User talk:MONGO/Archive37

Happy First Edit Day!

 * Wow...its been 12 years! Thanks!--MONGO 14:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Many congratulations on this special occasion. Please keep up your excellent work. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you kind Sir.--MONGO 20:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Not around much
Notorious MONGO not around much lately! Missed! bishzilla   ROA R R! ! 11:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC).
 * Just so busy I haven't been able to contribute any. Miss you too!--MONGO 11:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Yellowstone, Grand Teton, Glacier
Why are you deleting the information I added? Are my sources unreliable?

Mongo, I have reliable sources. Why are you deleting what I added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C6:4004:60:C0EB:F416:2BD9:4D93 (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No idea what posts you made since your IP constantly changes.--MONGO 13:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a long time ago! Thanks Gerda!--MONGO 20:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We all start out with such good intentions don't we? Best wishes, Mongfather. That was indeed a long time ago. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I changed Wikipedia forever! Well, almost.--MONGO 20:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Many congratulations and thanks for all your help. David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for yours too.--MONGO 20:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Bridge (NHRP Louisville, Nebraska) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bridge (NHRP Louisville, Nebraska). Since you had some involvement with the Bridge (NHRP Louisville, Nebraska) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. MB 01:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Banff National Park
Hi Mongo, I'm thinking about rerunning this one at WP:TFA on Nov 25, the anniversary of its establishment as a nature reserve. Has the article held up well over the years? - Dank (push to talk) 19:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It went through a FARC in 2016 and I did a bunch of updates especially in the geology and glacier sections and the article was kept as a FA. It has been 11 years since it was mainpaged.--MONGO 19:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. Btw, the linkchecker found some dead links. - Dank (push to talk) 20:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Rapprochement?
Hi Mongo, As always it's a long shot. But I just had a look at the WikiHistory page for the Collapse of the WTC. Did you know that you and I are the top two editors on the page? It seems to me that if we could reach a compromise it would be possible to produce a WP:GOOD article. It is also clear that it's your decision. So long as you oppose my contributions, the article seems destined to remain as it is. When I was banned, part of me hoped you were right and this would let the article make progress. It didn't. I think if you and I work together to establish some common ground and some boundaries, real progress could be made. Contact me anytime when the mood strikes you. Best,--Thomas B (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

This is getting a little silly from Thomas B. He claimed a couple of days ago that he would retire if his "contributions" were opposed. They were. And here he is again trying to stay in the picture after responses from several editors/admins either asking for great care or opposing his "edits". His deletion of mention of the hijackers was a defining moment, together with his previous "editing" history proves that he is pushing CT and POV theories. I have tried to steer a middle course through this latest spat, but his statements that he is prepared to retire have been proved to be untrue. Another topic ban appears to be the only alternative. David J Johnson (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Since he refuses to make efforts elsewhere its pretty obvious to me he's just wasting our time. In the mainstream articles about 9/11 events it's best we stick with the known facts and leave the conjecture and speculation in the CT articles which are spinoffs to these main ones.--MONGO 23:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Up and running
2017 Montana wildfires. Feel free to contribute! Montanabw (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, Thank you!--MONGO 19:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Sprague Fire
Hello! Your submission of Sprague Fire at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yoninah, check now to see this is satisfactory.--MONGO 00:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Sprague Fire
Alex ShihTalk 04:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK
DYK you are awesome. That is all. Samir 05:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you --MONGO 12:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI
Good article on Sperry Chalet for the articles you've been working on! http://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/outdoors/2017/10/10/story-not-over-glacier-parks-sperry-chalet-donations-surpass-goal/752125001/  Montanabw (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I think they'll get it rebuilt. I bet by summer 2019 it will be up and running again. As big as they were, seems the Montana fires ended up looking rather uneventful compared to the disaster in California and the hurricane floods in Texas and Florida and the water and wind damage in Puerto Rico.--MONGO 00:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Boris Galerkin
Hiya. Is there a reason you reverted my edits to Boris Galerkin? And then un-reverted your own edits? Thanks. 71.89.74.77 (talk) 02:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sky blue. Planetary alignment.  Finger slip.  Error.  Not worth it.  Why would it matter and why do you care?  --DHeyward (talk) 03:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes to all above.--MONGO 12:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm a sockpuppet and wanted to leave this message as a farewell
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. see also our policy on three revert rule

Shharp (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Format as new section for clarity. --DHeyward (talk) 04:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Yellowstone
Do you think there might be a CIR problem? I glanced over some of their edits at other articles, and many of them are in the same vein: messing with wikilinks in lead sentences. Nice gif, by the way (but maybe BITEy???) —they look like progenitors of Darwinbish/fish. Rivertorch  FIRE WATER   16:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Something is amiss for sure. I have almost every park article watch listed and have reverted some but not every edit they have made. I'm particularly protective (maybe to a fault sometimes) any FA I see them edit and definitely think that they should seek consensus at talk first for anything for now on.--MONGO 17:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Yellowstone
I don't get why you revert my edits:


 * No one is responding on the talk page
 * No mention of the UNESCO classification in the intro (should be there)
 * No mention of Grand Prismatic Spring (same)
 * The current image is ugly while the one you reverted is of better quality!

WhatsUpWorld (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Just so you know...
I'm always passionate about editing. Cheery cheers!- MrX 23:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Passion is fine so long as its neutral. There is nothing wrong even with promoting a POV so long as other viable POVs you may disagree with are not eliminated violating neutrality.--MONGO 03:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

AE followup
Just following up on your comment at AE: I withdrew the request. I can take criticism, and apparently my sanction was not worded as clear as I thought it was. That's my mistake. I also do want to apologize for disappointing you: I hope you'll take my word that it was not intended as revenge or anything of the sort, but even if you don't, I do appreciate the feedback. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's be careful to avoid any appearances of a vendetta. No doubt you're doing just fine, and I recognize you haven't known DHeyward as long as I, but he has done some really great work for the pedia. I'm sure he will avoid unnecessary conflict but sometimes that sort of thing finds us anyway here.--MONGO 19:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

2017 passing at light speed....
Merry Christmas !--MONGO 14:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Diak4 opening RfC based on objection to "left-wing partisanship" in Alternative for Germany
Hey there. I just wanted to see if you would be willing to take part in an RFC that User:Diak4 has opened an RfC on the lede for Alternative for Germany [here that goes as follows: "I am concerned of the partisan nature of this sentence and it disrupting the neutrality of the page since it is making an allegation that many supporters of this party are racists, neo-nazi's, etc. I am even more particularly concerned with the sources being so biased against this party as well as being partisan, left-wing sites. I understand that this is not against WP:RS however it brings the opinion of these sites and states them as facts on the Alternative for Germany page." This is based on a previous discussion here:. -- [[User:R9tgokunks|Wilner]] (Speak to me) 12:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Reviewing

 * Thank you Insertcleverphrasehere. At present I do not have enough spare time to dedicate to this endeavor. If I had time I would most likely spend it at peer review or at featured article review, but I appreciate you reminding me of these other important areas needing assistance.--MONGO 13:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)