User talk:MONGO/Archive 39

Mann Gulch
Hi Mongo, thanks for weighing in on the Mann Gulch fire article. I've requested it be locked down for a bit. The problem with the new editor is that he tossed so much of the existing content and replaced it with that timeline, which is not well-written at all. I tried to clean it up at first, but gave up. The things like ridiculously long quotes in the footnotes is cruft, and the improper formatting of images makes the article unreadable on my laptop (unless one likes three-word columns on the left). Overall, I think that the narrative that did was pretty nice and while a timeline of sorts could be added, it should not replace the earlier content. Frankly, I think that taking the article to FAC eventually is a great idea, and though I'm not in a spot right now to do much of the heavy lifting, I did contribute some images a while back. I'd prefer to step out and let you folks who work on this area take charge. Maybe the other editor will calm down and realize that everyone here has the same goal... well-written, factual articles. Montanabw (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Thank you for all your efforts there. I concur some of the timeline is possibly a good idea but prefer it be worked into the article as part of the narrative, not as a form of bullet-pointed format as was done.--MONGO (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I mentioned you in the relevant AN thread concerning CerroFerro.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Mentioned at ANI
Your edits are relevant to and have been brought up in this discussion, and so I'm giving you the necessary notification. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 00:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean AN - see immediately above.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Aaand I just saw this. Jeez. My excuse was that by the time I'd put all the diffs into my AN edits, I didn't have the time left to do notifications properly before I had to leave the house. Apologies. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Its all fine so no worries whatsoever!--MONGO (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Please cease your disruptive editing to push your flagrantly obvious POV
that you have clearly demonstrated on the Donald Trump article. Thank you.soibangla (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like a personal attack to me.--MONGO (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please do not attempt to intimidate me with bogus accusations. Thank you. soibangla (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You're edit warring. You're making personal attacks.--MONGO (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Takes two to edit war, and you started it by falsely asserting that I was injecting POV, when in fact I was adding 100% factual, impartial data. Cheers! soibangla (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You were reverted by 2 people. I reminded you about it cause 3RR is NOT an entitlement.--MONGO (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not in violation of policy. Do not attempt to intimidate me. We are done here. soibangla (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Have a wonderful day! Hope you can go find a unicorn dancing in a pretty field of daisies!--MONGO (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * 

First Edit Day!

 * Yup..I am 14 years old now!--MONGO (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That and 72,000 edits, very impressive 👏 A 10 fireplane Imform me  18:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you!--MONGO (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem  A 10 fireplane Imform me  18:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Open your eyes...
,.
 * Thanks, angry Fox grandpa. Now I'm properly mad at minorities again, like the good lord intended. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are you making personal attacks? I merely posted a couple of video links.--MONGO (talk) 11:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * did you see the Reason article? Sir Joseph (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Will have to check that out....or a link works.--MONGO (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * there's also a Reddit thread going around with over two hours of Cicer and links showing what really happened. Basically nobody should ever spread news based on one video without checking if other videos exist.Sir Joseph (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. When I first read the story it was on Facebook and it was just that short video that was posted and could easily be taken out of context and it was obviously.--MONGO (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * this is the same guy who accused college students here in this now deleted story: Sir Joseph (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Its an easy equation...the teens were there to visit the monuments and see the sights. Phillips was there to be an activist as were the 4 guys screeching at the teens that they were born of "incest" and were screeching homophobic insults. One guy that was accompanying Phillips told the teens they need to go back to Europe and other nonsense. Phillip's comment "There was that moment when I realized I've put myself between beast and prey," Phillips said. "These young men were beastly and these old black individuals was their prey, and I stood in between them and so they needed their pounds of flesh and they were looking at me for that." is a pure unadulterated lie and bullshit yet the left wing loony tune media sucked it up cause it fits their narrative of white teens+MAGA hats=SATAN.--MONGO (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ...--MONGO (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Best narrative and take to date from The Atlantic. Read the entire piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Past 10 days we have seen two blatant examples of "news" sources pretending to do reporting rushing to conclusions before they do any independent verification. So slanted are they, that anything that fits their predetermined biases, they assume it must be true. But I think its a bit more nefarious than this really, since the goal is to get the headline out as fast as possible, they would rather get everyone pissed off about this sort of thing, and then if mandatory issue some sort of qualifying retraction, than lose out on the chance for their advertisers to get seen. News IS a business afterall, driven by viewership and the ability to use that as a force to drive advertising fees and in turn sell their product.--MONGO (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

fair use question
Hey friend- I am working with another user on something and ran into a situation, maybe you can shed some light on: He was trying to add File:Albert Flasher.png to the article on The Guess Who, and I reverted it, explaining on his talk page that that image as fair use and could only be used on the article about the actual recording. So I was going to use The Beatles article to illustrate that there were no album covers there and lo and behold, I found File:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.jpg with fair use criteria for The Beatles article. I didn't know you could do this. I actually put a message on User talk:Moe Epsilon because he review the SPLHCB fair use criteria in 2011, but I don't know how soon he is going to get back to me. Is this an area you know anything about? --rogerd (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually it is an area I know nothing about and have previously had to ask others who do know something about Fair Use. I would maybe look here and the section below that to help determine what the policy is. Sorry I am so little help on this particular matter!--MONGO (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well Moe did get back to me and gave me some guidance. Not my area of expertise either. --rogerd (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , since the song it represents is included as passing mention in The Guess Who, I agree that it fails the fair use criteria for inclusion and also agree that shortening your original edit summary for removal was proper. Atsme ✍🏻📧 18:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, someone who knows what they are talking about...finally, cause I dun know nuthing.--MONGO (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Inactive
Being bold, I have changed the status of wikiprojectNebraska from semi-active to inactive. As an afterthought, I decided to check out a few of the "active" project members, and arrived here. Perhaps I am over-hasty. You certainly are busy as a beaver, and working on NB topics. Despite the inactivity of the PAGE, mayhap the projecteers carry on? If you feel I have over-reached, please feel free to revert me. Thank you for your long service. It is refreshing to find editors of the 'ought' era still keeping the dream alive. rags (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that it is not active at all. Project space seem to have gotten far less activity than in the past and this is due to so few people maintaining them that in turn is due to so few active editors anymore compared to the past. I suppose I start working on Nebraska subjects some more I can reactivate it then.--MONGO (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05
I misread the date of the last blocking. I have reduced the length to 24 hours. I blocked them because they were the only one to revert four times in 24 hours. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes...that's better. I suppose I prefer page protection over blocks and while he may have been the only one to exceed the 3RR rules it's still not an entitlement as you know and others constantly tag-team revert right up to that limit. Looking at the edits I'd have to say I concur with Toa's stance that such an edit does need better attribution for context, but I suppose that argument is better placed at the article talkpage.--MONGO (talk) 09:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Usually I would protect so they could talk but in this case it seemed a bit too much. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

FLASHBACK: ABC Promoted Lunatic 9/11 Conspiracy Theories on The View
FLASHBACK: ABC Promoted Lunatic 9/11 Conspiracy Theories on The View. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure I'd say the network promoted it as much as that wingnut did. Lunatics come in all flavors.--MONGO (talk) 04:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Useful tools
For when a trout just isn't enough. Atsme Talk 📧 21:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I probably need a slap from a bigger fish, like a Pallid sturgeon.--MONGO (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * SMirC-chuckle.svg Atsme Talk 📧 04:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Steamboat Geyser
Hello, this is Pullchain123. I am adding this section to your talk page to briefly talk about Steamboat Geyser. The new content I inserted on Steamboat's page regarding a geyser that broke out in 1922 (Yellowstone's fiftieth anniversary, hence the name Semi-Centennial) and erupted 300 feet or more. Also, Steamboat erupted on April 8, at 8:44 PM. Please click these links if you don't believe me: https://books.google.com/books?id=WM-UZl0aGXkC&pg=PA401&lpg=PA401&dq=how+tall+is+semi+centennial+geyser&source=bl&ots=hoI5GBmrSx&sig=ACfU3U103Y5hihogVjL7W3aRm73lmRFvkg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiXiZnsrMnhAhXwmOAKHR_aCZ8Q6AEwB3oECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q=how%20tall%20is%20semi%20centennial%20geyser&f=false

http://geysertimes.org/geyser.php?id=Steamboat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pullchain123 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I did some more research and added another ref.--MONGO (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks man! -Pullchain123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.16.174.243 (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

One in a million....not in a million years...
The report wasn't good enough...the summary of the report wasn't good enough...so there MUST be something in those redacted parts! Yes...there is a chance!!! . It is safe to say that's not dumb or dumber but it sure is inconcievably stupid.--MONGO (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

In hindsight
Wondering if I could ask you one question about this comment of yours? I know it's been a long, long time; so if you don't feel confident enough to engage on it, I understand. - Wacomshera (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok..whats the question?--MONGO (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you for the quick reply. The question is, since the December 2014 award of $500,000 that he pledged to fight for human rights, how much of the money do you think has actually been spent fighting for human rights, now that it's over four years later? - Wacomshera (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No idea. Have you asked him?--MONGO (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That entire thread is at bottom of the collapsed section here--MONGO (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't asked him. Like Trump, his answers are more likely to be fictional than factual. I was more concerned about what you believe is the truth here, since I thought you to be an intelligent investigator and able to discern truth from bullshit, plus a fan of Blazing Saddles. - Wacomshera (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry I cant help you. I see no reason you cant ask him. If someone removes it for trolling you can perhaps email him.--MONGO (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Personal attack
Mongo, you made a personal attack on a page where I am not allowed to respond. May I politely suggest that this does not engender a congenial atmosphere. O3000 (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * All CAPS for my username. You shouldn't have insulted my comment as you did then. You reap what you sow.--MONGO (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't know if I'm required to post this, so I will in an abundance of caution. I started an WP:ANI thread related to you, MONGO. The content of my post was simply, "Eyes needed there [at User talk:Atsme] before things get out of hand." R2 (bleep) 23:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm a delicate fragile little flower and have to retreat to my safe space and pet my stuffed rainbow colored unicorn...therefore I am unable to attend. Hugs and kisses.--MONGO (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Naughty MONGO!!!!

has logged on. Bit rich coming from the old crank who throws a fit half the time I comment on his talk. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Old crank". Oh Peter you are so witty.--MONGO (talk) 04:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you
I wish to thank you for your work on the article about William Barr, especially regarding a trend for recentism. I have also tangled with an editor (unnamed but you can figure out who I mean) about edit warring and his/her obsession with a few related articles. So your effort is appreciated.Princetoniac (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * A lot of articles regarding current events/persons on Wikipedia suffer the wrath of those obsessed with detailing every daily news report without bothering to weigh it properly. For some, every tiny little detail is good enough when in more cases than not, these tiny details end up being of no consequence.--MONGO (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

why?
Why do you keep reverting material on the "Criticism of the Quran"? I corrected what a banned IP removed... Why do you keep reverting it to what he removed? --76.64.129.163 (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Soap Opera Indigestion
Yeah, they've been all over that. It was actually the big piece of the puzzle from whence all investigation followed.

I'm just curious whether JW (or Doc J?) will somehow convince WMF to do the obvious thing and rescind their initial action. That push is probably what it would take, since admitting error has never been part of the "We Never Make Mistakes" code of the ill-named "Trust & Safety" department.

tim /// Carrite (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I'm not surprised by the actions of the elitist thugs.--MONGO (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you Gerda Arendt--MONGO (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Two Medicine Formation
Troodontidae indet. That Dinosaur expert (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello I just want to discuss about Troodontidae indet. From the Two Medicine Formation. That Dinosaur expert (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like my error was corrected. Thanks.--MONGO (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Paul Bonacci
Saw that you edited the Franklin child prostitution page. What do you know about Paul Bonacci and why does the article so obstinately claim it is a conspiracy theory in spite of the evidence? Homodab (talk) 05:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources say it is a conspiracy theory.--MONGO (talk) 05:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

 * Give it a year and try again. I'll support then as well unless you act like a MONGO!--MONGO (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

WTC
See my comments to epicgenius on his talkpage. The floor system in the WTC was nearly unique for a building of that height, and I suspect that whatever the provenance of the quote, that's what was being talked about.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It was actually started yesterday by another editor....Epicgenius was just doing a cleanup. Enjoyed your comments at Epicgenious page...and suggest similar be placed at the article page in question.--MONGO (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that. I'll chime in on the talkpage. I'd like to look for some sources on the rarity of the floor system, beyond my personal experience.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Restoring what?
Hi there. I'm baffled by this edit and its edit summary. What were you restoring? Yup, I'm agnostic on the capital S in S Florida (I am sure MOS tells us what to do!) but I cannot understand why you would want to restore the error "identical" over the much more reasonable "similar". With the best will in the world I don't see how we can explain that something is not the same, then go ahead and label it identical. But do please feel free to enlighten me. :) Thanks and best wishes 82.39.96.55 (talk) 09:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Similar appears to be more accurate, yes.--MONGO (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's great. Best wishes 82.39.96.55 (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Undesired Revert
Hello, MONGO, you partly reversed an edit I made, an act I considered unnecessary. I should have it restored by now, but I thought both of our additions could co inhabit, so I will be restoring it now. I just wanted to work this out with your knowledge. I also found your reason slightly inconsistent with your edit, since they both have accuracy on different subjects. The purpose of my edit was to reconcile previous changes in the editing history as stated. Valid Validity (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think the issue of a change from 2020 to 2030 is reflected in reliable sources. I have even seen sources that say 2050.--MONGO (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh, it's not directly mentioned in sources, but if you look at the archives and references it is visible, I gathered archives and references the show the change. You can notice this in the editing history, where it was changed from 2020 to 2030. You also removed the references (which is understandable because you removed the edit supported by them). Also may I ask how you came to the conclusion of 150 years? I do not see that in the sources unless you just added it a moment ago. Will take a look at your recent edit.Valid Validity (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I checked the references and did not see support for it in the following reference (I hope I did not miss it). I desire to add my edits back in, but I desire to yield to you on that. Maybe I could have cited the change better, if so I do not know the best way and I hope you could help me with that. Let me know if you see what I was talking about in the edit history and the removed archives. Valid Validity (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think if we have current information that is preferable over a webarchive reference. I am aware of the issue at Glacier and the older posted documents that stated the glaciers would all be gone by 2020. I think that sort of alarmist material dates from the early 2000s. I am adding now a reference that explains the 150 year issue. Essentially the Little Ice Age ended roughly in the year 1850...give or take a decade I imagine, but since then, now actually more than 150 years ago, the glaciers in the park have been in a general state of retreat.--MONGO (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ice Age - I can wait. In the interim, we need to plant more trees and recover all the rainforests that have been destroyed. It may help keep CO2 in proper balance, or maybe a brilliant scientist can figure a way to use CO2 as a fuel that emits O2; I can't see why not - everything else on earth seems to be backwards. If that doesn't work, we can always resort to eating babies. Atsme Talk 📧 14:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Re: "...figure a way to use CO2 as a fuel that emits O2" Unfortunately it doesn't work that way, as going from CO2 to O2 requires a net input of energy. It would be like figuring out a way to harvest energy from water running uphill. Plants have gotten pretty good at splitting CO2 into carbon and oxygen using the energy of the sun (photosynthesis) so recovering rainforests should help. But if humans wanted to do it by some other mechanism they'd need the help of a large renewable energy source. ~Awilley (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

And that is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped
 Acroterion   (talk)   11:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Now that is some creative writing!--MONGO (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Orange you glad it wasn't included as an edit summary? SMirC-chuckle.svg Atsme Talk 📧 13:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * First I ever heard the UK Royals are behind the 9/11 attacks! That's new.--MONGO (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe Andrew thought Epstein was there. WTH, that particular pooper-scooper full of creative writing is so far off the charts there's not much else one can do but joke about it. Atsme Talk 📧 16:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh my! ~Awilley (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a really excellent analysis that convincingly ties together the seemingly disparate threads of the British royal family, Michael Jackson, and freemasonry. The reference to buffaloes is clearly meant as a nod to Ralph Kramden's membership in the Loyal Order of Water Buffaloes, and by obvious extension, to Jackie Gleason, the June Taylor Dancers, and from there it's a short leap to Miami Beach.I admit to being puzzled by the reference to "wool staplers" (Australia?) but I'm sure events will make it clear.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am reminded of certain times when I was an undergraduate, at a party, and declined whatever it was they were passing around, and while seeming uncool at the moment later decided it was fine in the end -- but would it have granted enlightenment? Now I'm not so sure. Had I stayed and experienced the glimmer of eternal truth in that ephemeral substance I may see the One True Light that granted me the vision to see the Royal connection -- but I've already strayed beyond what the Overseers allow me to say, so, alas, make sure no one else knows about this illumination, no one must know. Shh. Antandrus (talk) 01:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Too funny! It's hard to tell what substance induced such deep, and well, odd ramblings. But whether it was drug induced or just hallucinations it was at least original!--MONGO (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 US Banknote Contest
Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

WTC
Hi MONGO, I appreciate your comment over on David's page, but I thought it best not to continue the conversation there. (He labelled his edit his "final comment".) I agree with you that our relations have gotten better of late, and I think, in the interest of maintaining that, we should just keep plugging away at it, focusing on content, and working slowly and in bursts, as we have been, when time and mood allows. There's no rush. If you want to have a side discussion about why I'm so interested ("trapped" as you put it) in the article, I'm happy to do so at my talk page. As I keep insisting, though my views have of course evolved, you've often misunderstood my motives. At the end of the day, however, it doesn't really matter what my motives are. I've come to accept that the article will ultimately only be as good as you allow it to be, so my aim is simply to convince you of the content I think would be useful. I'm not emotionally invested in this at all. But I am intellectually curious about what is possible here.--Thomas B (talk) 06:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The main obstacle to improvement now is determining just how technical we should be. I'm not yet decided on this nor are others it seems yet.--MONGO (talk) 03:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know about you, but I feel like my main obstacle is my limited understanding of the engineering issues. But I'm learning. At some point, I hope to be able to write uncontroversial non-technical lead paragraphs for each section of the article. No matter how technical we decide the article should be at a deeper level, those paragraphs would serve a purpose. Like I say, I'll be back when I have a new suggestion. Thanks for this time around. Sorry if I was tedious; I thought I had a contribution to make, i.e., one that you and the others would see the value of.--Thomas B (talk) 05:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I was indeed being kind. But I don't think I was being too kind to a presumably perfectly sincere stranger wading into situation with a long history he was presumably unfamiliar with. I think it's a mistake for us to pile on him like this (and to propose to censor even the suggestion?!? On the talk page?!?! While telling him to read the archives????). I wasn't expecting to hear any more from him. But the four of you have now actively engaged with him. Seriously. I think that's really bad practice. It's (explicitly) unkind and presumes bad faith and only radiates the heat-not-light I was talking about. As always, I recognize that it's essentially your article to do with as you please and mine to contribute to as you allow. But this just isn't a good look, man. Your call.--Thomas B (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * None of these bad faith accusations you are making against me were stated by me. I suggest to you go back and read the thread again. Here is my only comment. All I mentioned was the article cited talking about squibs....--MONGO (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. In fact, an unreserved apology. I did misread the thread.--Thomas B (talk) 22:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Fox News
Why is Fox News locked for editing? There is so much in there that is rampantly false and incorrect information about Fox News. Djserkit (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It is only semi protected.--MONGO (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

RE WP:Coatrack in Jack Posobiec
Would you mind providing more discussion for clarity on the WP:Coatrack issues you raised on the talk page for the Jack Posobiec article? It would be nice to hear from the person who brought up the issue in more detail (you) -- even more so if you can correct any misstatements I made in my analysis. The pushback I got was based on RS claims, so I did add some about sources within that context, and it was meant to add to the coatrack discussion, rather than to take away from it or to change the topic. Thank you, and thank you again for the mentorship you gave me on my talk page. Those of us who are long-time readers and new editors need help, and you are one of the people who has helped me so far. Ihuntrocks (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for providing your update on the topic in the discussion. I hope you make progress on that issue. I'm leaving that discussion because I like my account and that's the way to keep it. Ihuntrocks (talk) 01:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not invested much there so I'll watch your progress. Thanks.--MONGO (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've come to the realization that there's too much inertia for keeping it the way it is. It's also become apparent that the response to anything I bring up is either going to be "no, I think it's fine" without addressing any concerns with any amount of substance or it's addressed with a conduct threat. That coupled with some... strong advice to leave the discussion is all I need to know that's what I need to do. I've stated my case to the best of my ability, and there will always be a record of that. Sometimes, that just has to be accepted. Ihuntrocks (talk) 01:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * After some thought, I'm considering an RfC to ask if there are WP:Coatrack issues warranting an article rework, presented as a yes|no and with direction to the talk page. I'd like to get your thoughts on whether that would be an appropriate path, as I think some fresh, uninvolved eyeballs would help and that your concern is the most valid one raised. My support has already been registered, and I have nothing more to say in that discussion right now. As a follow-up question, if you do think that an RfC would be a good idea, would you be opposed to opening it? I'd like to be able to see how that process works in practice, and I'd prefer not to screw it up -- I'm still quite new. Thanks for the mentorship. Help is always appreciated. Ihuntrocks (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Unless it's a page I have never edited before, no need to ping me, ok? I would drop it for a few days and then ask those that have previously commented first if they wold be opposed to streamlining then forming paragraphs out of those bullet points.--MONGO (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a reasonable course of action for me. I apologize for using the reply feature. I thought it was for replies and that the ping feature would be for pages on which you were not contributing. Per your request, I won't use either unless under the conditions outlined. For the record, reply or ping to me anywhere, any time. I am not bothered by the notification (and actually appreciate it.) There's always something to learn around here -- whether about Wikipedia, the community, or user preferences and I'm enjoying integrating so much new information. Thank you for the opportunity to continue learning. Ihuntrocks (talk) 22:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Just best not to put all your marbles in one basket here...spread your wings into diverse articles that interest you, lest "they" find you too quarrelsome and vote to have you topic banned or worse.--MONGO (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Further edit-warring evidence regarding an editor currently under review- how to proceed
Hello. I recently noticed an odd, overly-vague post on the talk page of the article for National Review, alleging edit-warring. I removed it, for reasons specified in my edit notes. Upon further review, I discovered the author of the suspicious post is currently under review for multiple allegations of edit-warring; as the review is ongoing, I will not name them publicly in this post. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Snooganssnoogans#Notice_of_edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion_2 I also noticed you are involved in some capacity in monitoring the situation, warning them recently on their talk page. I submit my edit as further evidence regarding a pattern of behavior https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Review&diff=prev&oldid=925451049 I write this post because I am unsure how else to handle it- this is a bit outside my wheelhouse; historically I edit psychology articles and contribute to the WP:AFD process. I just figured that since this individual is being scrutinized for suspicious edits, and I think I may have found further proof of that, I ought to mention it somewhere, and you are seem like the best bet. Thank you, Scriblerian1 (talk) 05:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are a serial edit warrior. It's a bit late now to do anything about events from 2 months ago, but they show the same pattern I have seen for a couple years. For the record, I'm not monitoring them but I appreciate you informing me. In this case, while they may have been vague in their talkpage mention that you removed, the reason for that is because the person they were edit warring with was using one or more anonymous IP addresses, so they couldn't really name anyone, and the belated talkpage comment they made should be restored as it was an attempt to open dialogue.--MONGO (talk) 07:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message
Pondering my need to participate...I suppose were I to be planning on a general state of siege in some questionable arena of topics that are generally filled with acrimoniousness, I might vote for candidates that I assume may be beneficial to me should unhappy and sullen detractors seek to bring forth charges against me in Wikipedia's star chamber of horrors.--MONGO (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

 * MONGO like strawberries!!!! Thank you but all I did was a haphazard series of copyedits that in my humble and hairy opinion, maybe helped.--MONGO (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

It’s that time of year!
And a fine Merry Christmas to you too Atsme!--MONGO (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Editing of US Protected Areas page
It appears you may have rolled back my 12/17 edits to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_areas_of_the_United_States

I'm interested to know more. I'm a longtime consultant to USGS on the Protected Areas Database of the U.S. and edited to both add to this entry and correct some of the language as well as web references. Thanks for reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Browsingeditor (talk • contribs) 20:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Developing Consensus on WTC
Hello Mongo,

Since we both share a mutual agreement to avoid a personal edit war. I was just wondering how I could properly form a new consensus on the WTC Crash and Collapse times. Should I (A. Write a Paragraph), (B. Find and Share New Sources in a Talk Page Forum), as just a couple of ideas. I Hope to hear back from you or Arcoterian on this matter soon thanks. Miked1992 (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)MIked1992Miked1992 (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * By posting to the article talkpages and awaiting input from other editors.--MONGO (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
Happy Holidays text.png Hello MONGO: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers,  D Big X ray ᗙ Happy Holidays!  17:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
 * Thank you and Merry Christmas!--MONGO (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Since Mr. X is now personally attacking you, I thought you should know.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * He and I have traded barbs over the years.--MONGO (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)