This is an archive of past discussions about User:MONGO. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The countdown is tonight!
MONGO, your body of work on national parks is amazing! Thank you for the many years you’ve invested helping to build the encyclopedia!
2020!!
Out with the old, in with the new!! I'll remember 2019 like it was yesterday!
Remember, a New Year's resolution is something that goes in one year and out the other.
I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more.
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of long and impassioned career. Thank you for the many great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)
We are pleased to nominate User MONGO to be Editor of the Week (and beyond) for his over 15 years of long, dedicated and worthwhile service to Wikipedia. With over 75K edits, Mongo has started over 1223 diverse and interesting articles, collaborated on 13 FAs, earned a Half Million Award for bringing Elk to Featured Article status, and is "one of the primary editors who initiated the effort to get semi-protection implemented". This award is recognition of a commendable and varied WP career, and is long past due.
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
Editing for 15 years with over 75K edits, Mongo has started over 1223 articles, collaborated on 13 FAs and earned a Half Million Award for bringing Elk to Featured Article status. Active member of 9 WikiProjects.
Recognized for
writing or significantly contributing to hundreds of articles on glaciers, lakes, mountains, forests and waterfalls among other topics
Most kind. I did not know we even had an Editor of the Week honor and I am sure I can locate others deserving of such a distinction. Thank you.--MONGO (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I'll be happy to check it out next week...this week all I can do is pop in and see whats happening...work has been buggered out.--MONGO (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Arbitration case opened
In 2018, you offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has now accepted that request for arbitration, and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.
The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org
Thank you today for William F. Raynolds, "a man of many achievements. A West Point grad and member of the U.S. Topographical Engineers, he was a decorated U.S. Army Colonel upon retirement and temporarily breveted to General for meritorious service during the American Civil War....was the first to climb Pico de Orizaba, the tallest mountain in Mexico, and led the first U. S. Government sponsored expedition into the region that later became the world's first National Park; Yellowstone. Raynolds was a renowned civil engineer who oversaw the construction of many lighthouses... some of which are still in use and are on the National Register of Historic Places."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Oh you felt it...so long as you got no damage. USGS has a link on one of those refs where you can report it. I am going to add to it tomorrow but today I am bushed after 14 hours of programming due to the pandemic. Least I still have a job I reckon.--MONGO (talk) 04:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Felt it here in California (Santa Barbara County), amazingly enough. I didn't hear about the quake until later. Just the slightest feeling of shake, and I noticed a page moving on my music stand across the room. Checked earthquake.usgs.gov right away, but no quake (I was zoomed in on California so it didn't display!) and then forgot about it. Looking at my browser history, yup, I checked about five minutes after the UTC time of the shake. 1200 km away. Antandrus(talk)04:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I didn't feel a thing here on Bonaire but hope everyone is feeling & doing well. We sure don't need anymore natural diseasters. In Nov 2011, there was a 5.6 earthquake in Oklahoma that trickled all the way down to Ft. Worth, TX - woke me out of a sound sleep, and that's hard to do. I thought it was a dream, and didn't want to miss out on it. Last year, Oklahoma had a 3.6 earthquake that trickled down to us as well. Somebody asked me if I liked Oklahoma and I said it was OK. 😉 Going further back, the very first (we tend to always remember those firsts) earthquake I ever felt was back in the 90s when I was in Malibu, CA. Scary!! AtsmeTalk📧14:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Antandrus...please report that to the USGS site as it may be worth their noticing. Western quakes are usually capable of far higher intensity than eastern ones but travel less distance so 1200km is significant. Atsme, those Oklahoma quakes are apparenty related to the injection of wastewater from oil fracking into unstable ancient faults. Also watch those kind of dreams or folks will think you're naughty or something.--MONGO (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Mr. MONGO, a succinct response from me (which alone may cause an earthquake) ..."Do not mistake humor for naughtiness". AtsmeTalk📧19:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I had a dream last night. I was in my cave and some other sasquatch came in uninvited and tried to steal my 3 day old skunk meat appetizers.--MONGO (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Ask oneself, what would be the rationale and motivation for an editor to edit BLPs about persons they loathe?
Why would we trust competing forces to provide critical analysis of each other and actually believe they are reliable? Especially if these competing forces are competing for monetary gain?
If any editor logs on each day to do NOTHING but argue, POV push and promote their vision or Twitter-feed style opinions, they should be site banned, indefinitely.
Nothing is more amusing than when an editor uses their tenure to bully newbies. More often than not, this tenure was arrived at with nary a solitary significant contribution, or any evidence via vote that the community has elected them to a position of trust, ever. These editors have no demonstrable proof that their purposes here are in alignment with the original intention of this website and they should be ignored for their illusions of grandeur.
Administrators should undergo a 5 year review Rfa, every 5 years. I think the vast majority of those elected to admin would pass this review, but it is a way to cull out the hyper partisan, sneering "tenured" admins who do oftentimes screech about abuses of power, yet routinely abuse their own positions with few checks and balances to stop them. A few admins seem to think they are some sort of House of Lords or Supreme Court with a lifetime peerage. Oddly, what Wikipedia does have that is the closest thing to a Supreme Court is the Arbitration Committee and they serve only up to 2 year appointments.
A revisit of Arbitration Enforcement by administrators needs to happen.
While maybe 5 to at most a dozen people argue about the content buried on line 700 of some BLP, outside that sphere of nincompoopery, no body else reads it or gives a shit.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 Central Idaho earthquake until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Dawnseeker200018:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Planet of the Humans is available for free screening on YouTube for 30 days and I encourage everyone to view this film. I wont link to it but it can be easily found there if you search. The film is nearly 2 hours and is backed by Michael Moore. I am providing my review now. As a conservative tree hugger, I have long argued against the alarmist views regarding climate change that tout "green energy" as our salvation. Planet of the Humans provides sometimes great details about how the green energy initiatives are really nothing more than a new way to make money. The film is not kind to such people as Robert Kennedy Jr or Al Gore and entities such as the Sierra Club, but is still unabashedly liberal in its trajectory, and makes sure to essentially call the Koch brothers evil.
Planet of the Humans does a fairly decent job explaining why pie in the sky efforts like solar arrays and expansive fields of wind towers are not the solution. In addressing wind and solar power, the film clearly explains why these industries are heavily reliant of fossil fuels, from the extraction of heavy and sometimes harmful rare earth minerals to the heavy industry needed to manufacture the towers and solar arrays as well as the sometimes difficult situation that is needed to transport such materials to the end point for use. While it touches on the short lifespan of these energy sources and the fact that they are not "always running" therefore we still need "always on" traditional heavy electricity generation, it doesn't elaborate on the costs/difficulties of recycling in great detail. I know for a fact that the blades used in wind towers are useless to all upon decommissioning of the tower, and end up being put in landfills upon being cut up and transported. Their massive size has, in the case of the state of Iowa where most landfills have said "no thanks", meant that decommissioned towers in that state had to seek other states that would accept their scrapped wind towers but only at high costs. The film only briefly discusses the misconceptions about "green jobs", that have routinely been told by those touting the energy as being "plentiful", when in fact only a miniscule population will enjoy even quasi-permanent employment at the deployment level, with all other jobs being at the extraction, manufacturing and transportation level. I know of one wind farm in Iowa that has 98 towers and only 3 full time employees maintaining them. The film can't be too technical but touches on the fact that the entire wind and solar energy industry is not any kinder overall to the environment than coal and natural gas energy generation, but doesn't indicate that it is actually far worse when examining it from the perspective of energy produced per kilowatt hour.
In addition, Planet of the Humans finally addresses the hypocrisy of generating energy from biomass. Biomass can be nothing other than mostly "wood" and even already harvested wood such as railroad ties and excess wood byproducts left over from other industry is oftentimes heavily tarnished with chemicals. Was pleased to see the fact that biomass energy ejects C02 into the environment just like traditional fossil fuel energy generation, but did not elaborate on how much more per kilowatt hour. It is in fact, significantly more C02 emissions. But I was pleased the film clearly demonstrated that the support biomass has gained from many who tout green energy is nothing more than one of the biggest hypocrisies of all time...I mean, who would believe we are helping the environment when we cut down trees to generate energy? Well the Sierra Club for one, who as is shown in the ending credits, only upon seeing this film did they walk back their support (but then walked back their walk back).
As is true for most documentary films that have Michael Moore's involvement, this film is very much anti-rich-and-powerful. It makes it clear also that it is our fault and should be our responsibility to fix, but does not provide a very optimistic view that we will address the problems correctly. The film makes it clear that wind, solar and biomass green energy initiatives are really nothing more than new ways to make a buck, and really do not do much to offset the harmful emissions of coal energy generation.
While I concur totally that the green energy proponents are either outright liars who are totally complicit in promoting ridiculous solutions or they are totally ignorant and only doing what is deemed as politically correct, I do not agree with the overall premise of the film which has the underlying narrative that only heavy depopulation and deindustrialization will cure the problem. That sort of ultra-left-radical approach is neither realistic nor necessary. It is part and parcel with Deep ecology which in its purest form, almost goes as far as to suggest we humans are nothing more than parasites on this planet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MONGO (talk • contribs) 15:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Both your last two comments were redacted [1]. I can understand your rationale for sarcasm, but probably not the best place for that. I also see your banned from editing that page, indefinitely, which, based on your word that your last comment was to be your last, should have been taken for your word. Not to drag you into a back and forth and possibly violate your ridiculous page banning by hypersensitive and over zealous administrators, I will confess that I am on the fence as far as whether we should alight on the past history of the deceased or not. I do know it will come up in trial...or at least will be shocked if it doesn't.--MONGO (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
The way I see it, a horrible event happened on that street in Satilla Shores. There is a factual way of presenting what happened, and Wikipedia has also decided to attempt to portray the character of each of the individuals involved in the horrible event. We can argue about whether Wikipedia is the place for character portraits or not, but alas, Wikipedia has decided in this case that background/character details are needed. Thus, one way to handle character/background would be to only include favorable descriptions of all parties, out of respect to all of the individuals involved (but that is not being done). Another way would be to only include negative descriptions of all parties, to show that there are bad intentions all around (and that is not being done). Another way would be to include both favorable and negative descriptions of all parties, to present a complete and neutral perspective according to the mission of Wikipedia (yet that is not being done). Another way would be to include only favorable descriptions of the living individuals and negative descriptions of the deceased individual (that is not being done, thankfully). And another way would be to include only negative descriptions of the living individuals and favorable descriptions of the deceased individual. As bizarre as that may seem to outside observers of this process, that's what Wikipedia's administrators have decided for the day on that particular article. - Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
You just stumbled into a hornets nest. The vast majority of the website isn't fully staffed by SJWs with zero knowledge of the law enforcement or the ability to apply BLP with a sense of equality.--MONGO (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Your help needed on an article
Dear MONGO, - I need your help. I have kept you in mind ever since you reverted a large egregious edit on 25 April 2018 on the Mark Satin article, an article I helped bring to FA status long ago.
The Radical centrism article is about an emerging international political philosophy. Since 2012, I along with over 200 other editors have brought it up from chaos to excellence.
For the last eight years, it has maintained an established citation style. However, on June 2 and 4 of this year, an editor, Treybien, changed a minority of those citations to a different citation style. He did not provide an explanation (or even proper notice) on the Edit History page.
As you would know, WP's policy on this is crystal-clear. According to WP:CITEVAR, "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change."
A week ago, I wrote Treybien at the bottom of the Radical centrism article's Talk page, citing the CITE:VAR rule and asking him to revert his work. He did not respond. In addition, I explained the situation to the anonymous editors at WP:EAR (entry 8). They did not respond either.
Because of intervening edits, some caused by errors in Treybien's own edits, I cannot simply revert his work. Or perhaps I lack the skill (I am older than dirt, I can remember the 1940s!).
Could you therefore do the reversions, or the rollback? (I see you have the authority to do rollbacks.) In addition, could you watch the article and help me deal with whatever fallout comes from the rollback?
After many years' work, the article may be the best short piece on its subject in English. It is getting more than twice as many views as Bipartisanship now. It deserves to be properly maintained. All best, - Babel41 (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I "pinged" the editor to the Radical centrism article's talkpage and will monitor it as well. I cannot do a "rollback" as there is no vandalism I can see but yes, major changes to articles or alterations to cite formats are best accompanied by a talkpage discussion. It appears that my sole edit to the Mark Satin article a couple years back was just during a routine vandalism patrol, so I'm not really involved in that.--MONGO (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks MONGO, for your help, and hopefully your ping will do some good. I was, as you can tell, under the impression that flagrant violation of an unambiguous WP rule (qioted in the fourth paragraph of my note to you above) should lead to the material being removed ASAP. If Treybien (who never edited this article before 2 June) wants to change the established citation style of a minority of this mature article's many ciations, then surely he should be made to follow the rules - in this case, to seek consensus for his changes on the article's Talk page BEFORE entering them. Best, - Babel41 (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
I just wanted to say sorry for pissing you off or offending you, that was not my intention. You are an exceptional Wikipedian and colleague and I have always thought of you as a friend. From now on I will try to remember always to say "why do you think that?" Instead of assuming I know. Guy (help!) 21:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I was just asking you a question as to why you thought I was in denial is all..it was never a big deal I was merely curious.--MONGO (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I feel a personal connection to American independence: John André was a distant relative. And in fact one of my son's platoon commanders at Sandhurst was on secondment from West Point. Guy (help!) 23:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Caution on civility.
Mockery of this type is as much of a civility violation as any other kind. As you have previously been blocked for incivility, your threshold for the consequences of such conduct is low. It would be to your benefit to remove that comment and to keep your responses to others focused on constructive resolution of disputes. Thanks. BD2412T17:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Its a joke and VM and YOU should know that. I confess that I am a total abomination! Thanks for bringing up my "block log" for which I was last blocked 12 years ago....which is likely before 90% of our current editors even started here. "your threshold for the consequences of such conduct is low".......is "civil"? Cause I was last blocked 12 years ago? BUT...I shall endeavour to improve my interactions hereforward since you've come here with such a politely worded "caution". I do not think you have ever graced my page, so I am flattered, truly. Thanks to you...for showing me the path forward to salvation.--MONGO (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
BD2412, I've been watching that discussion, and have noticed that comment. I admit to have not given it much thought. As far as jabs go, it's pretty timid. That said, I've advised participants to bring that particular discussion to a close. El_C17:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I was kidding...VM and I have a long history and I hold no ill will towards him. But since BD2412 feels it was out of line I will strike it.--MONGO (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Wikipedia is judged by the world, so we should avoid saying things here that we wouldn't say to the judge. Even timid jabs damage the standing of the encyclopedia, which is why the project progressively moves towards zero-tolerance for such conduct. BD2412T17:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Anyway, no need to be oversensitive. I think we're still allowed to joke around, even with political opponents. I'd hate to see Wikipedia become civility-policed to excess. Just as I am firmly against actual harassment of any kind, which this was very far from. El_C17:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
For the record, I reserve my less collegial commentary almost entirely to usertalk pages, and when I adminned this site looooong ago, I offered a usually wide level of foreplay in those arenas, and much less so in project or article space. I hope that should you venture forth to grace my talkpage again, you may too learn that referring to a long past block log in which my total time for blocks is less than 2 days and the last person that blocked me was desysopped partly for it is insufficent grounds to infer that I have a lower "theshold". Let me know when even timid jabs are formally disallowed as I want no part in such a place.--MONGO (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Do not stalk me and indiscriminately revert me, as you did on January 2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation (a page you've never edited before). You restored a bunch of completely indefensible content, including recently added citations to deprecated sources (such as RT) and a crap op-ed in the lead that accuses progressives of being anti-Catholicism. Your behavior on that page is a disservice to the Wikipedia project. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Bullshit. I have had that page watchlisted for a very long time....retract your lie about being stalked immediately.--MONGO (talk) 21:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Deletion of 2 images re nonnotable recognizable persons and image is not clear enough for use
In the mountaineering article in mid-June, you removed 2 of my images for the above reasons. I have tried several times to find a guideline of said infractions using your verbiage as a search string, so I'm asking for your help, especially re the first one (the second one was meant to convey the vastness and grandeur one experiences during mountaineering so the mountaineers are bound to be small and somewhat indistinct). The 2 pics are attached...
For the first image, the policy is here in this section, where it states "Images with you, friends or family prominently featured in a way that distracts from the image topic are not recommended for the main namespace. These images are considered self-promotion and the Wikipedia community has repeatedly reached consensus to delete such images. Using such images on user pages is allowed." The second image is very dated now and unless one points out the very hard to see person(s) at lower right, they are not noticeable. I did not remove the other image you placed in that article with the following caption:"Mt. Forbes' summit lunch; nutrition & hydration are key for mountaineering"Mt. Forbes' summit lunch; nutrition & hydration are key for mountaineering. I cannot see how there is any evidence that lunch or hydration are taking place...so this too really seems a little useless for the article itself. Sorry if I am coming across as rude as that is not intended. I mean, if you insist on readding the images I won't stop you but policy and my personal opinion is that the two I removed were not a benefit to that article. I have thousands of images of mountains and what not and have only added maybe a few to any articles.--MONGO (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Hell, I'm not insisting on anything; I'm still learning and just wanted to know where you're coming from since I found zip based on your verbiage... so thanks :-). I even asked my mentor what he thought and he'd not heaard of your complaints as you wrote them up and noted that there are many shots of non-notable but recognizable in the Aircraft articles.
For what it's worth, I thought my two images improved the article. In the first case, it shows how simple the equipment can be and implies that mountaineering can be handled by pretty well anyone (it used to be an elite sport done only or mainly be the rich), while the second one shows how majestic and humongous the mountains are (even in Canada), and how small is man. No other photo in mountaineering shows these aspects of the activity. Also FWIW, your input would be better if you quoted the section so new users like me (and even my mentor) can find the rules or guidelines that you are referencing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrettA343 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Late Edit... Also, as I think of the whole quote from your link (i.e. Images with you, friends or family prominently featured in a way that distracts from the image topic are not recommended for the main namespace. These images are considered self-promotion and the Wikipedia community has repeatedly reached consensus to delete such images.", I would challenge you that showing one mountaineer with basic mountaineering gear on a mountaintop 'distracts from the image topic' - it's highlighting the image topic as far as I can see. What distracts in this photo of a mountaineer, in your view? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrettA343 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Later Edit... The more I think about these two images in the context of the subject of mountaineering and the images already there and your issues with them, the more I like the idea of including them... for what it's worth. BrettA343 (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Someone I know, but he's not featured in a way that distracts from the image topic; he's an example of the image topic, just like the upper right photo in the ice skating article... though you might complain that they're not skating - they're just standing there and they're likely non-notable but recognisable (they might have even known the photographer!) BrettA343 (talk) 03:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
There is hardly a day that goes by in which some of the activities on this site do not make me want to vomit. I guess some think we are dumb...that their overt biases in editing and administrative actions are somehow giving us BLP and NPOV compliant articles or any semblence of ethical administrative actions. I guess everyone has to live with themselves at some point.--MONGO (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
GAN
Hi, MONGO! Hope you're over the nausea but if not, I hear ginger cookies help, and so does pickle juice. I was also wondering if you'd review Robert H. Boyle? The GAN link is in the article TP header. Surely, with all those FAs you've chalked up, you must have accumulated quite a list of reciprocal reviews so I was hoping you'd be ok with taking this one if you have time. It's a co-nom with BD2412. Happy editing/reviewing!! AtsmeTalk📧15:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Seems I am loved again by at least one fan over at Wikipediocracy. Over concerns that my account might get hacked there (since coincidentally there have been 50 plus efforts to do so here in last 48 hours) I dare not go there. I will say I hold no animus towards Wikipediocracy or anyone for the most part that posts there, so long as they do not engage in doxxing. In response though, I guess if someone wanted to they could get me blocked here and or work to get me site banned if they so desired. I am afterall, very evil. In response to my being desysopped 14 years ago(!)...it wasn't a popular move by the committee at that time and they received a lot of blowback but the reality is I did make some errors in judgement in my adminning and I also did not offer any assurances that they felt were compelling enough for a reconsideration of desysopping me.--MONGO (talk) 04:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Well that is pretty messed up. No one should have to deal with that kind of off site stalking and harassment. I'm sorry to hear that. PackMecEng (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
The best way to beat it is to ignore it - just don't give it an ounce of lift because the hot air it's riding on now will dissipate. WP may have lost a sysop 14 yrs ago but those of us trudging along in the trenches gained an excellent editor - an inadvertent gift that keeps on giving - and the project is better for it. AtsmeTalk📧18:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks you two. It doesn't really bother me at all to be frank. In fact, I support that website so long as they dont get into any doxxing efforts. Everyone has a right to vent and sometimes the people there turn up some interesting stuff.--MONGO (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
It appears to be somebody who thinks you argue too much. If sanctions were applied for that, a lot of people would be gone ahead of you. As for your desysopping, that happened sometime in the 14th century in wiki-time. But you are still very evil, I am sure. Acroterion(talk)22:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Most likely someone from long ago who just wants to stir the pot....because I am evil! Truth is I loathe the thought I may have any enemies. I've lost some dear friends here on the website as of recent times and it brings me no joy. There is one in particular I know I upset greatly and doubt a resurrection of good relations is now likely.--MONGO (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
For what its worth, the user who started that thread is not me. A few days ago, this user[2][3] tried to pretend to be my sockpuppet. I am guessing it's the same person. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
You're probably correct. I did see the polite comment by Zoloft who said I am "relevant again"...least I haven't been forgotten altogether.--MONGO (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
No. 49. At least I always find this thought comforting at such times. When someone needs to complain about you somewhere else, -- ha. Carry on. Some varieties of evil may be underrated, anyway. (MONGO pawn in game of life, but knight in game of Wikipedia.) Antandrus(talk)23:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm overdue to resume good work here...lest my armor lose whatever little gloss it once had. Thank you.--MONGO (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Please don't delete my comments on my own talk page!
“someone who only recently survived a ban themselves”
“I believe serious concerns exist regarding their general competence to be editing subjects of a highly sensitive and controversial nature and am seriously considering calling for a topic ban from American Politics (post 1932)”
”Soibangla hasn't done anything wrong by making a bold but well-sourced edit, andthe only red flag I see is Ad Orientem escalating to AN/I for a reasonable, appropriately sourced edit without checking the source's reliability...The community has determined that BuzzFeed News is a reliable source. You don’t get to selectively disregard that consensus simply because you personally don’t like the source or its content. Soiblanga did everything right here - he made an edit accurately conveying the content of a reliable source and, when you reverted him, he went to the talk page and calmly discussed it. Threatening him with a block or topic ban is really out of line.”— MastCell
“There is no consensus for the proposed sanction. This discussion orbited around whether the original incident warranted sanction, and largely around Levivich's analysis of soibangla's recent conduct. On the first, there is a pretty significant consensus that the single incident was a violation which did not warrant sanction, or was not a violation in the first place, and that any issues with the edit should have been discussed through regular editorial processes. On the second, while several editors commented in support of the analysis and added their own commentary, several more found flaws in the analysis from being biased to being outright misrepresentations of facts.”
“the stuff of a kangaroo court found in totalitarian regimes”
Hey Mongo. Now that the arbitration against me is closed [5], I think I am allowed to thank you for your statements. I still don't understand who that random IP was. How could he not be a sockpuppet? He's been a user for like 3 days, and one of the first things he does is ask some big-name admin to file an Arbitration enforcement against me. It seems fishy. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: The IP editor has been actively editing for three weeks—just about the same amount of time you have. They know of me because I welcomed them to Wikipedia four days ago after noticing their constructive contributions to Talk:QAnon. I try to make a habit of welcoming constructive new users when I see them, in the hopes that they will continue to edit and, in the case of IPs, sign up for an account. GorillaWarfare(talk)23:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: Actually, I have been making about 4-6 edits everyday since I signed up on August 31. Those contributions seem overly-aggressive, considering the fact that the OP didn't even challenge Shimbo's response. Also, what happened to editing on "contentious topics" for new users? QAnon is probably a much more contentious topic than Talk:Ilhan Omar, so I don't know why you scolded me for making some useful comments on the Ilhan Omar talk page (and, no, I was not pushing a "right-wing conspiracy"). Anyway, I'm no expert on Arbitration guidelines, but many experienced editors did believe your actions were, at the very least, inappropriate. If you had a problem with some of my edits (i.e., the deadname edit), you could have left me a kindly-worded message on my talk page (like others have done), instead of doing the bidding of some random IP user. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 00:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
There are some highly experienced editors who are just plain wrong. This is such a case as the filing was in no way inappropriate. I don't believe the interactions we've personally had should result in an action and show a willingness to learn; but didn't look at all of the filing. I suggest you take the gentle reminder to heart and not complain. O3000 (talk) 01:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d:No, you haven't, unless there stopped being an entire month between August and October. I disagree with your characterization of the IP's edit on Talk:QAnon. As for editing contentious topics, there is nothing wrong with doing so even early into one's editing career; it is simply a tough area to navigate as a new user. Regarding the rest of your comment, please don't mistake my attempt to help with your confusion around the IP user and how they found me for interest on my end in rehashing the AE discussion. If you would like to pursue the topic of my actions at AE, which were already noted by two arbitrators to be unproblematic, please be my guest and file an ARCA or something. Otherwise I have no interest in delving deeper into that absurd accusation. If you have additional questions/concerns for me, please leave them on my talk page; I don't wish to continue pinging MONGO further in a discussion he has not participated in. GorillaWarfare(talk)01:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d:, I just think everyone on this website can best demonstrate their commitment to making this a better encyclopedia by not primarily focusing, especially early in their wiki career, on contentious political topics. There is nothing wrong of course with contributing to political articles, its just that that arena is a difficult one to navigate, as GorillaWarfare so astutely describes. GorillaWarfare has fairly described her level of involvement, why she placed the report and as she has served as both an elected administrator and arbitrator of this website for a good many years, I believe she did not gain these endorsements by way of being untrustworthy. The best way to participate in these political arguments is to keep your cool and pretend the person you are in disagreement with is your grandmother, and treat them as best as you can with civility and fairness. Keep your edits minimal, do not edit war nor get too deeply entrenched in fratricidal or belligerent discussions and always go armed with multiple reliable sources to back up any argument, especially if the matter is over a controversial issue.--MONGO (talk) 03:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
You are very wise Mongo. I'm sorry if I got too frustrated. I just never thought I'll be involved in such a situation after only a few weeks of editing. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 04:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
For the record, I wouldn't have filed the AE report on behalf of anyone, but I see no reason whatsoever to assume anything nefarious here at all by GorilaWarfare. The IP user, after discussion as to the benefit of creating a username, is now under User:IHateAccounts, and I can assure you that if they persist in referring to anyone that disagrees with them as a bully, their tenure here will be quite short.--MONGO (talk) 06:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I think they meant that since they wanted to stick with an IP but were strongly encouraged to create an account, they were saying they hate having to create an account? Matters little at this point as this new account has been blocked for creating an unsuitable username.--MONGO (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Okay, now he's getting on my nerves. They literally refer to every person that they come across as a 'bully.' They keep trying to play the victim card--he's clearly either an attention seeker or just a troll. Why are all these admins/experienced editors giving him so much sympathy?? Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
I saw that earlier and hope to be able to comment soon. Oddly, I started that article long ago so I am pleased it has evolved so much since.--MONGO (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
assessment of Trump legacy is not forecasting
Hi there User:MONGO - The entry under Donald Trump and his relationship with the press,
As the prospect of failure of Trump to be re-elected arose in the end of the 2020 campaign, various articles and discussions made assessments of his legacy.[910][911]
has nothing to do with forecasting the future. It relates to the assessment of the past.
I'd like to restore it, but want to discuss it with you before taking action. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Print and web based news that is working for profit are a reliable source when adding references where they are critiquing their for profit competitors.
The exception is IF for profit print and web based news has been determined by their for profit competitors that they are not reliable, AND, our esteemed and supremely unbiased experts on Wikipedia not only buy into this hogwash but build entire "guides" to support it, then that for profit print and web based news is NOT reliable....but the critiquing for profit news IS reliable.
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
is this nonsense? I see you retracted the comment but seriously? Threats to provide usernames of "fringe" editors and any admin that would block you to persons you know at major news sources? I am also NOT attacking you for seeking clarification as to whether you can violate a prior warning. Others can because they are not under any prior warning...get that? Besides, you were actually violating this prior warning BEFORE that AE thread was opened when you questioned the "c-word" of that editor in question here----->[7]. Based on your retracted comments at InedibleHulks page I reckon I ask for any further clarification and it results in a sanction against you I might find the username MONGO in the SOB of the week section at the NYTimes? Ok, even if that were not to be the case (I'm not traceable to my real name anyway) I can't do anything due to your extreme despair I reckon....but wow is your ice thin. Have YOU ever considered leaving behind these highly political arenas for awhile and edit peacefully elsewhere for awhile? I do...a lot. When was the last time I did more than a comment of a singular edit to any politically active article? You should try that.--MONGO (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Concur with issue that the now missing link provided excessive and personal detail about their life but the issue of the threat to retaliate against editors this person deems "fringe" and any admin who takes action against them and contact persons that they know that work at the WaPo, NYTime, and Politico is not to be ignored.--MONGO (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
My guess is that if others had this actions from similar involved admins would have led to an indef block.--MONGO (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
This is why I stopped editing wikipedia. It's a fucking joke. How many "final warnings" does this guy get??? @Valjean: just called me a "fringe editor", a completely unprovoked WP:PERSONALATTACK. Sure, I could take it to AE. Valjean will retract, the admins will say he retracted so he must be sorry and he'll get his 10th "final warning" and I'll get sanctioned for daring to point out that the admin's (you know the usual ones that hang out at AE, plus mastcell who never edits anymore but is always summoned there by someone when it involves me) favorite editor yet again blatantly violated policy. The admins have sent the message loud and clear that rules do not apply to Valjean, they like his POV, so he's golden.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
No one is exempt from sanctions here but the obvious is truly nauseating. The overt favoritism some admins show to those they align with politically is a reflection on their own poor character as human beings. I'd like to think that there is a chance still for some of them to realign themselves and serve the general good without partisanship but I have my doubts...you get what you pay for and since the only reasons they could behave like this is due to hatred and and a lust for power and control, it's just a damn shame. On the flip side, I do know some admins that are pretty fair still, so all hope is not yet lost.--MONGO (talk) 02:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
You say that no one is exempt from sanctions, then prove it. I say certain people are. It goes way beyond just a few bad admins, there is a systemic problem here and its not likely to get fixed. The bias is built in with bad policies and a questionable list of what is and isn't a reliable source. For every good admin, there are at least ten bad ones. In fact, I can only really think of one admin I interacted with in American Politics that has treated me fairly (and I won't mention that person's name since I don't want to put them on an enemies list). I think you see the problems here as well as I do, but you need to realize its past the point of return. I favor term limits for members of congress, but here it even worse, we elect admins for life. If there's any hope, start there, term limits for admins (or at least make them run for reelection every other year). Then maybe admins will have a reason to act like they are accountable.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Dear Mongo, are you a government spook? You seem to possess an almost religious imperative to define the Franklin Scandal as a hoax. Have you read Nick Bryants' book? Have you even attempted to do research on this matter? Because as a 37-year-old from Canada, and in possession of above average cognitive abilities, I am rather inclined to believe that you have been compromised and someone, somewhere, has hired you to make sure this Scandal remains classified as a "conspiracy" on Wikipedia. Or perhaps you really just desire to toe-the-party-line, as they say.
There are countless corroborated testimonies to the fact that these children were horrifically abused and tortured. Not to mention all the mysterious deaths of those investigating the nefarious deeds surrounding Lawrence E. King and his colleagues, family, friends in law enforcement and political co-conspirators. Why not create a table of all the mysterious deaths surrounding those involved with the case, like the one on Marc Dutrouxs' page? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Dutroux
I work for an agency that doesn't even have a name, numbers or letters. Thats all I can share and believe me, if I told you you'd disappear. So you don't want that. Best to run along and edit butterfly articles or something less dangerous.--MONGO (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Dear MONGO, My edit that you have reverted on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was actually a vandalism that I was removing, It's a vandalism in Arabic language, I swear, I am an Egyptian, I know. (خرا) in Arabic language means (shit) in English language. You understood. IT'S EGYPT GUYS (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
About a Research on the History of Conspiracy Theories
Dear MONGO,
I take the liberty to contact you, I am a doctoral student in political science at the University of Paris 1 and my work focuses on the history of conspiracy theories, on which I have already published a few scientific articles and I am now preparing a book. I have been interviewing conspiracists and truthers, their critics and opponents for several years, working particularly on the French association ReOpen911 and the question of 9/11, as a now "historical" case of conspiracy...And obviously wikipedia has been a rather major theater of discussions/criticisms on the subject (up to the point if I rightly understood that it contributed to the implementation of the "semi-protected" pages?).
Looking at the related conspiracy pages' statistics, I realized that you have worked for long on these issues on wikipedia, hence my message and a small request: I would really appreciate if you can share bits of this "experience" with me in an interview
The motion Motion: MONGO (alt), in the amendment request which you are a party to, has been enacted and the amendment request closed. The enacted motion is as follows:
Remedy 1 of the MONGO case ("Links to ED") is amended to read, "Links to, and/or content from, Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia, absent explicit consensus for their inclusion."
Dear Mongo,
I just wanted to let you know that the edit on Rick Dearborn's article was not vandalism and that his birth name is Ricky and not Rick. I have confirmed this fact with members of his family.
kind regards,
Thaddeus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.151.199 (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, It is best to order the article by name in the category, and not by year, since it is already a date-ordered category. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Reliable sources call Trump's comments and actions stupid, funny looking, politically incorrect, boorish, un-American, racist and misogynist
Not me. Google any of those adjectives alongside his name, if you think I'm playing some game. Why is "pathological liar" OK to repeat, but not the rest? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I collapsed it, along with "unapologetic reactionary", someone else can worry about revdel or whatever. Just "racist" and "misogynist" left. Nobody seems to think there's anything potentially offensive to a living person in those softballs. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Please leave my edits to the pages dealing with the 9/11 Twin Towers pages alone. I haven't removed or deleted any information, I've simply made them more narratively fluid. What you've reverted makes no sense, and doesn't impact the information in any way, it only reads better.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxq32 (talk • contribs)
Family, work and other distractions such as vacation with poor internet access is the reason I've been hard to find as of late.--MONGO (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arrowhead Pool until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I have nominated Retreat of glaciers since 1850 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.
Femke then get yourself busy. You've been so concerned for over a year about the status of the article, yet I see not one edit except on the talk page by you. I really just don't get the rationale of someone who claims to be interested in climate change issues and has supposedly produced scholarly work on the subject yet instead of working to fix what they see as shortcomings in such articles, instead does zero except to submit them for removal from FA status.--MONGO (talk) 10:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Cmon, I work a lot on articles myself (including climate change, sea level rise). I've helped save Earth at FAR and spent a lot of time improving tropical cyclone there (we brought it back close to GA level). This article is a bit too low in readership for me to work on extensively, but I do think it's important we show our readers accurately which articles are currently up-to-date and meeting the FA standards. Femke (talk) 11:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Yellowstone fires of 1988 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. NoahTalk15:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Of course you have...and you waited near zero time as a common courtesy to see what your lone talkpage comment might bring. Its low class rude behavior like that that makes this website suck.--MONGO (talk) 05:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. I dare to leave this messages, and thank you for being around! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forget-me-not Lakes (Wyoming) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Man Lake until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dudley Lake (Teton County, Wyoming) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grizzly Bear Lake until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bearpaw Lake (Teton County, Wyoming) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Just an FYI, the Template:Old prod template shouldn't be removed when contesting a prod. It's meant to document that the page was prodded in the past, and there's an option to add the time and reason that it was contested if you'd like to add that. –dlthewave☎05:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cirque Lake (Teton County, Wyoming) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coyote Lake (Teton County, Wyoming) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Hey, Valereee, what ever happened with the following request: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/AfD at scale?? Does the above nom and prod activity fit the scope of your RfC? I'm also wondering if such activity would be subject to DS based on the ArbCom that was just closed, or how would we find out? I'll just ping Barkeep49 for input because I'm of the mind that what has happened above is a bit unreasonable considering this editor has numerous FAs under his belt. I was surprise-blocked a long time ago for using PROD to eliminate a series of stubs about a rare subspecies (all of the same species) that were only 1 to 2 sentences long, with the intention of combining them into an easy to find list. Atsme💬📧13:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Hopefully with consequences for such disruption, especially without any prior discussion with the article creator (a veteran, long established editor with FAs under their belt in this case), an obvious all-out attack against a body of work, and what appears to be a misinterpretation or lack of understanding of how our guidelines apply, as what we are seeing in this case relative to NEXIST and GEOLAND, for starters. You know, the prodding-nomming editor could have started with a sources needed tag, not a jump into the deep end PROD or AfD. Atsme💬📧 16:57, 24 August 2022 (UTC) Adding that my comment about consequences are not directed at Dlthewave, as I truly believe he meant well, but simply did not quite understand the gravity of the Grand Tetons (mountains and all lakes) as being a nationally protected area with named lakes and geographic features. I was able to communicate that with them on their UTP. Maybe they will consider attending NPPSCHOOL with one of our excellent instructors and become a member of NPP if not already. Atsme💬📧18:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Sorry to wander in to your conversation. User:Dlthewave has replied at my talk, and while they're justifiably dismayed I'm requesting their restraint, I'm hopeful their response signals a willingness to help us develop a consenus which will assist all editors when dealing with disagreements such as the RFC you ladies have been developing. If wikipedians are bound to disagree, I find it helpful that we can disagree with experienced contributors in good faith and strive towards a superior position than the one where we began. Always happy to see Auntie Val's datestamp. BusterD (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
I should add that since the bear is now awake, I might acknowledge how nice it is to see MONGO's datestamp too. BusterD (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
That RfC is the result of Valereee's efforts. I'm more inclined to stay away from anything that starts with the letters a-r-b. Atsme💬📧18:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I cannot disagree that the above listed articles could use improvements and so far I have managed, in between my 50 hour work weeks, to add a few tidbids of info to 8 of the above 10 articles. I fear I may go full MONGO here and say the obvious but will refrain and allow calmer editors to make a case. I shall endeavour to update the articles further as I can and get those last 2 much improved as well.--MONGO (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate any restraint from any involved party; I make an effort these days to be the calmer editor. Perhaps because I've seen how wikipedians (better than I) have sometimes fallen into temper traps (and I'm vulnerable to such myself). In this particular geostub issue, I'd like to think that agreement might work better than disagreement. An opportunity to discuss application of the SNG may allow us all a better place in which to contribute. BusterD (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Hey, from where I sit...the delete arguments are not even relevant to AfD because of the presumed notability afforded to protected areas/named geographic features per WP:SNG, more specifically WP:NGEO. Add to that WP:NEXIST, and WP:CONTN. They are simply guidelines, not policy. Our 3 core content policies, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:V have all been met - no policy vios involved here. Back to the guidelines...read WP:SNG, and when done, take 2 aspirins and get some bedrest – you'll feel better in the morning. All that is really required to determine N is some semblance of common sense and critical thinking skills; i.e., WP:CIR – which btw is another contradiction in that we are supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit. In short, all we really need is a little KISS and CYA...and that reminds me of this brilliant article, The Limits of Volunteerism and the Gatekeepers of Team Encarta, and the "hegemony of the asshole consensus". Excuse me while I take 2 aspirins – I'm not so sure about bedrest this early in the afternoon. I never had a pressure cooker.Atsme💬📧18:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
When this Rfc takes off I have a few comments to add. The issue is not so much the prodding in itself though other tags to bring light to an article needing enhancements are preferred if for no other reason than simple courtesy. The issue is mass prodding, mass deletions of noncopyvio do no harm stub articles that makes it difficult to near impossible for someone like myself, who works 50+ hours a week, to find the time to respond to said proddings. The argument that, well these are a decade old so why wait so long to enhance them is useless because, well why are they only now being prodded...why didnt prodding happen 9.5 years ago? Server space is cheap so the elimination of the articles wont alter the page load speeds one iota. Have read in a few statements on these aforementioned Afds that "nobody even reads" the stubs...while we have no way to know if the stubs are read, page views indicate even the stubbiest of them gets a half dozen views a week. I am by my nature an inclusionist so its not easy for me to AGF when I get 10 prods in nearly as many minutes by someone and who seems hell bent on application of a very terse, black and white and possibly disingenious interpretation of notability guidelines. Guidelines are oftentimes adjusted and require few participants to get this accomplished so they are guidelines afterall, not policies. A careful review of Wikipedia:FAILN is in order.--MONGO (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is ridiculous
A few pedantic pains in the arse seem to have nothing better to do than run around and find nothing but minor faults with articles, and no amount of effort will save them from the FAR goon squad.--MONGO (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Another year gone
Best wishes for the holidays
Wishing you and yours the best over the holiday season, and here's hoping 2023 won't bring as much global trauma as 2020, the worse 2021[9] & fecking 2022! Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Yellowstone National Park for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog FarmTalk05:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello Hog Farm...Yellowstone NP was brought to FA by another editor and I find the entire process of FAR and FARC to be a losing battle. One of my past FA's was nommed for FAR by a person that wanted to see the article returned to the mainpage, yet did ZERO to assist me in updating it. The last FAR I spent like 6 months and made over 100 edits and triple checked every ref and it STILL was delisted...so why should I bother?--MONGO (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
I have nominated Redwood National and State Parks for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. George Ho (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Wikimedia US Mountain West online meeting
Wikipedia users in the United StatesMountain West and High Plains will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MST, Tuesday evening, February 14, 2023, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. Anyone interested in the history, articles, or photographs of our region is encouraged to attend.
Wikimedians of the U.S.Mountain West will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MDT, Tuesday evening, May 9, 2023, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. Anyone interested in the history, geography, articles, maps, or photographs of the Mountain West or the future direction of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement is encouraged to attend. Please see our meeting page for details.
Like. El_C 01:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
so I was hoping you'd be ok with taking this one if you have time. It's a co-nom with BD2412. Happy editing/reviewing!! Atsme Talk 📧 15:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Quelccaya Ice Cap § SG review notes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Glacial retreat. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 6#Glacial retreat until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 01:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Atsme 💬 📧 21:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Excuse me while I take 2 aspirins – I'm not so sure about bedrest this early in the afternoon. I never had a pressure cooker. 
