User talk:MONGO/Archive13

FYI redux

[1] -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Morton devonshire

Thanks for doing the sensible thing there, MONGO. I take in all that you say in your message in his user talk too. Best, as always, --Guinnog 21:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Transparent svg and IE

Just wanted to bring to your atention that transparent svgs are not displayed properly in Internet Explorer (6 at least), so there are white corners surrounding the locator dot in {{Infobox protected area}}. Cheers. --Qyd 23:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that before and it seems to come and go...last time I looked it was fine. The old loc dot was in png format, and was altered to an svg format sometime later. I'm not sure why it has a white box around it sometimes.--MONGO 17:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It's because Internet Explorer 6 has no built-in support for transparent svg. This isn't much of a problem for most articles using {{Infobox protected area}}, as the underlaying maps generally have pale colors; it becomes more evident when the dot is superimposed on darker colors, such as Caribou Mountains Wildland Park or even Isle Royale National Park, Statue of Liberty, Fundy National Park, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, USS Arizona Memorial, etc. I've resorted to transparent gif locator dots when using {{superimpose}} or zindex style, due to this IE limitation (which extends to transparent png as well). It's hard to even notice this inconvinience, as most editors are using browsers better then IE ;) --Qyd 11:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey there

Mongo, I just shot you an email. Later. JungleCat talk/contrib 17:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I owe you one... JungleCat talk/contrib 17:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem.--MONGO 17:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

September 11 Fatalities

Regarding your question about why the line from fatalities was moved to the attacks section.

The part about the pilot being killed used to be up in the attacks section then I moved it to fatalities. Since the attacks section was referring to pilots and crew being killed as part of the hijacking it did seem to better belong in the attacks section. Also, there is a lot of information regarding the WTC in the fatalities section but was only that one line at the end about the airliners.

Your call, just letting you know why. --PTR 20:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Userpage

Could you unprotect my userpage? Since that whole Edsel thing has blown over. Karrmann 00:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Done.--MONGO 03:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Electronic health record

Mongo, can you please speedy delete Electronic health record since you are an admin. I was annoyed to see you'd removed the speedy notice. We need to move Electronic Health Record there as per an agreed name change. We can't do it until Electronic health record is deleted because that article has an edit history of more than one edit. I've done this many times with other admins -- it is the way it's done. — Donama 07:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with the redirect?--MONGO 07:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'll take care of it.--MONGO 07:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Another Frogsprog sock

See Special:Contributions/KFA_UK. This is getting tiresome. Raymond Arritt 12:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I've gone around and tagged every account created by Frogsprog with a sock tag...let me know if any others pop up...surely there will be more.--MONGO 19:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Deborah Frisch

From the "Only on Wikipedia" Department: Deborah Frisch herself, using the username Warriordumot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), started blanking the article about her and using it to attack others. I ask for an admin to check it out on AN/I [2]. Seems rational enough, eh? So what happens? Editor (as in nonadmin) User:JBKramer starts reblanking it for her, accusing me of WP:BLP violations in an extremely patronizing, "I'll pretend I'm an admin" fashion. I try to restore some of the article using better cites, he starts revert warring with me, and admins start giving him high-fives on AN/I? Could you please tell me what is happening to this place? --Aaron 19:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Aaron...we have been tightening up all biography (especially those of living persons) in accordance with WP:BLP. I don't take a stand on naything on that article, except that is must be reliably referenced and we must not, at any time, use article space to impunge anyone. I don't say you have done this, and all I ask is that any reference must be either directly quoted or be summarized in a NPOV manner.--MONGO 19:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not the article that's bothering me (though I am somewhat offended that my attempts to find proper cites to rebuild the article are being reverted so quickly that no fixing of the article is even possible any more; any Google search of the subject's name offers immense proof that she's a notable Internet presence and is guilty of everything she's been accused of in the original article). What's bothering me is that this started as my good faith request for assistance regarding Warriordumot, and instead of anyone doing anything about her, it turns into an attack on me. (Warriordumot has just revandalized her page again a few moments ago, by the way, since no admin has bothered to block her. I can't even touch the page now to fix the vandalism, because if I do, JBKramer can set me up for a 3RR violation (and yes, I know reverting vandalism doesn't count, but I also know that the one time I've ever gotten a block, it was for a 3RR that wasn't one; I was actually reverting vandalism, and the admin hadn't bothered to examine the edits)). And what really is riling me is that no admin is not only not calling out JBKramer on his patronization, but they're actually thanking him for it. That's not about WP:BLP, that's about "some editors are more equal than others." And it's the sort of thing that drives editors away from Wikipedia. --Aaron 19:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

As I just posted on AN/I, I believe that Aaron was making a good faith attempt to revert vandalism and blanking. If BLP violations were reinserted, it was inadvertant. - Crockspot 19:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I don't question that...I don't take a stand at all...the issue is conformity with WP:BLP and all I am asking is that EVERYONE follows this to the letter.--MONGO 19:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

And now he's getting away with WP:NPA-violating edit summaries [3]. --Aaron 00:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Seriously want to talk about this

You're aparently an administrator, so why keep your talk page protected? Can you really serve the interests of the community in that way? I would encourage you to engage in a dialog with me on this issue. Urek

Sorry to butt in, but according to WP:UP, (see section: Ownership and editing of pages in the user space, and subsection: Use of page protection for user pages):

Most user page vandalism occurs in retaliation for an administrator's efforts to deal with vandalism. Administrators may protect their own user pages when appropriate, and are permitted to edit protected pages in user space.

Hope that addresses your concern. - Crockspot 15:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't, that seems to suggest it can be used as a short term bandaid, but not a permanent setting. Urek

Deletion of articles

I just restored a page you deleted, Sir Robert Hart, 1st Baronet. It was tagged and marked for speedy deletion, but there was a substantial page history of proper/non-vandal edits below the vandalized versions. As a word of caution, please check the page histories of articles you delete so we do not remove useful content. Thanks--Jiang 03:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to go off line...

But I want to hear you say "we're cool man." - brenneman ^{L} 07:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. I never have a beef with you.--MONGO 07:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Leave it

I don't give a flying fuck about trolls (and I blocked Urek as a blatant recreation of one of our recurrent pains in the arse, not caring really which one), but it is very unedifying to see a slanging match between you and Brenneman. Urek had already paid out more than enough rope and it was really just a question of waiting for the drop. If you could bring yourself to apologise to Brenneman for losing your cool I think that would do a lot to ensure that everybody is absolutely clear on who is the villain of this little drama. (the above is obviously fine). Please don't let yourself be baited by the trolls (yes I know, I'm a fine one to talk). Guy 15:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Page deletion

What is going on here? The page I had to twice create was deleted. How does one communicate with these wildly deletive administrators? How do you know I do not have permission to use the text? Did you contact me? No. You just went ahead and deleted hours worth of work. I am no lonegr interested in Wikipedia. Hours of work deleted out of pure ignorance! Shame on you. Show yourself!

Sorry, wildly new at this. How do I go about convincing you of Anne Poore's notability? What if there are reasons her name should be recognized (especially in connection with Chester Olszewski) but there is nowhere on the web where one can find her other than a few French and Spanish Catholic websites? Just wanted an English language resource to list her. I was working on a more detailed article that would maybe explain her notability - should I shelve it, or, what - run it by you??—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewgabrielrose (talk • contribs)

If I restore it, in it's current condition, it will probably be deleted again due to failure to meet the standards for WP:BIO. Link me to a Spanish website and I'll try and translate it and see if it can be better verified. There may be an article on her at the Spanish version of Wikipedia.--MONGO 18:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I found this French site - http://perso.dromadaire.com/vivi_labine/statue.html, and this bit in Spanish - http://www.editorialbitacora.com/bitacora/galeria/fenomenos05/feno03.htm. I'm a monoglot, so out of luck as far as translating these.--andrewgabrielrose 12:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Neither website is very satisfying as far as a reliable sources goes. The Spanish one is very brief. Is there anything in print...in a published book?--MONGO 16:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Southeast Polk

Hi, I would just like to ask what your reason for deleting the image was on the Southeast Polk District page. I checked and it is allowed to be on the page.WatashiNoAiken 23:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It had no fair use assertation--MONGO 03:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

To clear things up, I have writen permission to use any images and information located on the Southeast Polk District website.WatashiNoAiken 02:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts on something

I put something together that you might be interested in: User:Junglecat/RfA Thoughts. I saw what happened to "Mr oppose-fails my criteria". I should have confronted him myself. Someone did a similar thing by leaving a "blank" oppose on a great candid’s RfA, and I among others didn’t like it. I got reprimanded a while back for my comments I left on someone’s talk page about it. Any hoot, feel free to edit the page and add to it. It is unfinished and needs more thoughts/ideas. I know it is POV of wiki policy, but I think quite a few would agree. I think the RfA process needs a new "guide". JungleCat talk/contrib 19:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of these things and I agree with most of what you have to say on the matter. My policy on Rfa's is that I usually don't vote unless I am familiar with the nominee or I see a potential problem. My own Rfa was very contentious, and it's interesting since I never personally solicited to become an admin. I was pleased that some of those that opposed changed their minds during the week. If I see an Rfa that ha s apile-on of opposition, I never add my name to that column since I see no reason to add insult to injury. Changing the Rfa process is something that will be very hard to achieve as numerous attempts to do so have met with only minor alterations. I do think that it is important to be civil as much as possible there and respect that, especially with newer editors, it's best to simply and politely explain to them that their experience is not yet up to par.--MONGO 19:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

True, I need to add that, and need tweak the language on the page a bit. I don’t want someone to think I was a revolutionary or something like that. Thanks for taking a look. JungleCat talk/contrib 19:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, best thing is to simply make comments at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship and see what kind of feedback you get...just don't expect any sweeping changes. Let me know what else I can do for you.--MONGO 20:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding "bold" redirecting of article to avoid AfD

Hi MONGO, I was wondering if you could take a look at something. On October 5, Calton nominated Sophie McLean for AfD. Smeelgova then redirected the page, apparently intact, to Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous. Just being WP:BOLD? Well, I don't know. She didn't move the {{afd}} tag, so now everyone's still arguing over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophie McLean (and you really ought to look at that AfD; almost all the votes are from SPAs), even though it's now a redirect with no {{afd}} tag, and Voyage Au Pays Des Nouveaux Gourous is also sitting there with no {{afd}} tag. Combine that Smeelgova's extremely intense involvement in continuous editing of a whole bunch of related articles (along with pitch-perfect Wikilawyering skills), and I have to say I think something's very wrong here. Can you look and see if process is up to snuff on this AfD? (I should point out that there appears to be a major orchestrated campaign, by two different groups of people, to screw around with all articles have much of anything to do with Werner Erhard, Landmark Education or EST. One side seems to want to delete them all, the other wants to create a walled garden of as many Erhardt-worshipping (and Erhardt-enemy-basing) articles they can get away with. I don't know anything about what started all this, but I do know I suspect serious bad faith all over the place and a lot of articles (and editors) that need serious attention from some admins. What should I do? Can you poke around? Should I post to AN/I? Or what? Thanks, --Aaron 20:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Smeelgova (talk · contribs) and Sm1969 (talk · contribs) are either the same person or both intent on promoting that series of articles...WP:SPAM. If there is evidence of an effort to evade 3RR, a request for checkuser may be a good idea. I'll comment that the Afd has been redirected, and that doesn't appear to be a problem. I will need you to figure out which side is content on the deletion of the articles and see if they are a rival enterprise. I can't see any reason why your comments above can't be transcluded to AN/I (mine can stay here).--MONGO 20:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the two I mentioned above are actually edit warring, but I saw comments that indicated there is a lot of edit warring and possible 3RR infractions on various articles.--MONGO 20:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to figure it all out later tonight and report back. There's at least five different people involved, and they all seem to be edit warring over the same few articles, some for more than a year if I recall correctly. --Aaron 20:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Lot's of promotional issues going on here...notice how this is akin to editors who solely edit to POV push conspiracy theory stuff, and have little other direction, only in this case, it's even more obtuse. I'll be offline for some time also.--MONGO 21:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Stor stark7

I invite you to join the discussion on Nazi Germany regarding recent edits by someone who appears to see a lot of good in Nazi Germany, and a lot of bad in the U.S. and their Allies.--Cberlet 12:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeech...that should be interesting.--MONGO 19:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you accept my text suggestion at Talk:Nazi_Germany#When_the_frontlines_reached_Germany_several_million_rapes_took_place?--Stor stark7 ^Talk 13:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

test5 warning

Sorry, typo (meant test4). But I AM guilty of repeatedly forgetting to subst... Cheers. Pascal.Tesson 13:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Got off on the wrong foot

Since we got off on the wrong foot, I wanted to go ahead and extend my apologies if you misinterpreted my intentions or were offended. I hope we can continue on in the spirit of friendship.

Best Wishes, Urek 01:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yet more user page

Hi. I was wondering if you could cast a second pair of eyes over User:WhisperToMe and see if you think I am being ridiculously picky about the 9/11 joke the user has there. I find it distasteful to make a joke like that about an event where 4000 people died; the editor is refusing (so far) to take it down. Be grateful if you have the time to take a look. Thanks. --Guinnog 06:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot foe your trouble, MONGO. --Guinnog 07:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem...it seems a bit distasteful and I can't see what it does to help the project overall.--MONGO 07:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Favor?

I have requested speedy deletion of Image:Foley-ad.jpg as a copywritten image failing criteria 2 of WP's fair use policy (must not be used for purpose other than original use). It is being discussed on Talk:Mark Foley scandal as being fair use, and not POV because it "exposes hypocricy", which only bolsters that it fails criteria 2. I have removed the image from the page, but would like to see the image deleted asap. Can you do that for me? Crockspot 17:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Strange Close & Re-List

The Afd that you voted on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James W. Walter has been closed and relisted by an Admin at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James W. Walter (second nomination). Before re-listing, the vote was 19 delete, 5 keep. Morton devonshire 22:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

tinywords.com

On 30 September 2006, you did s speedy delete of Tinywords.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) deletion log. As the article's main author, I may be biased, but I thought that the article clearly established the significance of the website and its mailing list. Although I don't think the article mentioned it (mainly because I hadn't gathered the statistics to verify it), tinywords.com is the largest circulation haiku publication in the world (probably by a factor of ten over the next closest publication). Will you please undelete it (or do I need to go through Wikipedia:Deletion review)? ^BlankVerse 06:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I restored it...try to make improvements as possible to make it more notable.--MONGO 06:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I've now done a bunch of copyediting that I hope makes clear the importance of the subject of the article. I also moved it from tinywords.com to tinywords to emphasize that it is a publication and not just a website. I hope that those changes are sufficient to prevent any speedy deletions (as well as any WP:PRODing). ^BlankVerse 12:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Old Friend

When did you turn to the dark side? Agriculture 06:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I have always been on the dark side...it's my nature...back for good? Let me know if I can be of any help.--MONGO 06:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No I meant when did you join the cabal. I'm touring ATM, don't know if I'm staying back. This place looks more or less like the festering pit I left. Trolls galore, rogue admins, and vandals out the wazoo. Agriculture 07:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a "member" of any group and find myself juggling a lot of fine lines. I see most of the longtime editors as contributory, and regardless if I agree or disagree with their POV, I have no problem with them if they follow NPOV. I don't see many rogue admins, just people trying to do what they can help the project. Yes, there are lots of trolls and vandals though.--MONGO 07:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Looked to me like that piece of work Tony Sidaway is still around and still throwing his weight like it was no tomorrow, without consensus whenever possible. Agriculture 07:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, he decided to resign his adminship. I know others have had complaints about him, but I have no problem with his work and in fact have supported it most of the time. His recent dealings with some other editors are also editors I hold in high regard.--MONGO 07:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

When did he resign? Still looks like he is practicing... Agriculture 07:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It's been at least a week ago now. Seriously, I see him as doing what he thinks is right for the encyclopedia...many may disagree with that...again, those that have had "difficulty" recently with Tony are all, generally speaking, tremendous assests to the project. If you want to come back and edit, I welcome it...just try and let the past be in the past...the place can always use good help...just don't vapor lock on us.--MONGO 07:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible WP:BLP violation at Lori Klausutis

You may want to take a look at Lori Klausutis. The subject is 100% nn (and not likely to get any more n as she's 100% dead), but a lot of people are getting off on the fact that she assumed room temperature while in Joe Scarborough's Florida district office. The fact that Scarborough was in Washington at the time this happened, and that the autopsy showed zero foul play or reason to suspect it, doesn't seem to matter to a lot of editors; it's dirt against an enemy, and they like that. The article itself reads like a day-old newspaper article and says absolutely nothing worthy of WP:N; it quite obviously exists purely as an anti-Scarborough hit piece ... a perfectly wikilawyered hit piece on Scarborough, I must admit, but a hit piece nonetheless. Anyway, it's up for AfD, but the discussion has quickly degenerated into the usual factionalizing (i.e. the usual suspects want it kept at all costs), so it's certain to close as a "no consensus" unless someone goes in there and actually rules up or down on the WP:BLP and WP:N issues. Care to be that someone? *grin* Seriously, I'd rather it get closed as a full-blown "keep" as long as it meant an admin directly addressing the issues at hand; otherwise this is just going to keep coming up for AfD every couple of months from now until the end of time. So if you have a few minutes and feel like annoying some people... Thanks, --Aaron 23:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

A complicated matter...on the one hand, we have articles that provide the evidence as can be recorded from reliable witnesses. On the other hand, this is an event that now seems to have lost it's lifespan of notability as it is a passing affair, no offense to the poor soul who expired in such a sad fashion.--MONGO 03:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Red Deer

You mean like this? Image:RedDeerCaithness.jpg

That's a fascinating bit of info; I mean to read up on it. We have a lot in certain areas of Scotland and we just call them Red Deer. I think they are increasing numbers here. There are also Roe Deer and Fallow Deer; the latter are almost as small as dogs. I took the photo on holiday in Caithness last year. Best wishes, --Guinnog 08:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I chipped in. You are very welcome to use my picture if you think it adds to the article. Best, --Guinnog 08:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating, thanks for sharing. The debate about gorillas and chimpanzees also comes to mind. Did you ever read Steve Jones' book Almost Like A Whale? It goes into detail on the subject we are discussing. I added my pic to the article. --Guinnog 09:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Can't say I have read that one. Thanks for the image. Here is more on the matter of species and I'll check out that book you mentioned.--MONGO 09:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. I found out it went under the title The Origin of Species Updated in the U.S. market. Jones follows the structure of Charles Darwin's original masterpiece in light of new knowledge about genetics. It's amazing how much of Darwin's original material still holds up; it seems he was an inspired guesser like many scientists. --Guinnog 09:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, many thought Steven Jay Gould was trying to alter Darwin's theories, but Gould clearly stated that all he was trying to do was provide clarification.--MONGO 09:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Your ref harvard comments

Hi MONGO,

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I replied to them, placing my reply on my talk page as well...

Cheers,

--Ling.Nut 13:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it normal for this

person to patrol and edit/delete comments from Jimbo's talk page?--Tbeatty 20:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

He restored my comment. Is he Jimbo's admin or something? --Tbeatty 20:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge...is he even an admin?...I'll check--MONGO 21:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Can you say something to this user, User:Luci Sandor, regarding his comments? He was talking to User:ExplorerCDT, in what I would call an unacceptable tone. I asked him nicely to be careful in what tone he responds to other users and he reponded by saying Like I care. Please also report it to my posterior. Be careful, I just created three new accounts and I will just avoid those two aforementioned universities. Or, better, because I have a job and a girlfriend, I will consider doing it later and I'll leave you focused on my edits. [4] Thank you.--Jersey Devil 23:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it continues to be this way, then I would suggest taking it to AN/I.--MONGO 04:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you very much for your support in my RfA, which passed on October 17, 2006 with a tally of 53/6/0. I am equally elated and humbled by my new capacity as administrator of Wikipedia, and I send my heartfelt thanks for your unflinching support. If you need me for anything, just ask me! With gratitude, 210physicq (c) 02:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

why are you screwing with me?

What is your motivation behind censoring the truth I've stated?

You didn't have time to read what I was writing, so you deleted with extreme prejudice, i.e., censorship.

It's not my credibility that is at stake here, it's WikiPedia's.

Why don't you calm down and read what people are writing before you fly off the handle and censor everybody. Confirm the facts first, do your research, or you're going to earn a reputation less than competent. --CyberSongs 06:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here for organizations to use it as a promotional source.--MONGO 06:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I speedy tagged the new articles. They seem to be gone. I am going to go see who did it but don't want to stuff beans up my nose by asking how to check. --Tbeatty 06:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You can search for deleted articles here--MONGO 06:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I found it. I knew it was a deletion log and I could get to it from the AfD page. Just didn't want to give anyone ammo. Cheers. --Tbeatty 06:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ziteng

Why did you delete the Ziteng article? I wasn't the creator, but I think it's notable enough. It definitely wasn't vandalism. Consider restoring? - SpLoT 06:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No need to restore. I have the content in my clipboard. Do you think I should recreate? - SpLoT 06:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It fails notability and may be considered to be advertising anyway.--MONGO 06:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

My administratorship candidacy succeeded with a final tally of 81/0/1. I appreciate your early support. Results are at Wikipedia:Recently_created_admins#Durova. Warmly, Durova 21:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

New Project

I noticed you added the new project to the alphabetical list, and thank you for the information. Your project will hopefully be sent a copy of the partially corrected directory of projects in a day or so, with the hope that you can add your project to whichever groupings you think are appropriate. Good luck with the project, and I hope that this time I actually get within a week or two of my expectations. Badbilltucker 21:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Red Deer

Thanks for the note! I've added some thoughts - MPF 01:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the ref - I'd say if anything, it actually makes page sorting easier, since it quite clearly splits them into three species, Red Deer (C. elaphus), Wapiti/American Elk (presumably C. canadensis as that is likely an earlier published name than C. sibericus or any of the other east Asian taxa - need to check publication dates but that's easy), and Tarim Deer (presumably C. bactrianus). I'd even say we have to split the current Red Deer page, as keeping a broad circumscription of C. elaphus leaves it paraphyletic with respect to C. nippon (Sika Deer); their evidence for this is strong (the other option would be to lump Sika Deer into Red - not an attractive proposition). Fortunately, virtually all the sci names will have been published at species rank at some time in the past, so putting them as species on the basis of this ref wouldn't break WP:NOR. Then sorting out subspecies within each of the three species can be left to a later date when more info becomes available (cc. this to Talk:Red Deer). - MPF 21:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit count tool

Hey there. Did this tool for edit count link go dead or get moved? I cannot get it to work anymore. Or do you use a different one? Later - JungleCat talk/contrib 05:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't worked for me either lately...Essjay, the person who wrote the program, has been away from the project for some time now. Try at Wikipedia:Edit count.--MONGO 05:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check Wed. Gotta get some rest... JungleCat talk/contrib 05:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Howdy

Hey MONGO,

Just stopping by to let you know I'm back, although in a decidely less intense capacity than before. You seem to be at it as hard as ever.

Cheers, —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 17:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed you had made some edits...good to see you're still around, and I look forward to your latest excellent work. I also chimed in in defense of ref:harv and am not sure why some folks seem so interested in getting rid of it...personally I like it a lot, but admit I have only used it on one article.--MONGO 18:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Mis?identification of K

Is the evidence by which that determination was made privileged? I (and, it seems, several other people) equated the two on the basis of writing style some time ago, and the behavior post-blocking tended to reinforce that, IMO. I'm curious — I'd be quite mortified, and quite surprised, to find I'd helped pile on an innocent New Hampshirian. (If you need to reach me, the easily found address works.) Choess 00:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I was informed via email that People Powered is not a Karmafist sock, but is a New Hampshire resident involved in the political apparatus of the state. That is all I was told via email.--MONGO 04:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFA/Cynical

Thank you for contributing to my RFA. Unfortunately it failed (final tally 26/17/3). As a result of the concerns raised in my RFA, I intend to undergo coaching, get involved in the welcoming committee and try to further improve the quality of my contributions to AFD and RFA. All the best. Cynical 14:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

PrivateEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)and Rootology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. No action is taken against MONGO for any excessive zeal he has displayed. Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia as may material imported from it. Users who insert links to Encyclopædia Dramatica or who copy material from it here may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. Care should be taken to warn naive users before blocking. Strong penalties may be applied to those linking to or importing material which harasses other users.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 02:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Jaakko Sivonen again

Hi Mongo,

Since you were the one to block this guy last time, I'm writing you... Since he got unblocked, he's still revert warrying (see for instance Finnish people [5] or Vyborg (castle) [6]) resuming the same reverts and inserting the same highly POV/inflammatory content.

Could you take another look into it and issue him another warning or another appropriate measure?

Thanks in advance, -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: Btw, I saw that the Arb case was finally closed. Congrats for making it, I always thought you've done the right thing... :)

Re:9/11 articles

Sorry for letting things get out of hand. It's just that I lose my temper when conspiracy theorists use Wikipedia as a propaganda tool to spread theories that every established source has rejected. I won't lose my cool in future. Thanks again. Cerebral Warrior 15:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you and in fact, I find most of the comments by many that are POV pushing such crap are either trying to be provocative or are simply ignorant. In the case of the latter, our job is to ensure they become educated and in the case of the former, if they persist in disruption, then they end up getting blocked.--MONGO 15:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I had the image speedied

02:15, October 20, 2006 FloNight (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:" (Arb case closed)

Hope you don't mind. --Tbeatty 17:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for that...you beat me to it...thanks much.--MONGO 20:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

For offering your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination). The article was deleted. "The quality of mercy is not strain'd . . . It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice." ~ Wm. Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act IV Scene 1. Morton devonshire 22:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What is going on?

For some reason I'm unable to use the search function (the quickbar) when I'm logged in. For instance I'd put down "User:MONGO" below "find" in the quickbar and all I get is another search bar as if the page did not exist. Am I the only one having these problems? When I log out and search for articles this problem doesn't occur.--Jersey Devil 23:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, it appears to be working for me now (that was weird). Also would you know what is up with the "edit" link being to the left of a header? Is that something new?--Jersey Devil 23:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a restart may be needed...shut your system down and restart it and that may correct the buttons from shifting around...and then again, it may be the wiki servers lagging again.--MONGO 05:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It was happening to me, too. I think it was a server problem. Walter Siegmund (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, the buttons at the top of the page on Commons always shift around for me...maybe user error on my part!--MONGO 10:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I can no longer be bothered, but...

You might find this useful if you want to remove the offending links. I have removed a couple of dozen, but I will not attempt to remove any futher due to some opposition regarding this that I met on IRC - it is not such a big deal for me and I don't want to wage wars over it.--Konst.able^Talk 07:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[7] this ED admin has been reverting my removal several times, he knows very well about the arbcom case. Again, this is too frustrating for me to jump in any futher than I have myself, I will not keep reverting, nor block him over just inserting a link to his userspace. But as this is obviously an important issue for you I thought I'd let you know.--Konst.able^Talk 08:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate the effort and see that you asked for clarification at arbcom. I never use IRC and everyone who does should know that the logs there can come back to haunt them. I can't see what sense it makes to remove all the links to that website, especially from arbitration pages and old afd's, but I can't imagine what good it does us to make a beter encyclopedia when folks link to that website on their user or talk pages or start going around spamming folks for harassment purposes...of course we can't offend the pencil neck geeks that bother to edit a website that embraces bigotry. If folks at IRC want to challenge the arbcom ruling, they probably won't be editing this wiki very long. Best to keep out of it...they have tried for some time to get me to abandon wiki, like good little trolls, but it hasn't worked.--MONGO 08:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

ED purging

Mongo-- are you sure you should be deleting every possible link you can find to ED? I certainly can understand how we might want to delete links in the article space that in some way depend upon such an unreliable source. But I was confused by your deletion of a link on the semi-humor page Wikipedia:Embrace weasel words. Now I see you're removing links from user talk pages and even a user-page? Surely an absolute ban on linking to ED, ever, isn't called for.

I don't know the intricacies of the ED dispute, and its seems like its authors lack taste-- but based on general principle , how can we say "you cannot ever cite this particular speaker, no matter what they say, no matter what purpose the link"? It just seems like anyone-- even the KKK or a neo-nazi or even ED, has a voice in some instances, and I'm hesistant to see an outright ban on mentioning them.

I certainly don't object to you removing links in cases where you find an article which inappropriately cites ED. But I would strongly encourage you to please, don't try to conduct a wikipedia-wide purge or any and all links to ED-- or to any other site for that matter. --Alecmconroy 09:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Read the arbcom ruling...carefully...and also read my comments in the section immediately above this one.--MONGO 09:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

What exactly about that ruling am I supposed to be reading carefully? I see that they can be removed-- but do you really think this sort of wholesale deletion is warranted? I mean-- in the case above a guy is just talking about other websites he edits-- what is the harm in letting him link to it? --Alecmconroy 09:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well, I don't think I can explain it any better than the ruling does...it is concise and to the point. That is the ruling by arbcom...if you don't like the ruling, go complain to them about it.--MONGO 09:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

But all you do is show that you might be within your legal rights to removes such links, and that there probably is nothing anyone can do to stop you. It's still a "may be removed" rather than a "must be removed"-- so obviously there is some discretion in the matter. What is to be gained by deleting a link on a user page? If he wants to say he belongs to a stupid site-- let him, ya know? OR take the weasel words page. I don't know who added the ED link originally-- it wasn't me, but it seemed like it made a useful, humorous point that helped people understand what the problem with weasel words was. Is there something about that page that you find inappropriate and irrelevant? Or it is simply that you have some huge on-going dispute with the people who host it. (I haven't read all about what that disputes about, but obviously it sounds like they've been real jerks to you.

That said-- if there's something wrong with the link itelf, I can totally understand why you'd remove it. It wasn't particular integral, but a lot of peopel seemed to find it enlightening. On the other hand, if you removed the link just because you're mad at the people who host the site-- why penalize all of wikipedia by deleting the links? You're just cutting off our noses to spite our face.

--Alecmconroy 10:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Read the ruling. I haven't removed all the links, and clearly stated above that I probably wouldn't. The user you mentioned above had the link first removed by another editor, he replaced it, the first editor removed it again, he then replaced it, so I removed it...if you are here to defend that website, you will lose. I strongly recommend you find something more useful to do with your time...now.--MONGO 10:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I can tell you've had a rough time of things-- please try to keep in mind though-- i haven't done anything to you, so please, don't be quite so... imperative. You keep saying read the ruling, which makes me think i'm missing something in it, but looking it over, I can't see what. Obviously, it's an irreputable site and obviously, we shouldn't be trusting it as the basis for our articles. but what is to be gained in deleting it from the non-article spaces? If someone wants to proclaim, on their user page, they belong to the ku klux klan, and want to link ot the main site-- what is to be gained by deleting that link? It doesn't stop the person from being a racist. It doesn't stop other people from learning about the existence of the Ku Klux Klan. It just makes trouble. --Alecmconroy 10:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The ruling was made by the elected persons that voted on the case. If you disagree with the ruling, then you need to discuss the matter with them. I can't imagine how linking to the KKK on one's userpages would be congruent with the collegate efforts of this endeavour. See what can I not have on my userpage and Jimbo Wales comments which surely would not allow a link to a bigoted website that is sponsored by the KKK.--MONGO 10:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not that the ruling flatly wrong, because it seems to acknowledge discretion ("may" not "must), and I just wonder what is it you feel we're gaining by limiting ourselves, for example, in a way that prevents people from reading that "some argue" link that so many people like. It just seems like it's a dangerous policy to start saying "No links to ___". Where will it end?

It seems like this has been pretty thoroughally litigated, and your probably well within your rights to insist that the "some argue" link be removed. But I would ask you to consider withdrawing that insistence, if the only basis for it is a dispute with the web host of that article. Alternatively, if there's something in the article itself that you actually find to be harassment against you or otherwise objectionable, I of couse would understand that. --Alecmconroy 10:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I think I will abide by the arbcom ruling...how about you?--MONGO 11:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you might want to note the arbcom ruling in the ED article to prevent further discussion. Not why I'm here though... *Sparkhead 11:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well-- this brings up an interesting point-- do you believe the ArbCom ruling compells you to remove those links? Or merely that it allows you to in cases where that link is controversial. I had assumed it was the latter, but do you think it's the former? --Alecmconroy 11:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sparkhead has lost me on that comment...and as far as if I feel compelled...well, I never feel compelled, I make zero to edit this website, so all I am doing is enforcing the ruling. If folks don't like the ruling, they can go complain at arbcom. I think you have failed to read what I stated in the previous section...and since I removed less than 20 links to ED out of a potential of more than 200 links, it is hardly fair to assume I am on some ED purging spree.--MONGO 11:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Was that the ruling I should be reading? I'd only been reading the Mongo ruling-- I figured there was some reason Mongo kept re-iterating that I should consult the ruling. I apologize if I'm being dumb as a proverbial post, have been missing the fuller discussion behind all this. What ruling is Spark refering to? I don't see one entitled Encyclopedia Dramatica in the Arbcom archive.

I think we misunderstood each other on compelled. I wasn't trying to imply you felt "compelled" in the sense of "deeply emotionally driven". I just mean-- do you think the ruling requires the removal of any and all links to ED? (even you don't personally do all the deleting). Or alteratively, do you think the ruling only allows the removal of links in cases where the linked-to material is problematic or otherwise inappropriate? --Alecmconroy 11:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• MONGO, Let me clarify. The ED article is deleted and protected. Since you're likely to get further questions about it, you might want to put a note on the ED page (or talk) to save you the further discussion of people coming here and asking why you've deleted links. I'm agreeing with you here. *Sparkhead 11:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Alecmconroy, I'm only referring to the Arbcom MONGO ruling, which states ED links may be deleted, no other ruling. It doesn't require removal, nor does it require explanation for removal. *Sparkhead 11:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I sorted through the list of where ED was linked and removed most, but not all, of the ones I saw as unhelpful to Wikipedia. I might remove more and I might not...I can, and anyone can remove them all since the arbcom ruling states that links may be removed. Without going through some long wikilaywering, I imagine that the term "may" inplies that everyone has authorization to do so and they also have the right to not do so...but obviously it should be apparent that adding the link to that website is a blockable offense if done repeatedly or by those that should know better due to familiarity to the case as in the user we discussed a few comments ago.--MONGO 11:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can see had a hard time of things with the ED people, so I understand your frustration with them. But look at it from my point of view-- I wrote an essay and included a link in that essay I thought would be helpful. Now I'm being told that I'm not allowed to use that link. I'm not allowed to re-insert it. It won't even do any good to build consensus to re-insert it. And not, as I understand it because of anything that's wrong with what I actually linked to-- rather because some larger dispute you are having with the people who run the servers who host the article? You gotta admit, that puts me in a very frustrating position to be in.

If someone had said "Hey, Alec-- that link isn't a very good one, it doesn't help your essay, or it's somehow bad", I'd understand, and I wouldn't really give it a second thought. But if I understand things-- it doesn't matter how good or bad the link is-- all the matters is whose server it sits on. And that would frustrate anyone who spends time working on any project-- to have people striking text not because the deletion improves the work, but merely because of some other dispute that doesn't have anything to do with the article in question.

I would ask that you reinstate the link, or at least tell me why you think the essay is better without the link. IF you can't or won't-- well-- there doesn't really seem to be anything I can do to stop you from deleting it anyway. But unless you think _I'm_ one of a sockpuppet of one of you enemies-- why delete it just to spite me-- even if you can, legally? and even if I can't stop you. If it's a bad link and if it doesn't help to illustrate the problems with weasel words- fine. If they change the content to introduce harrassment against you into that article, then I'll delete the link myself. But don't just tell me it's a good link, but that I still can't link to it, "just because you can". --Alecmconroy 12:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Look...I'll make it simple for you: You reinsert that link, since you are aware that arbcom has made it clear I can and anyone can remove it, I will block you from editing for 24 hours. If you do it twice, I will block you for 48 hours...three times and I'll make it a week...and after that, it will be for good. I hope you understand...I hope this isn't too frustrating for you. NOW GET THE HELL OFF MY PAGE ABOUT THAT GODDAMN WEBSITE. I hope that answers your questiopn...post here again, and you'll be blocked for harassment.--MONGO 13:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Lori Klausutis Protection

I posted a question at Talk:Lori_Klausutis I'd like you to address. I'm not looking for an argument with non-admins on the merits of the (deleted) article. It's purely a procedural question, having to do with transparency of the administration process. If there's something procedural beyond the last AfD that details the actions (like there clearly is in the ED case) I'd like to see them referenced. Thanks. *Sparkhead 11:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I was heavily involved in Klausutis and I have never seen MONGO edit either Klausutis or Scarborough. Considering the number of people who participated in the AfD including Jimbo and Fred Bauder, to claim that they wouldn't be able to salt the article is ridiculous.--Tbeatty 14:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly.--MONGO 14:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The policy involves more than just editing, also involves commenting on the article in question. That's neither here nor there however. Read what I wrote over there very carefully. I didn't claim he couldn't salt the article, I claimed his actions seemed inconsistent with the policies I had reviewed, and was looking for other applicable policies to back his action, which he provided. *Sparkhead 14:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with your interpretation of policies. I don't recall MONGO making extensive to the page or it's talk page. He commended on an AfD. Perfectly acceptable to salt the page.--Tbeatty 14:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Geologic Trolling

You know this well already - but bear in mind that the M.O. of trolls who wish other editors ill, wanting them to quit WP, or to erode their credibility is to peck, little by little, over seemingly geologic time spans until the many-thousand stings of the swarm drive you over a cliff. Keep breathing deeply, and focusing on content, and you'll be ok. Take care. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, of course...that;s is the master plan...and when they repeatedly ask the same question, hoping to get a rise out of someone who is patient enough to NOT simply block them outright for disruption, they always run off to AN or AN/I and cry "waaaahhhhhh...MONGO was mean to me....". Next time, I won't waste anytime and simply remove their comments fro my talk page. The link to the arbcom case is all that is needed.--MONGO 14:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

For each person who trolls there are a hundred who appreciate you. Keep your head up. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm lurking, with my finger on the block button, should you need me.--Doc 15:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully suggest you step away from the RfAr clarification thread. You are being trolled, and I think most sane people can see who the trolls are. I keep making the mistake of feeding them myself, so I guess this advice is a bit rich. (Oh yes, they'll now appear here and accuse me of making personal attacks - well, if the shoe fits....)--Doc 23:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

A passing editor

Please remember that wikipedia is non-hierarchical and as such being an administrator does not provide any greater weight to your posts than a non-admin's. Removal of warnings is seen as uncivil and should not be done, regardless of how attacked you are feeling. If you feel that the edit has been made out of spite or to attack you, there are procedures in place to deal with this. This is not a warning of any kind, just a friendly reminder that even in times of great stress the policies and guidelines of the site should be followed. I hope you don't take this the wrong way.-Localzuk^(talk) 14:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not stressed. I'm also not surprised that when I started removing links to the ED website that the trolls would all come out and complain. If you don't know the full story, it's best to stay out of the firing line.--MONGO 14:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hiding away from the firing line is not always the best solution though, as I believe in the case it isn't. As a completely unrelated editor I don't disagree with the removal of the links - just the way you handled the user above. A simple warning regarding his persistent behaviour on his talk page followed by a block for disruptive editing would have sufficed. Anyway, I'm going to get back to what I normally do around here. Hope everything settles down again.-Localzuk^(talk) 15:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for standing your post. I'm mostly in the Mil History cluster, so I don't see the same users or issues. Following the ED thing recently. Wow. You're a bear! Bless you. If you find yourself in the NYC area, I've got a beer with your name on it. BusterD 15:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

If you have to travel all that way, I might have to throw in fried calamari. Keep me apprised, and good job, man. BusterD 16:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, out here in the middle of North America, the chances of finding anyone that would serve you calamari are slim to none, so that would be a treat. Thanks for the support.--MONGO 17:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

My RFA!

MONGO, thank you so much for your support for my RfA. I passed with a vote tally of 61/0/1. I am honored that the consensus was to allow me the added privilege of the admin mop. I appreciate your support on my RFA! --plange 23:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome

I just believe there is no place for harrassment here or anywhere else. And thanks for the offer. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Straight to the point

Are you open to this? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No, not really...I think it is best you do your thing and I do mine and we both try to avoid each other and that should be a lot easier now that the ED article and the drama based arbcom nonsense is over.--MONGO 20:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Considering how things went down, if I thought "try to avoid each other" was a viable option, I wouldn't have brought this up. I'm frankly concerned about a lot of the implication that have been levied on me, and I'd like to think that, in the future, we'd be able to work together on something if need be without some cloud hanging over the past situations. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Much to say, but in an effort to be civil, I'll refrain and inform you that I think you and I should create distance.--MONGO 21:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that might not work, especially since you seem to be holding something back now, which you haven't hesitated to in other areas where the implications were much more damaging. It's why I think some sort of neutral party might be a good thing --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I repeat my comment bascially...go do your thing and let me do mine. You edit a lot of the policy related pages and I don't, so that makes it easier. If we bump into each other somewhere, I'll deliberately avoid responding to anything you have to say in an effort to create space.--MONGO 21:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay then. What about the rest of it? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The rest of what?--MONGO 21:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem that persists is some of the frankly untrue things you've said about me. If I've done the same to you, I'd like to know about it, but to "create distance" is meaningless with the amount of stuff that's been tossed about here. Part of the reason GTB brought up the idea and that I'm for it is based around that - that obviously, things have been said, and it doesn't appear there's an obvious resolution. Is there? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment made by me are based on my opinions, some evidence and the finding by arbcom that you critcized my efforts to defeat harassment. So what are you up to now? I'm telling you to create space, I am trying to create space, yet you don't think that is viable...so what's your plan? You can file an Rfc or do whatever you want, but my advice is that we create space and you move your way and let me go mine.--MONGO 21:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand what your comments are based on. I don't know what evidence your basing it on, though, and I'm not sure what your constant citing of the finding is supposed to do here. What am I up to now? i'm trying to clear this up is what I'm trying to do, and the implication that i'm somehow up to something or worse doesn't clear anything up and doesn't create space. I'm perfectly fine if I never have to encounter you again, but it would actually accomplish something if this whole thing got cleared up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I have an opinion on you Jeff, and I am entitled to it...so rather than do anything about it, I would prefer to create space.--MONGO 21:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Very well. We'll see what happens, then. I'm actually a much mroe reaosnable person than you're giving me credit for, so perhaps keep that in mind if you decide to come around at some point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Edit summary and other issues

moved to User talk:Georgewilliamherbert for continuity

Please restore article: crackwhore

I noticed that you speedy deleted the vocabulary stub crackwhore. Though I am not the creator of that page, I feel it is a relatively famous slang terminology whose notablilty is at least equal to that of crackhead. This is was a serious page and should not fall into the category of speedy deletion. If you feel this page should be deleted I think it should be AfD. Thanks Valoem ^talk 00:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you want Wiktionary, not wikipedia. Alternatively, you could add crackwhore to crackhead and fill out the stub. But see WP:NOT for why it doesn't beling. crackhead is marginal as well. See also crack whore. --Tbeatty 01:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

That's understandable, I would assume that crackhead should be moved to wiktionary as well. It was just that his reason for deleting was confusing because he wrote: "nonsense article with no references and no purpose", which was not the case for that article. Valoem ^talk 01:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep...nonsense article with no references and no purpose sounds about right.--MONGO 03:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)\

Explain, what did the article say? You need to view an older version you are possibly viewing a vandalized version of the article. Valoem ^talk 04:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There were two edits after your last one to the article and I viewed the history. There were no references at all and the article is just a slang term. If you can find references from reliable sources then the article perhaps can be replaced, but as mentioned above, it's better off in wiktionary but then again, it's justa slang term. I'm not going to undelete it.--MONGO 04:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There are several sources, however because it is a slang term I am going to assume Urbandictionary is an appropriate source Google definition, Urbandictionary definition, A short humor film that references crack whore as a slang term. However, now that Tbeatty has shown me the article drugs and prostitution, the crackwhore article is not needed. I was just pointing out that it was not a nonsense article. Cheers :) Valoem ^talk 04:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

For you

Here's a nice shot of some flowers for Mr. Popular. Taken on a stoop in NYC on a sunny May day. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone needs PIE

		Administrative Pie Slice
		Pie for your recent popularity.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Post on Ar.wiki

Hi .. some anonymous user has sent this in ar.wiki :

On english wikipedia the administrator mongo is a muslim hater "How about getting al-Zarqawi's Momma, stripping her, and throwing her in a pig pen with starved boars (ala Hannibal Lecter 2nd movie)? Film, of course, sent to Al Jazzera. We need to get medieval on these scum." http://mongomutter.blogspot.com/2004/09/one-down.html

"Everything I ever needed to know about Islam I learned on 9/11." http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5650/571/320/lesson_learned.jpg

followers-of-islam-can-you-see-blood

picture of the koran with a swastika on it: http://mongomutter.blogspot.com/2005/07/calling-londonistan-its-time-to-wake.html

Is this the kind of anti-islamic BIGOT you want representing wikipedia? someone who advocates stripping an old woman of her clothes and throwing her to pigs?

the kind of vitriolic hate mongo dishes out is disgusting and you people defend him and stand up for him.

I removed it from there .. please don't let such things afect your jop in wikipedia . --Chaos 11:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we had the same stuff posted here by some little mama's boy yesterday...for the record, I have no blog and whoever that person is that has that blog apparently lives in St. Louis, while I am 500 miles from there in Omaha, Nebraska.--MONGO 12:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I've felt that something is wrong with it .. don't worry --Chaos 14:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Rense (2nd nomination)

Hi Mongo, sparkhead (talk · contribs) has placed a note on the top of this afd, above the nom, which i believe is an attempt to stack the vote. The afd title clearly points out that it is a 2nd nomination, but the Sparkhead has put the note abv my nom to point out that i was the person who nominated it last time and for the same reasons. Is this neccesary or appropriate? Shouldn't the comment be made below the nom? I don't feel like reverting it again and getting into an edit war over an afd nom, so let me know what you think. I feel that the attempt is completely malicious and not neccesary. Thanks --Strothra 14:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not at all abnormal to mention previous afd debates, though it is unnecessary to mention who has nominated it previously in most cases, unless there is obvious evidence of someone renominating articles for deletion just to violate WP:POINT of some other malicious reason.--MONGO 19:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If you read Strothra's talk page here, you'll see we came to a mutual agreement regarding my addition as worded before you decided to edit it. Also note that Strothra himself is now using the fact that he was the previous nominator as a reason for a reevaluation. While it may be unnecessary to mention the previous nominator, I don't believe that warrants removal of the information after the two parties involved stated agreement on the text as it was. *Sparkhead 19:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Regradless, it was mentioned in your rationale for deletion and it definitely appears to be a violation of WP:CIVIL to insinuate that the Afd nomination is done maliciously by mentioning who nominated it previously. I am an administrator and that is how I see it. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT.--MONGO 19:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There was no disruption, and the only party who might have felt slighted by possible incivility was fine with the text after he and I talked a bit. There was no insinuation of maliciousness. *Sparkhead 23:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Some unsolicited advice

Hello MONGO, I know we've had a rocky relationship during my short stay, but I hope you'll read and consider this. I understand you've been under attack while you've been here. I completely understand and have experienced first hand how awful Wikipedians can be. Personally I'm choosing to leave the project after my short stay, having delved through the archives extensively and seen what goes on here. I'm quite convinced this is neither a positive place nor a serious project. You seem to think otherwise.

My advice to you is to not get caught up in the little things. It might be rough, frustrating and antagonizing to deal with what is thrown at you, but you can make a difference, you just have to show a positive attitude. Looking through your contributions I know you used to do this. I would encourage you to try again. If anyone can make this place better, it is people like you.

My best wishes. Good luck. Urek 15:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Joegoodfriend

I'm not sure if he somehow got through your block, or if it is just some wigginess with the timestamps, but he reverted Larry Craig a sixth time. But thanks, I was just compiling a 3RR complaint, you saved me some time. Crockspot 20:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The block log shows he is blocked, I didn't revert him after his last edit or after i had blocked him.--MONGO 20:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Smeelgova

You were right, I should not have granted the user request to delete their own talk page. I went back one edit and it looked pretty innocuous. I should have gone back two edits, which showed a long and contentious talk page including an 8 hr block. My mistake, sorry. I've restored the history. NawlinWiki 22:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User:NBGPWS

Hello, in response to your recent block, Luna-San and I were wondering if you used IRC. I am not fully aware of what the hell's going on here, but I think there's plenty more to this than just a user violating 3RR and being uncivil. I would like to discuss this further, but not on Wikipedia. Regards, Tuxide 05:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I never use IRC. If another admin overturns my block, which is the seventh time this editor has been blocked by seven different admins in the last 2 months, then they have shouldn't be an administrator.--MONGO 05:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't imagine any admin contesting your block; however, I am convinced that the actions of all involved parties should be considered. Enough that this should've been brought up on WP:RFC instead of WP:PAIN. Tuxide 05:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No RFC is needed...I imagine a post to AN/I would suffice...how come you are interested might be an interesting thing to know as well. Again, 7 blocks by 7 different admins in two months=problem editor.--MONGO 05:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Concerning yesterday's block, GabrielF asked on IRC if 3RR applied to user subpages. My IRC log has such a line from yesterday:

GabrielF: Luna - its not a huge deal, he's brushing up
          against 3RR anyway but I wanted to get a sense of policy

It is obvious that there are two parties here that just don't like getting along with each other. Although I don't know absolutely everything, I am concerned that there are users here who are just using AN/3RR, etc. as a way to make themselves feel superior, and to get away with violating WP:DICK in general. Luna-San probably knows more about this than I do, and I might just watch this a while longer. Tuxide 05:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to mention the 3RR rationale. Tuxide 05:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and no sooner did that 3RR block expire and he went right back to being incivil, which is the reason he was blocked previously as well. 3RR always applies ubnless reverting vandalism or removing unsourced negative commentary on biographies. My block is based on incivility and on the fact that this editor has been repeatedly blocked...what more is there to say.--MONGO 05:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't intend on gainsaying that decision in your capacity as an admin, but that user has already experienced several day and two day-long blocks-as well as one block that ran a week-and returned to his behavior immediately upon their expiration.

A month long ban is harsh, but considering that user's history-especially in light of the repeated attempts he's been given to moderate his behavior-it does seem fair and equitable. Ruthfulbarbarity 19:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I reduced his block and he should be unblocked in a day and a half from now. There is a method to my madness.--MONGO 20:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your patience. It's simply frustrating that he's allowed to repeat patently false information on his user page, while I'm not allowed to correct the record. I suppose I should just try to restrain my propensity to dispute his assertions, since he's not going to amend those misstatements, regardless of what I do. Ruthfulbarbarity 05:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If he resumes his behavior, then it might be a good idea to work on an RFC or an arbcom case. I see at least one editor has already started compiling, but I generally frown on this. If there is a way to be civil and argue the issues and not the messanger, then that helps, but I know that this is the hardest thing to do in polarizing sitautions. I, myself am in the middle with Ultra Conservatives calling me a liberal, and liberals calling me an ultraconservative.--MONGO 05:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You asked me not to edit his talk page. This howver is a blatant violation of this. I'd prefer not to antagonize him by deleting it myself but go it must.--Tbeatty 08:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"He's being monitored so let's not antagonize him any." I'd say "any" is something of an understatement. See User_talk:Ruthfulbarbarity#User_talk:NBGPWS. I get that NBGPWS has been way out of line. However, Ruthful is doing everything he can to keep the flames running hot, including ignoring your requests. I'm not in the habit of defending trolls, though I may be this time. It's that I can see why he's frustrated (several PW members writing & guarding the PW article for example, see 1st line of WP:AUTO). He's not handling it well at all, and my perception is that's because he's come in guns blazing thinking we're like other web-forums he's dealt with. At any rate, I have no problem with him getting blocked if he can't learn. I do have a problem with people trying to help him out the door by goading. Thanks. Derex 20:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

He's adopted a new user name, for what it's worth.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Fairness_And_Accuracy_For_All

I wouldn't mention it except to bring it to the notice of the admins monitoring his behavior. Ruthfulbarbarity 15:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Fox News meets Al Pacino. And I thought only states had mottos. --Tbeatty 16:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, just perma-ban him and get it over with. Morton devonshire 16:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Another user is already in the midst of preparing an RFC as a last resort, should his behavior recur, which I'm confident it will. Ruthfulbarbarity 22:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Blu Aardvark sockpuppets caught

You may want to look at this Raul654 17:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow....unbelieveable. Good job!--MONGO 19:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I just read your factual article at that site

Dude. Glock 22. And for those Park Ranger functions, Casull .454 --Tbeatty 06:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Nah...I'll just get this thing running again...

What a joke...factual...that blog isn't even mine. I live in Omaha, not St Louis as the owner of that blog claims as his residence. Sure are a lot of jealous little mamas boys out there.--MONGO 07:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I see your denial here of that blog. I don't go near your article there but I will raise the issue on the ED admins list. Any "facts" gleened from the blog are obviously bogus - assuming the maintainers trust you denial. SchmuckyTheCat 22:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you also ask them not to solicit for MONGO's 'Power Word - RL' real name? That would go a long way. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No, because in a previous edit war over the ED page (maybe before Mongo was an admin, even) Wikipedia protected the ED page while it linked to several attack pages on ED people - including names, names of work superiors, real life phone numbers, and work e-mail addresses. Those that tried to remove that information (me) were blocked. Wikipedia set the rules on that one by stating (by action) that attacking ED admins and revealing their info was fair game. So on ED, which does have a "No Real Names" policy for sites like LiveJournal, Wikipedia admins (any of them) are open to real life exposure.

I don't set or make the policy. That's what it is, and that's the story behind it. Don't kill the messenger. SchmuckyTheCat 23:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not worried about if they do know my real name as that would only make it easier for me to deal effectively with that website. But indeed, that blog isn't mine...I don't even have a blog. That person is in St. Louis and I'm in Omaha...that's almost 500 miles from St. Louis. There is a Wikipedia admin who gave information I had deleted to that wesbite...either uploaded it themselves or gave it to someone there. User:Rootology was being instructed by someone here, claiming they were an admin, to not go digging about my IP when the arbcom case was in the evidence stage, so there is at least one Admin on Wiki who is a piece of shit.--MONGO 04:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"Flyover country" is 500 miles? No way. St. Louis and Omaha are practically the same place. It goes LA -> Fly Over Country -> New York. And from New York City, Fly Over Country starts after Upstate. Upstate is only 6 hours away. So is LA. That means Fly Over Country is 10 maybe 20 miles wide. Heck, Omaha is a suburb of St. Louis. Yellowstone (just outside of Omaha) is about the size of Central Park and you should be able to get to it by subway from downtown St. Louis. Who are your trying to kid? --Tbeatty 06:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Omaha, St. Louis? You mean those are real places? I always just figured those were just old-wives tales, used to scare the children. Derex 08:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It's the great middle America purgatory. Yellowstone is about 875 miles from me...Grand Teton is 850...it's 500 miles to Denver...350 at least to Minneapolis...500 to Chicago...but only 160 to the megapolis of Kansas City!--MONGO 10:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Protected area

The transclusion argument isn't really relevant as the change doesn't impose additional server load (if so you'd have just doubled that load with your revert). Coordinates at the top of articles are useful, the provide a unified location and people won't have to look all over the place for them. Plus it makes the article ready for User:Dschwen/WikiMiniAtlas... --Dschwen 12:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that infobox was created for use with the Protected areas articles and the coordinates are already in the infobox...we had this discussion over at the project level and it was unanimous to not add them to the links...maybe created a new infobox for the thing you're dealing with might help?--MONGO 12:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Revert wars on Dawkins

hi Mongo. A little clique of Richard Dawkins acolytes have been rapidly deleting the references I have added to the page about Bertrand Russell, Ernst Haekel, Bob May and Dennis Noble. I don't muck like facts being surpessed so I have re-added them. I then got a message apparently from an Administrator threatening me with being blocked, but it was in fact from Sparkhead. Can you advise/help? Many thanks NBeale 19:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mongo: Sparkhead is at it again I'm afraid - 4 reverts in 24hrs on the Richard Dawkins article. Can you remove his latest revert please - the section he is deleting represneted a lot of work and has had more discussion in the talk pages than any other. NBeale 22:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've already self-reverted and NBeale, you agreed to preview anything on talk before adding it to the project page, which you failed to do. We can keep working in talk as you agreed upon. *Sparkhead 22:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Guys...I don't handle 3RR reports here...please report such issues at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR...but since Sparkhead has self-reverted, its a mute point. If the issues continue on the article, work on an article Request for comment to draw more interested parties in to examine the references.--MONGO 22:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

My Talk page

Thanks for looking out for my talk page, I get plenty of vandals, but I reverted, it wasn't that vandalistic, and I did reply to the person. Thanks, though.  :) User:Zoe|(talk) 19:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem.--MONGO 03:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Walter Andrew Stephenson

Recreated verbatim from deleted article and deletion review was upheld. I put it up for speedy. Is there anything else I need to do? Do Speedy's need to be put on ANI?--Tbeatty 17:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like an almost identical copy of the original...too bad I voted first time around. Where is the deletion review? ofr did they just recreate it out of concensus?--MONGO 18:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review listed here. Closing admin was Xoloz, here. Crockspot 18:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Notes:

DRV

• Already speedy deleted by User:Bobet. - Crockspot 18:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

My Editor Review

Hi, I just started an editor review at Wikipedia:Editor review/Jersey Devil and am trying to get feedback on my edits. Feel free to leave a review or comment. Thanks and bye.--Jersey Devil 19:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Please

Please don't do whatever you want and try to be empathetic. --AlexJohnc3 ^(talk) 00:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my orignal comment, I'm tired for various reasons and the last thing I need is you editting my userpage and ArbCom doing something stupid. --AlexJohnc3 ^(talk) 00:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't appear to be of any benefit to this project, even in the least. When you grow up, hopefully you'll understand that websites that libel others by calling them a pedophile are not to be considered as parodies or satire.--MONGO 05:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

First off, ED is a wiki and articles that have libel in them don't reflect on all of the website's articles. Most of them don't even have libelous content in them from what I've observed. ED is just a wiki with very weird "humor" mostly. Also, according to your argument, no content, links, etc. should be allowed from Uncyclopedia because of articles like the one on Pat Robertson (first article that came to mind) because for some reason I doubt "Pat is infact so tough, he shits live tigers" and he made a video called "Pat Robertson and Guys Gone Wild", there's a lot more on that article if those two quotes aren't enough. Secondly, what project are you talking about specifically, Wikipedia or ED? And please don't be ageist, it only reflects badly on you. --AlexJohnc3 ^(talk) 11:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing reflects badly on me in any way. ED was brought up for deletion and was deleted. The deletion was brought up for deletion review and the concensus was to keep it deleted.--MONGO 12:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"Nothing reflects badly on me in any way". That's a neat trick. Does it involve a special cloaking device, that makes people's impressions bend instead of reflecting? =) -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm simply very dull.--MONGO 07:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Calling my edit 'nonsense'

This must have been a mistake (wrong button?).

Saying rv nonsense in response to my:

reverting mongo, we must follow policies like WP:BLP and also not mislead, Osama bin Laden linked article does not support the conclusion presented in the infobox, so including that material is extremely misleading the edit

Wikipedia Biographies of living persons policy is not nonsense, it is Wikipedia official policy.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 18:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

All evidence indicates that OBL and his al-qaeda operatives did the events on 9/11.--MONGO 18:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I did not say anything about al-Qaeda, and that wasn't part of the material in question. The Osama bin Laden article does not say that he was the perpetrator. That is the issue. If all evidence shows this, then that proof needs to be stated in the Osama bin Laden article before placing that statement of fact in other articles.

For example, I cannot state as fact MR X IS A MURDERER in any particular article if biography article MR X does not show this to be the case.

WP:BLP is an extremely important policy on Wikipedia and it cannot be ignored by editors.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 19:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that Osama bin Laden is, indeed, a living person? Just asking. Crockspot 18:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The article on Osama bin Laden does not indicate that he is dead. It only mentions alleged deaths, so, he's a Living Person as far as Wikipedia and policy is concerned.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 19:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, he has admitted responsibility several times on video and audio tapes, which I believe qualify as self-published primary sources when sourcing his own statements. Has Osama's attorneys been contacting Jimbo? - Crockspot 19:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You cannot do an end run around Biographies of living persons policy by considering how likely it would be that any particular person would sue Wikipedia. If that is mentioned in the policy and I missed it, please enlighten me.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 19:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, I am well versed in the policies of this website and all evidence indicates that OBL is the party behind the attacks on 9/11.--MONGO 19:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If you ever get a chance, please add that verifiable evidence to the Osama bin Laden article. Editors there haven't been able to find any at all so far. It would help fill in the blanks and be more informative to people who read it.

Regards, and thanks for your contributions -- That Guy, From That Show! 04:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[8], [9]--MONGO 05:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The first only says that OBL has claimed to have carried out the attacks, the second is from the british government, which, being part of the ensuing conflict, is not third-party. yandman 10:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

How many murders confess to their crimes?--MONGO 18:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Europe location ARM.png

I noticed you removed the speedy delete tag from Image:Europe location ARM.png. That image is not actually on Wikipedia, it's on Commons. When an image is on Commons and not on Wikipedia the description page shows as a red link, but images and the description page will still show up as transparent copies from Commons. Some user created a page in order to place a speedy delete tag on the image, but this does not tag the image itself, just the data file that's hosted on Wikipedia. It's now a useless file, and deleting it will make the image and description page transparent again. (which makes the whole thing very ironic) -- Ned Scott 19:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Saw that after the fact...just got sidetracked so thanks for reminding me.--MONGO 19:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The Phaistos disc, Gun Powder Ma, the troubles with Gutenberg

Hi Mongo :) I'm a friend of Ryan's and I need your help. User:DGG and I are trying to sort out the mess of Printing, Printing press, Gutenberg.

User:Gun Powder Ma, who appears to be a troll, has repeatedly added unreferenced original research and patent (pernicious) nonsense on The Phaistos disc to Printing, setting off an edit war and disrupting editing, and fueling an argument on Talk:Printing#Phaistos Disc. He's doing the same thing to Printing press, POV pushing and wreaking havoc with the text and DGG's good editing, which starts here: [[10]], and here:[[11]].

I think Gun Powder Ma is either a crank, or deliberately trolling (pretending to be a crank) to disrupt WP. We need him dealt with, using your strongarm skills to take control of these pages. We also request protection from anonymous edits for Print, Printing, [[Printing press], Johannes Gutenberg, Phaistos disc, and History of typography in East Asia—a new article broken out of History of typography.

See also: User_talk:DGG#The troubles with Gutenberg, and User talk:RyanFreisling#Logistical support for The troubles with Gutenberg.

Please, please (meow) assist us to end all the nonsense. A "candygram for Mongo!" any time (if there is anything I can do for you :).
thanks and best regards, Arbo talk 09:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I left him a candygram. Thanks for the reminder about Blazing saddles..made me smile.--MONGO 10:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks like ol' Gun Powder is still at it; Printing press – "...Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish...".

The sheriff is near ;-)
Best, Arbo talk 17:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I must be a little more tolerant than my friends who are helping with this, because I see no evidence that Gun Powder Ma is a troll (except that he refuses to have a user page, tho a registered user) He seems a crank, and I have no way of knowing why he happens to have picked this topic. He has enough general knowledge of printing to construct an argument, Disputes over the history of printing have been a major part of intellectual life for the last 5 centuries; the only topic with a worse record is Shakespeare. The Phaistos Disk, being wholly enigmatic yet undeniably authentic, is a breeding place for peculiar theories, and some of those mentioned briefly on that page are far wierder than this.

I'm relatively new here. Short of totally protecting the pages, what strong-arm tactics do my colleagues have in mind? DGG 10:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I mean forceful measures like having Ryan talk to him, or if neccessary blocking him. You see no evidence Gun Powder is a troll, but this could be an illusion. Consider the amount of disruption he's caused—could be the work of a genuine crank, or a person bent on causing lots of disruption by pretending to be a crank. I've met such people before. Whatever GP's true motive (crank or troll), he's acting against WP policies & guidelines (edit-warring, using WP as a soapbox, POV pushing and disrupting WP to make a point, posting original research and information that can't be verified), and bending the truth in his comments on talk pages. Has he added any valid references?

Avoid feeding him by not talking to him on article talk pages; that is, I think you and the other editors are being too generous entertaining any of his pet theories—he's got everybody running around after him.

Revert his nonsense edits and otherwise give him nothing, to limit his impact.

Arbo talk 17:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I would use the talk pages to reach concensus of the issues, and if the concensus doesn't agree with his edits, and he persists, then he may end up blocked for disruption. I try to not get involved in content disputes I know nothing of, so all I can look for is signs of edit warring and repeat attempts to enter things that are not agreed to by the concensus of editors, or blatent vandalism.--MONGO 18:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know you asked me not post over there

Sorry, but I couldn't help it. Tbeatty 02:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Question on Image Deletion

If I was the one that created the graphic, uploaded it, and gave why I had the right to it, why is it that it was deleted off the himizu ryu article? DruidArena 05:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Working late

Mongo, I just shot you an email - Later. JungleCat talk/contrib 05:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with your first email more so than your last one...I have had my share of issues with that editor in the past.--MONGO 06:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

see

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Tachikoma/Archive4#What_an_idiot...

See about the suing for libel part. Anomo 10:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah...I have mentioned that I don't care what that website has on me there...so long as they keep it out of here. The little boys have to have some playground.--MONGO 11:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)