding what I'm trying to say. Finally, I'm not sure I want to dignify your surveillance of my edits (in search of bad faith?) by pursuing your allusions. You remain wrong about my motives; but they don't matter; my edits are basically sound. I am interested in 9/11 CT's and I am sharing my knowledge on this topic through WP as are many other members of the community. It remains a legitimate area of human knowledge. I simply don't acknowledge that my behaviour in this regard is suspect.--Thomas Basboll 20:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am most definitely not surveying you. The pages you edit are on my watchlist, and I on rare occasions, see what has changed. Did your attempts to not have Steven Jones not labelled as a conspiracy theorists fail, and doi that result partially in you taking a wikibreak? You may thing your edits are sound, and in most cases they are, albeit, with CT overtones. I'm heading out, so don't expect a prompt reply, or any for that matter.--MONGO 21:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * For the record. I don't think the labels "physicist" and "conspiracy theorist" should be applied to Steven Jones in the same sentence, connected by a simple "and". To do so is just poor biographical scholarship, whatever the motives may be. I am taking a break from WP for many reasons. The most relevant one here is that dealing with childish, legaleseque actions like this RfC, conducted by people who have no sense of humor (I just looked at that Occam's Razor bit ... you are a nightmare, Mongo!), is disproportionately irritating when compared to the pleasures of working with the content. If I leave permanently it will be, yes, because of people like you. If I stay, it will be despite them (emphatically, not to spite them). Your most tiresome rhetorical move is to speculate about motives. It's obviously ridiculous to complain that I "try to wrap the conspriacy theory issues into" the articles I work with given that they are 9/11 conspiracy theories, controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center and Steven E. Jones. I might as well accuse you of "wrapping nature issues" into your edits.--Thomas Basboll 21:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow...that's about as outrageous a series of comments ever left here.--MONGO 04:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As you must be aware be aware by now, you bring out the best in people. Thanks, Mongo.--Thomas Basboll 00:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You give yourself too much credit. When you showed up at the Collapse article, you had every intention of adding in the CT stuff...myself and others made sure that the junk science stayed out, forcing you to stick to the known facts of that case. After reworking that article, you then proceeded to others where the CT jargon was more tolerable. The best that came out of you only happened because myself and others demanded it.--MONGO 09:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Obviously you're not saying that to me (you and I were both there, remember?). But in case anyone who is reading along wants to assess Mongo's claims about my proposed edits (and who forced who to stick to what facts) at the WTC collapse article, here's the relevant talk archive . Tom Harrison kindly pointed out to me that I should be happy about what happened there because I basically had the run of the place for a while (with lasting effects). If you forced me to do anything it was to put up with spurious dismissals of materials which, when they were finally introduced into the article against your kicking and screaming, allowed it to be reorganized into an informative article rather than a hodgepodge of outdated snippets. Anyone who follows my work as closely as you seem to, Mongo, should notice that I have thus far been driven by simple curiosity about how the three biggest building collapses in history happened. That's about as weird as being obsessed with national parks.--Thomas Basboll 13:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am glad I was able to educate you enough to direct you to reliable sources...however, the earliest discussions you were having regarding the collapses mechanisms, which can be see in this archive, indicate your initial attempts to make alterations were questioned not just by me, but by a civil engineer and several others. Please don't come to my talk page and misrepresent the facts of the case.--MONGO 14:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is another excellent opportunity for you to back up this claim you keep making. (You've back down before on this point.) Obviously you and others questioned the changes I was suggesting. The question is whether you directed me to reliable sources or whether I was already confining myself to such sources. What you need to do is to name the unreliable source I attempted to introduce to the collapse article.--Thomas Basboll 14:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thomas, "directing", "directing"...the point of view you were bringing to the table was that the CD hypothesis deserved to be examined for the sake of being complete. I and others did not agree with that. I clearly stated that there were no reliable sources that would support a cross examination and have the CD hypothesis included in the article...since it was made clear to you that there were no reliable sources to support the CD hypothesis, this indeed ensured that you stuck to the known facts. What you need to do is admit that in the first days of your registering your username, a number of editors disagreed with where you seemed to be trying to take that article. What more is there to say on this matter? Not much...--MONGO 14:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Same old thing, I guess. The CD hypothesis IS now included in the article, by consensus, because my reasons for wanting it there were sound (and NPOV). I had never proposed the introduction of claims that were not supported by sources already used in the article (the NIST report, the New Civil Engineer, etc.). You and others turned out to be wrong about where I was taking the article. I was not wrong in "seeming" to do so from your, very peculiar, point of view.--Thomas Basboll 14:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The CD hypotesis is far more throughly examined in the daughter article...the POV fork one. You never had a consensus for anything of the level you do in the POV fork version. I guess I'll have to reexamine the Collapse article and check your wording for potential pov wording and the like...see you there.--MONGO 15:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Mongo, do you consider the above statement to follow WP:AGF? It sounds like your old bullying tactics again. (sigh) ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney  (Hows my driving?)  16:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like I am simply telling him what I see. Are you here now to stir up trouble? Looks to me, like the emails you sent me when we were already conversing on two differnet talk pages at the same time, that you might very well be trying to provoke me. Why didn't you just communicate what you had to say in those emails you sent me...I mean, it's not like we weren't already heavily engaged in conversations online already.--MONGO 16:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This friendly discussion should probably be on the RfC talk page. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney  (Hows my driving?)  19:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom questions
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're doing a series on ArbCom candidates, and your response is requested.


 * 1) What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
 * 2) Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
 * 3) Have you been involved in any arbitration cases?  In what capacity?
 * 1) Have you been involved in any arbitration cases?  In what capacity?
 * 1) Have you been involved in any arbitration cases?  In what capacity?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

7 WTC edits
Your language "when asked about the barrage of questions he gets from those who don't believe the known evidence," is POV editorializing. It doesn't reflect the content of the article; its only source is MONGO. Further, you introduce a quote about controlled demolition before the paragraph that notes that some people believe the controlled demolition theory. Overall, it's a sloppy and poorly thought out edit. I moved the quote further down and removed your editorial language to fix the problem. --Hyperbole 18:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice.--MONGO 18:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

RFM
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/September 11, 2001 Attacks, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.--Acebrock 21:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think mediation is very active these days....it may be a long wait for a mediator.--MONGO 21:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Template
Mongo, could you please add the NPOV template to the September 11 2001 attacks article. Thank you kindly. --Cplot 09:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The article is protected and no consensus to add the template or rationale to do so has been adequately demonstrated.--MONGO 09:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

CD vs. collapse
(may as well start a new thread now that the topic has changed.)

The CD article is informative, and largely NPOV (still some work to be done), about a hypothesis pursued by many people. It does not push that hypothesis, it merely explains it (again, a bit of work to be done). All this was settled by two consecutive nominations for deletion. The basis for consensus on the collapse article and the CD article is obviously different, since the two articles are not only about different objects, but about different kinds of objects. One is about a building collapse, the other is about a pastime (to put in a way you might not immediately balk at).--Thomas Basboll 16:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Threat of bodily harm to WP editor on external forum
Hey. Along the lines of "Defend Each Other", made a threat of bodily harm to editor SWATJester in an external forum (See ANI thread ). It would appear that an indef block on Solidpoint for the threat is called for. I'm dropping this on a few admins talk's to try and resolve quickly, though it's on ANI now. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 21:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Empty cat
Also added here: Tom Harrison Talk 21:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What did I do?
Mongo, Did I say something to insult you again? I really never meant to. Please tell what I said that made you feel bad. I really want to know. --Cplot 23:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cowman109 Talk 23:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

An article in need of your input
The Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_timeline article is in serious need of attention. It presents numerous Conspiracy Theories regarding alleged ties between Saddam/Iraq and al Qaeda as fact, when these theories have been refuted, rejected, denied and discounted by the U.S. Government, various U.S. Governmental hearings and commissions, and almost all the respected experts, many of whom are retired U.S. Intelligence. This is a clear case of misusing Wiki to advance fallacious and discredited Conspiracy Theories. Perhaps you could help there. Thanks in advance. - F.A.A.F.A. 00:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia
Looks like a good admin candidate. 14000 edits with 6000 in mainspace. No blocks. Good eye for BS and lots of article cleanup. --Tbeatty 07:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me...maybe see if they are interested in becoming an admin.--MONGO 19:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Tbeatty 23:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Still no bumper sticker?
These things are the latest fashion: ArbCom bumper stickers

—Doug Bell talk 08:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah...I think I'll not advertise...but thanks though. If I did, I'd have tank or or toilet plunger as my pics.--MONGO 09:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I really wasn't seriously suggesting that you do. I find them a bit silly.  Anyway, I replaced the individual links above with the category I created for them so that your talk page won't show up on the "What links here" for the images. —Doug Bell talk 09:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't mean to be dismissive. Thanks again though.--MONGO 09:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet watch
- Chicago, Sprint - Chicago, Sprint - Chicago, Sprint - Chicago, Sprint - Chicago, Sprint - Chicago, Sprint - Chicago, Sprint

--Tbeatty 19:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh...may have to semi-protect the talkpage if that disruption about "feds" isgoing to continue...maybe best if it does you or someone else puts in a request for semi-protection.--MONGO 19:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, you got your wish on the sprot for the talk page. I fear that Village pump (miscellaneous) may end up needing it as well.  Add  and  to the list.  I'd be rather curious to hear a CheckUser on  before his block. --StuffOfInterest 23:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've opened Suspected sock puppets/Cplot but not sure what can be done for anon IP's.--Tbeatty 04:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation of Sept 11th article. POV
As part of the first step of advocating the wiki rights of cplot I am begining the steps towards dispute resolution WP:DR. User cplot has attempted to contact you on numerous occasions regarding alleged hostility on your behalf.  You then blatantly obfuscate and escalate the situation by being rude You appear to be ignoring the first steps of WP:DR. That is you are failling the "talking to the other parties" via removing communications attempts from cplot on your user page and then by blocking him, according to WP:Block, in a contreversial block. It appears that you and cplot are involved in a content dispute. According to WP:Block "Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. Sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute. If in doubt, report the problem to other admins to act on. (You may be wrong!)" Your aggressive actions (rubing in the face that he has been blocked) and even betting in a gamely fashion on when he'll be back to "disrupt" go against the wikipedia spirit and I would take this as a personal attack! To me it appears as though you blocked him because he added the category [usebaca] on a talk page... which is allegedly by accident. You then, instead of just changing it, asked him to remove it in a rude manner. 

You have even gone to the point of stalking the edits he does on his own user page! You may have had grounds to push a 3RR block in the past for against cplot but the prejucial effect of using this statement in your current 1 week block outweighted the wiki-rules judicial effect. Essentially your blocking him on this latest count is highly prejucial and I put it to you that you did it in anger! Seriously, blocking someone for "ADDING A CATEGORY TO A TALK PAGE! Come ON!" You blocked him because of the escalating uncivility which was occuring inbetween each other. According to WP:Block your actions are not the encouraged. This biased bloking, as suggested cplot, was simply based on my clients past rapport with you and your lack of good faith (as I've demonstrated above) to properly communicate.

This constant bikering is not only childish but totally disruptive for new commers in this article. I want to relax and read the issues concerning this article not read bikering on secondary... no not even... third degree issues. Though you have both played escalating roles in this revenge, trully Mongo has attempted to give the last hit with a revengeful BLOCK!

Now go figure, right at the point when cplot appears to receive support and begin a good debate you go and block him from representing his point... not on the article... but in the discussion page so you can resolve the underlining problem.

Cplot has placed a request for POV template addition to the article. (Which has been added). nevertheless he has been gang up on: with rude comments essentially telling him to fuck off. "...you want to add YOUR POV to the article. Please stop trying that. It is pointless and takes uses time and energy that could be used to improve the article and improve wikipedia. --Regebro 12:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)" Instead of concentrating on trying to suppress cplot perhaps wild conspiracies perhaps you should be a little friendlier in helping him (or in your case disprove) prove how he can add properly cited WP:CITE material for building an article which is evenly balanced in POVs. Remember, this goes for you too cplot, WP:POV has a lovely quote, which I added at the start, that indicated every article has POVs! Now lets work on having a well balanced POV article... that would hence be WP:NPOV according to wiki rules. It is for these reasons I believe we should begin mediation WP:RFM if not for the lack of civility then at least for the POV issues within the article (which appear to me to be the route of the problem). --CyclePat 21:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You appear to be an army of one....Cplot is nothing but disruptive...the category he was adding was disruptive and your commentary above is disruptive. See:--MONGO 22:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We are discussing facts here. These are elements that you have done. Where would you like for me to post it. If you prefer talking by email it can be aranged. Nevertheless, I too agree with you! My afformentioned commentary is disruptive; for me because I have taken the 2 hours of my life to anylise the possible injustice and bullying that appears to be happening. For you because I have stated my observation in the most appropriate location, your user page on wikipedia. If I can put it to you, the only thing that is really disruptive is the fact that it is verbios and seemingly takes up a little room on your talk page. Maybe also it is disruptive because it's unerving. So much so that my leg is presently twitching and my intesting are working faster. I have looked at your communications with cplot and I find it discusting and lacking in wikipedia civility. (not to say cplot didn't escalate any of the situation) But my observation show that you appear to be enraged and rude towards cplot from the start. That rage is being taken out in all the wrong ways. I simple request for civility is usually enough to make people understand. If you are alleging sock-puppets that is another story which is only prejucidial to the current block. I'm sure you could argue that in the appropriate venue. We are presently focused with his 1 week block.(Which I assume you're the administrator that blocked him, correct?) I am asking that you reconsider the block because it appears to have been done in a spitful and ragefull manner. Not only will this be an excellent oppertunity for you to perhaps begin negotiations towards helping wikipedia be representative of many POV's, hence NPOV articles, but you will have put wise feather under your hat towards conflict resolution. If you keep the block, it will probably, as per Wp:Block, only increase the tention towards the article. Don't forget he still has some key issues that he wants to present, this time though he has an advocate. May I suggest you seriously think of cutting the block a little earlier... I'm sure we can discuss and avoid the further steps towards RFC or dispute resolution. Finally, for the last time I will say this, I personnaly believe, as sumbtantiated up above, that when you block cplot you met the criterias for WP:Block but that little section that says "when not to block". --CyclePat 02:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * CyclePat...I pointed you towars the comments at AN/I...had any admin felt my block was wrong, they could have overturned it. I have no once been unfair on this matter. Cplot has presented zero as far as key issues...all he wants to do is take out the conspiracy theory section, yet replace it with a list of conspiracy theory books...that makes no sense at all. The guy repeatedly added a nonexistant category to talkpages, claiming oviously ridiclous reasons for not knowing how that may have happened, then adding it to his own talkpage...come on, man, surely you can see that. I think that sums things up.--MONGO 05:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello Mongo, thank you for your reply and your explanation. I am also glad that we are able to finally discuss the situation. I saw that he added a non-existant category once! Also, I was not really paying attention to the content of the article but advocating the rights of cplot. More particularly the way and the reasons he was blocked. I'm actually glad you have pointed out Cplot's views. It shows how much you are involved in that article and that perhaps the build up of frustration overcame you. Perhaps you can give cplot a temporary block instead of inderminate. Hopefully it won't be more than 1-2 weeks (that's including that extension because of the puppeteering)) (I'm sure though he has his ways of getting around if what you say is true though) Anyway with 1 to 2 weeks he would be able to contribute before christmas. Hopefully he will have read that list of books we could provide some key points for the article... a summary for each one. I would just like to point out that, yes, there is obviously contradiction in the way an article will go, but we must remain friendly. Finally, I would like to suggest that in the future, even if you may be 100% correct, such as the addition of categories to talk pages, to take the necessary steps of placing any appropriate warnings, ((civil0)), or simply a template warning ("the benefit of the doubt"). Usually then it won't be as contreversial of a block. (Which I still believe it is, and why I am asking for you to reconsider the indefinate block). Again as an external viewer of the situation, even with the other admin people at WP:AN/I (which most appear to have been frustrated with as well) it looks as though you jumped the gun in a rude and spitfull manner to silence a POV you don't or didn't agree with. Think about it! With the up most respect and sincerelly, good luck with future debates on content dispute. --CyclePat 22:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No way...after I blocked him for a week, he reposted the same nonexistant category in one of his edits on his usertalk. I know trolling when I see it and there isn't anything else to say on the matter, so kindly stop posting here about it.--MONGO 22:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems to me, your efforts would be better spent with an RfC? the block was reviewed and upheld. Cplot appears to be a sockpuppet troll.  Your observations don't show anything that you claim and your continuation of this particular line of badgering is disruptive and not helpful.  If you have comments about the block, it's listed on AN/I.  If you have concerns about the article that are not being addressed on the Talk page, there is RfC, mediation or ArbComm.  --Tbeatty 03:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I see you're now a paid federal agent
See this. He was posting it all over the place. I've left two warnings and if he does it again, he'll get blocked, but expect more Cplot sock puppets. I love Cplot's protestations of innocence on his Talk page. :) User:Zoe|(talk) 23:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ha...yeah...if everyone could see the plush surroundings those fat government checks provide me, they would surely want to make the "big bucks" I make. They picked that junk off encyclopedia dramtica after I made a comment about working for USDHS...where i haven't worked since last june. I ess the feds must be paying me to write articles on national parks and things like that too...I mean...why not, since obviously they don't already have websites devoted to those areas...:). The feds as a government could care less about Wiki...though individuals such as congressman and senators may take some notice of their bios here.--MONGO 05:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * They obviously don't realize that the feds are smart enough to not use any editors who were ever directly in their employ...JoshuaZ 05:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly...but of course...it's all part of the great conspiracy! I wish I did get paid to edit wiki! As much times as I am online, my overtime would sure be nice.--MONGO 05:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

How come no one ever bothers me for being a paid mole of KKKarl Rove's? Crockspot 17:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ha....I have my own thoughts on the Bush administration, which I don't dare repeat here for fear of violation WP:BLP, but for sure, many a bad decision was made with the events of 9/11 as a rallying point.--MONGO 18:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)