User talk:MONGO/Archive38

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from everything related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people for three months.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Sandstein 09:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Sandstein you slandered me with your comment that I had a long block log when I have not had a block in nearly ten years. You have no right to block me from pages I have no editing work on in recent history. You are egregiously misusing your position but I see no recourse in any venue and you prove my point I had been making, that this website has an overt bias against conservative editors. I now permanently leave this website as I said I would.--MONGO 09:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

MONGO, in view of your appeal to ARCA in which you acknowledge that your comments such as these were "inexcusable" and that you would have deserved a block, I am lifting the topic ban imposed above in the assumption that it is no longer necessary to prevent such conduct. If you repeat such conduct, I intend to impose a indefinite topic ban and/or a block. Sandstein 11:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I myself don't know that Wikipedia necessarily has any more bias against conservatives than encyclopedias in general do, but I do acknowledge that I have seen such a bias off and on myself. It might be systemic for encyclopedias I don't know. When you return and I hope you do soon maybe it might be possible to do something with the NPOVN and WikiProject Conservatism to seek to counter it. John Carter (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Remember Stephen Colbert. Encyclopaedias were invented during the enlightenment to describe the best understanding of reality. There currently is an unfortunate and in many cases quite unnecessary alignment of political conservatism and anti-science and anti-enlightenment movements, particularly in the US. But arguing e.g. the scientific case for climate change is not progressive or anti-conservative. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking of any of that actually but rather about how NPOV can be played intentionally or otherwise against a possibly broadly consensus somewhat conservative position by having individual arguments made against it on a number of different assumptions or postulated of that position. This would be particularly true in the humanities or politics where hard scientific data doesn't often exist. Such disagreements if widely reported could easily be misinterpreted as indicating a greater percentage opposition than actually exists, potentially skewing the opinions of people who like to think of themselves as bright. More or less this seems to be in part what the climate change opponents among others are doing. And much as I like some of his stuff Colbert ain't unbiased himself. John Carter (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks you two. I think I stirred up enough dramah with some of my over the top, black and white polarizing political gyrations as of late and am resolved to avoid political banter as much as possible for the near future at least. I will say that my brand of conservatism is not anything like what we have nowadays...I doubt Eisenhower would have been seen as a conservative in some regions nor Kennedy as a progressive in others by todays standards. Seeking common ground should be the play we all strive for...celebrating our shared convictions and not condemning those we don't share (in most cases).--MONGO 21:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Amendment request

Please see [1]. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Let them have it

I think you'll find your life is much more stress-free if you let the social justice keyboard jockeys and soyboys have Wikipedia. Remember, unlike yourself who actually enjoys spending time in the great outdoors (presumably, based on your contributions to national park articles), those people spend all day trying to change the world via their keyboards to make life more "level" for weak, unambitious, lazy, insecure, dysfunctional personalities like themselves. One year ago, to their horror, they discovered that, despite all their hours and years of furious typing, the United States still belonged to people who believe that traditional socio-cultural values reign supreme. It was a rude wake-up call for them, and is their wont, they're doubling down in the only medium which gives people with no strength or talent an equal voice. They predominate on WP because conservatives are busy outside building things, improving themselves, taming nature, contributing to their physical community, kicking ass, and raising healthy families with two parents. MiloY (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

lol. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hum. Not really sure how to respond to that MiloY. I surely do like the outdoors and working on park articles and similar. While I have written some very polarizing things on this website in reality I'm truly middle of the road. Wikipedia is in the scheme of things a liberal concept...we provide open and free knowledge to all and that's a far cry more liberal than censoring what can be read as is done in a few places. Some of the editors I may have alienated in recent weeks are persons I have worked collaboratively before and as I said above we all need to seek common ground. I really do not want to be here arguing and fighting people over a few sentences of text.--MONGO 21:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration amendment request declined

Hi MONGO. The American politics 2 arbitration amendment request has been closed at the direction of the Committee. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Mr. Mongo

So it seems like the cabalistas wanna fuck with you a while and I am sorry for that. But hey, you're nothing if not talented and flexible, so here's what I suggest — and feel free to take my advice or leave it or tell me to put it where the sun don't shine... Just forget about post-1932 US politics for a while. Shut it down. There's a whole 150+++ years of other American politics to work on, if writing on political themes is what you wanna do. Just let it go, who needs the contemporary stuff? There are a scad and a half of business leaders of the gilded age and progressive era that need biographies. Coverage of state-level politics for that era is sketchy at best. There are entire industries that are undercovered and our coverage of economics is somewhere on the barfy-to-pathetic part of the spectrum. There's a vast field waiting to be plowed and a need for more plowmen. I assume that WP has you set up with JSTOR and Newspapers.com — if not, get hooked up. And, with a middle finger to the bullies, get back to work. That's what I'd do. Contemporary politics articles on WP don't influence actual contemporary politics anyway, no matter what team you're on. It's the encyclopedia part of the encyclopedia that is the real deal. Have a great 2018 and sorry again for dicks being dicks. Carrite (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I haven't been very active in that arena anyway so my disillusionment with the topic ban, even though it has been lifted, was why it had been applied in the first place when I had not caused any issues directly in the topic area articles. A NPA parole or a block maybe would have been better. Anyway, aside from if I stumble upon obvious vandalism in that topic area I had not planned on doing anything at all anyway, but I appreciate your comments.--MONGO 13:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with you here. Tim. Here we have Sandstein being typical Sandstein. Even though he's been forced to back down on the sanction, he's still left his nonsense in at the end threatening another topic ban, even though this is not an area that MONGO edits. When the system fails to properly rein in robotic admins who are not prepared to properly examine themselves and how they fuck with the minds of editors, then the thing to do is to withdraw support for the whole system. This is why I'm steering clear of WP. The media like to rubbish Facebook and talk about how it allows bullying, but I've had negligible problems there compared with the arseholery I have met on WP. And there should be higher duty of care to protect volunteers who allow WM to raise tens of millions a year than to protect users of a service that they essentially get for free. What's happened in this case just confirms to me that I should not submit myself to the regime here as neither Arbcom nor Wikimedia are willing to take the steps to protect hard working editors from ego-tripping admins.--Peter cohen (talk) 07:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Peter. My opinion of Sandstein's adminning is surely a bit askew now since I received that topic ban, and I did give my take in my appeal to arbcom. However he did alter his penalty from his original plan to topic ban me from indefinitely to 3 months, neither of which I was going to accept mainly since I had not been disruptive in that topic area itself, least not in this circumstance. His wide brush about me having a long block history for disruption when I had not been blocked in nearly a decade was also an aspersion. I was also not impressed with his open threat to reban/block me when he lifted this ban, an unnecessary comment that definitely shows his lifting the ban only happened after being pressured to do so. Now with that said, its not really up to the AE admins to reach a consensus nor to sit and reexamine an arbcom case...they sort of have to examine whether a violation happened in black and white. I cannot say what happened in your case as I am not familiar with it, but in mine I felt the penalty was incorrect as it should have been a block or simply a ban from AE noticeboards. Anyway, it was a revelation and continues to be that Sandstein apparently does have a reputation for acting robotically and perhaps with excessive zeal and harshness and I hope he relaxes a lot because even now there may be enough evidence to reexamine his use of the tools and position.--MONGO 13:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

13 years of editing, today

Hey, MONGO. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow...I must be insane!--MONGO 03:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

MONGO 13 years old! Acroterion (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Many congratulations, please keep up the good work. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 11:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you...I sure feel old now. Can't believe I am now a teenager.--MONGO 12:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

So pleased I missed that one. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Ha! But that doesn't compare to my ergophobia actually.MONGO 12:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Jan 2018

Sir, please check, user Krishb is vandalizing North India article again after you have reverted his edits on 23rd Jan 2018. He has deleted citations and removed Sub Headings. Khairaarsh (talk) 06:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Krishb (talk)

I'm @krishb here...No I am not vandalizing the page. I am new to Wikipedia edits, and not much aware of its edit policies. My humble submission is, don't call West Bengal and Gujarat North Indian states, they are from East and West part of India respectively. I have a feeling, there are gross misreporting in this regard in this page, which I am objecting. Here are reasons

1. Latitude-based definition does not work here: Latitude & longitudes are the coordinates or two types of key lines to locate each point on the Earth's surface and don't define or divide geography of country. We don't say North Mexico or North China or North Bangladesh based on Tropic of Cancer.

2. Indian press definition does not make sense. Stray reports from The Hindu can't be conclusive here. Also, if we look at the the following report which has been used as reference, does not conclusively, categorically and absolutely club West Bengal in North India. It is a report about cold wave where for the sake of convenience of layout and inclusion of news, it has been used. It does not prove anything and can't stand as a solid, conclusive reference. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/Intense-cold-in-North-eight-die-in-Uttar-Pradesh-West-Bengal/article14020459.ece

4. If The Hindu newspaper in it's Noida edition puts Bihar under 'North' pages, then we may seek an explanation or resonance from Hindu editorial unless there is Government directive/s (which classifies Bihar in North India) (Wrt: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/12qm2uzgokj3n74/AAB8MYR9brTeCt77uHCtK13ka?dl=0)

For your kind attention Khairaarsh

I see...all this needs to be at that article's talkpage as I was merely doing recent changes patrol and am not involved in that article otherwise. It appears an edit war is ongoing so I put a request in for page protection and you'll need to talk to each other on the article talkpage to sort this out.--MONGO 14:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Mount Jefferson (Oregon)

There has been alot of geological activity in the Pacific Northwest - Mount Jefferson (Oregon) is likely being buffed for FAC...wanna cast your eyes over it for some feedback? Remember, at the end of the day, the content will sit there when all the drama fades into the past.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking about me Cas. I will do most definitely. Watchlisted now.--MONGO 19:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually there are quite a few mountains sitting at GAN too I just saw! But I need to drink more coffee and get to work now....sigh...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hum...makes me think hard about the lack of FAs on actual mountains, but I'd have to check and see how many there are. I'll definitely keep an eye on the aforementioned and I have a bio and then a full national park article both overdue for expansion and possible FAC efforts.--MONGO 19:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

(Came here after seeing your edits on Kilimanjaro) My personal idle speculation is that it's too difficult to track down reliable non-recentist sources for mountaineering. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Right. I hate to steal anyone's mojo and surely anyone climbing such a peak deserves a big pat on the back, but not here in the article itself. I think significant achievements like when a severely handicapped person or someone very young or old should be easier to reference but not sure why someone spending 22 hours on the summit is noteworthy as a claim in itself, especially since it appeared this claim is self made and not actually supported by outside witnesses.--MONGO 00:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks and comments on contributors listing

[2]

[3] then refers ot my warning as fake and that I am a partisan editor.

Highest unclimbed mountain

I've just come to thank you for the huge improvements you have made to Highest unclimbed mountain which had got into a rather sorry state. I have a nostalgic interest because it is the first article I ever created (early in 2005). I have occasionally looked back on it since then but could never gather the energy to try and make substantive improvements. I was quite pleased with it at the time though it would have failed AFC now. It had two inline links as references (but I think footnote references didn't exist in those days!). At the time browsing the web left it utterly unclear as to what the highest mountain was although the Gangkhar Puensum article was already making the claim. I did my own web searches and agreed with the conclusion although at the time there was a wide range of claims. Anyway, best wishes and thanks again. Thincat (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow. I almost feel guilty now and hope I did not step on your toes! I actually asked a far better editor than I to do a cleanup of my writing. I tried to add more context but I think I am still a bit off the mark. Please do step in and make any and all corrections you feel are needed!--MONGO 18:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

No, you didn't step on my toes at all – I was genuinely delighted. It was sad to see it in the state it had got into. The tags were correct but entirely unhelpful and over the years extra information had simply been shovelled in. I remember once feeling guilty about doing a major rewrite to a technically helpful article that was in a bit of an editorial state. I was very pleased when the original editor came along to say how grateful he was to have it improved but he had not known who to ask. Thincat (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Great work, MONGO, and a great read! Thincat, don't feel bad about not being able to gather the energy to go back to an old article and do new research etc. It may be a common reluctance — at least, I know the feeling exactly. It's like chewing old gum! Bishonen | talk 17:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Yes, I prefer just plodding away creating new articles. And I get slower and slower at that! Thincat (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Many of my older article starts have had others take over and some I have not touched in a decade. I saw your comments on the talkpage Thincat and will get to that in a day or two. Bishonen, thank you for giving the article a once over...its an interesting subject I agree. My fascination is with wishing I could someday see some of those mountains but I'm far too old to consider actually reaching the tops of them...and those that do are a courageous bunch.--MONGO 20:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

THANKS!

Dude, thanks for undoing my screw up over on Antonius Pius. Totally did NOT mean to delete all that. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.223.36 (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lake Shannon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thunder Creek (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

On what basis

are you violating the page restrictions? As made clear everywhere, there is no 3RRNO exemption for that edit Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I am willing to admit ignorance if you explain what I did wrong and I will self revert.--MONGO 15:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Violation of consensus required before restriction. If you see the history of Donald Trump, you can see that the sentence was inserted and challenged (in fact, twice), and the prestanding version is without that sentence. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Is there an Rfc on that issue/sentence? Forgive me for I almost never have made any edits t that page at all. I saw a clear BLP violation (a nasty accusation but no rebuttal permitted? odd). I can self revert if that will be the correct thing to do.--MONGO 15:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

You should probably self-revert. This is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Anythingyouwant and no admin has so far said the revert was exempt from the consensus required before restriction. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Already did. Never seen an editing restriction like that. I suppose hiding out at my national park articles has sheltered me from the high anxiety sections of our website that have such restrictions. Wow. I have to be more careful. I appreciate everyone's assistance.--MONGO 15:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

That restriction was crafted by an admin who has since quit the project and been de-sysopped. It has been debated for months. Many editors have begged and pleaded for this restriction to go away, but admins refuse to remove it. The restriction is very "effective" on controversial topics like AmPol because it is extremely tough to gain new consensus for things that paint right wing or conservative viewpoints in a positive light. Look at this mess we are going through to simply add some balance to an article. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

All news to me. As I said, never seen such a restriction before. The whole thing sounds like bad plan.--MONGO 18:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: A single admin cannot remove restrictions placed by another admin even if they've left the project or given up the bit (yes, this is an issue with the discretionary sanctions system). Appeals for modifications must be made at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: I was talking about the discussions raised at AE and ARCA about that restriction. I know it's been appealed in both locations here is the ARCA and here it is at AE. You'll notice a lot of the names look familiar. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: Neither of your diffs are particularly convincing with respect to "[m]any editors have begged and pleaded for this restriction to go away". Both cases have the same editor advocating for it to go away and both cases were raised in the wrong venue. Arbcom isn't going overrule admins for following the rules they've set down and an enforcement request against an editor for breaking that restriction isn't going to result in the mass lifting of that restriction across all affected articles. An appeal needs to be made solely focused on the restriction and not be entangled with an enforcement request. Concerned editors can start small (e.g., asking for the restriction to be lifted on certain articles) or go big and ask for a blanket lifting. I doubt the latter would be granted, though. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

NeilN, how many articles are protected in this manner. Any idea? I am of course familiar with 1RR restriction, and generally support that, but frankly, this sort of restriction seems draconian since we do have 3RR rules etc.--MONGO 14:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Each restriction needs to be logged here. Search for "consensus". The restriction was designed to stop tag-team edit warring and sustained edit warring over days/weeks. It promotes article stability and discussion rather than daily reverts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

NeilN Somehow the appeals seemed a lot more compelling in my memory ;). Mr Ernie (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your help on dealing with that rapid page-blanking IP vandal. Nice job! SemiHypercube (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow..been a long time since anyone gave me one of these! Thank you SemiHypercube! May the Force of Eternal Vandal fighting Be With You!--MONGO 19:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Notifying

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Anythingyouwant and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:AN

I have linked a recent diff of yours on WP:AN. Andrevan@ 03:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Andrevan, I'm not emailing you anything, but I will tell you that I've known MONGO for years. He is no agent. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

You sure? Heehee. Well the thing is something is not right. I looked at Andrevan's editing history and it's extremely scanty over the most recent years but then this somewhat odd flurry of activity out of nowhere which makes me wonder: is this a crash and burn, is this a strawman, or a possible personal issue or...a compromised account? I mean it is certainly possible that we could have some paid ops folks lurking about on political articles and it possible like in some social media that something could be going on here. But I have to brag that Wikipedia tends to attract generally higher educated persons some of whom are excellent sniffers that would detect such nefarious activity rather quickly. Andrevan's argument isn't out of the question but I find it to be simply bizarre.--MONGO 15:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think the account is compromised. I do think that first of all the accusation toward you was unfounded and ill-prepared. Strategically the whole thing was just not a good move, and it may well be that they'll be topic-banned. At the least, it seems to me, they will have lost credibility in that area, and that's never a good thing. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Its just a bizarre thing really when viewed in its entirety as this person is a admin and a crat and while both were obtained long ago, that's still two times the community granted them extra trusts and to see this unraveling in this manner just strikes me as something being amiss. I'm sorry Andrevan if you are reading this, but I do hope if things are not well they improve for you.--MONGO 16:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Your comedic timing--even in a TP thread--is excellent. Your paycheck problem is probably just a glitch with direct deposit converting from rubles to dollars. You could do come standup until your cashflow gets back on track. – Lionel(talk) 10:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Why thank you comrade! I'm hoping by being humorous I was able to cover up the truth that has been unearthed about my editing or else I may have wasted 13 years of editing land management and similar articles about National Parks and mountains!--MONGO 12:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I sure hope that Putin pays quicker than Soros. I'm still waiting on my checks. And I never saw those buses anyway--I had to drive myself to the demos, at $.53 a mile. Drmies (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Hahaha! I knew it! These guys expect us to do their evil bidding, promise us vast riches and yet we're all stuck eating crackers!--MONGO 14:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

See that's your problem, Soros and Putin are deadbeats. The NRA money is where it's at. PackMecEng (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, Soros isn't really a deadbeat--he's someone who's had the most awful things hurled at him for no good reason besides antisemitism. Putin is a different kettle of fish, I hope we can all agree on that. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if Soros is a good or bad guy, I do think he gets way to much credit from the ignorant fringes of the world. I also do not think any one person is as powerful as some people are lead to believe. Also tanks are acceptable as long as it does not have a filled barrel, otherwise how would you defend against the govment takin yer guns! PackMecEng (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a gun but I do have a tank! Will the NRA accept that for membership????--MONGO 15:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

United Airlines Flight 93

Hi, you reverted my edit to United Airlines Flight 93, may I have a reason why? 67.8.19.70 (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) IP 67.8.19.70, that claim is wholly unsourced? The article does have a relevant source which says this: "U.S. officials were considering shooting down the hijacked airliner that crashed in western Pennsylvania, but it crashed first." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

In the article [4], which was used as the source for the quote about heroism, that was on the same line as my edit, it says:

After the planes struck the twin towers, a third took a chunk out of the Pentagon. Cheney then heard a report that a plane over Pennsylvania was heading for Washington. A military assistant asked Cheney twice for authority to shoot it down.

"The vice president said yes again," remembered Josh Bolton, deputy White House chief of staff. "And the aide then asked a third time. He said, 'Just confirming, sir, authority to engage?' And the vice president -- his voice got a little annoyed then -- said, 'I said yes.'"

67.8.19.70 (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I would also like to clarify, that my edit didn't imply that Flight 93 was successfully shot down, in fact my edit implied the opposite, consistent with the source, that the plane crashed before it could be shot down. 67.8.19.70 (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, the edit is fine with me and I restored. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• Maybe I was just too surprised that such a detail had not been added before now (although there is a slight mention in Archive 1 of the Talk page). There might even be justification for adding that Cheney authorized it three times and almost got a bit angry. IP 67:8, thanks for adding. A small tip for any future additions - just use an edit summary that says something like "adding detail from existing source." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Drmies...we have to be careful about these sorts of things because they start to transform into wording that gives credence to conspiracy theories. It's been a long believed CT of the 9/11 articles that we shot down the planes, used a missle(s) on the Pentagon and etc. So when an IP shows up on this article right after another I reverted who was peddling similar POV issues I see some red flags popping. This was the edit just a bit before that I took out--MONGO 18:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Examine the history and see at least two other editors also removed similar wording. As it stands now it's fine but should this escalate I won't be surprised as I've seen this many times before.--MONGO 18:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree with MONGO's comments above. Those of us with special interests in 9/11 articles have constantly had to revert conspiracy theories from IP's. Flight 93 crashed almost at the same time that the shoot down order was given, the recent original IP changes appeared to be relating that the flight was shot down - which is entirely untrue. We have to be on our guard when these "edits" come-up. Regards to all, David J Johnson (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I sympathize with the effort to not allow the article to devolve into conspiracies, and with the amount of trouble you all have to deal with from rogue IPs, I'm sorry if my edit appeared in line with such kinds of edits from others. That said, the fact that such orders were given, felt like a very important detail historically; so not seeing it anywhere in the article or talk page seemed somewhat stunning to me. If anyone feels that phrasing of my edit gives room for CTs, I apologize and would wish for someone to make it clearer. Thank you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.19.70 (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

No orders were given to shoot down UAL 93. After the first 3 planes crashed into WTC and Pentagon, there were reports of other planes within 80 miles of DC. Cheney gave authorization for those planes near DC to be shot down. None of the military planes were armed though and the report of planes was erroneous. There were no orders for UAL 93 and it wasn't close to DC. Because there were no planes near DC, the shoot down order never even made it to the pilots. This is not new[5]. We are not going to discover "gotcha" information about 9/11 by re-examining and re-interpreting sources in 2018. Might as well add "Kennedy shot first" as new possible self-defense motive/conspiracy to the JFK assassination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:192C:D49F:EAB:7AEC (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

This recent article appears to be in your department

Mongo Department. --Shirt58 (talk) 08:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Darn it...I told them to spell it in all caps!!!MONGO 11:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration request

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

If you no longer wish to receive notifications for this case please remove your name from the listing here

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 19:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Personal favor

Hi! I would like to ask you, along a couple of the editors I know, for a personal favor. I choose you because every time I see something that you have edited I have been impressed with the quality.

What I would like you to do is to help expand our article on Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. This topic is something that Jimbo has been pushing on his talk page,[6] and there may (or may not) be a SOPA-style blackout of Wikipedia to try to influence the EU legislators.[7]

As a personal favor to me, could you please help with this article? I am offering double the normal pay... --Guy Macon (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I will look it over an assist but not much for 36 hours yet. I'm honored you find my efforts here to be a benefit. The feelings are mutual.--MONGO 02:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon:, I was wondering how I can help there. It's not a subject matter I am familiar with but I guess I could seek out further sourcing and expand sections? Right now all I did was clean up some refs formatting and it's watchlisted.--MONGO 03:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Signature

You didn't sign your comment at AN/I. Just a heads up. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

My radio buttons are all wacky on this desktop...but tanks!MONGO 14:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk page comments

I responded to your comments at my talk page, but forgot to ping you. Just a heads-up. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

All I know is I cannot change anyone's mind, only perhaps their understanding. Sadly, article like the Trump one are solely reliant on the latest attention grabbing headlines and it will be probably long after I am dead before a truly dispassionate article could evolve regarding that subject. But I find it extremely alarming when the sole efforts by some are to denigrate the subject because they disagree with his policies or his comments and related actions. I do know that if I were a partisan as some claim, I would be over at articles about those I do not share similar views and trying to undermine the integrity of those articles, which is exactly what a POV pusher does...see Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. Instead, when the Hillary Clinton article was at FAC I supported the promotion of her bio to FA...I could easily opposed it as even then I felt it went very easy on her faults, though it did not cover them up entirely.MONGO 18:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed the discussion and I agree with the positions you two folks have expressed on WV's talk page. I've gotten to be sporadic in my contributions lately (it's a temporary situation) but I'll try to weigh in more when appropriate. Coretheapple (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your "thanks", Coretheapple. The AE was abruptly closed five minutes after I made a very important point there. The discussion is continuing at the closing admin's talk page, if you're interested. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The admins that have monitored those pages are probably all worn out now and the hatred being spewed is simply too much. I don't know if its intended to bait so myself or others type something bad and hit publish but I do know that whether that is the case or not, its still textbook battlefield and talkpage disruption that does nothing towards article improvement.MONGO 15:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

"Nothing towards article improvement" is correct. I think I've said this before to you, MONGO, but article talk pages and noticeboards have becoming nothing more than an extension of Facebook in their content, approach, fixation, and style of communication. In other words: it's broken and needs to be fixed. But who will do it, who will care, and is it already too late? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

This is why it's sad. Numbers win and if you dare defend your opinion, you end up getting blocked. I already unwatched the Trump page and this is another reason why Wiki is not neutral in contentious areas. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

One way to feel better about simply not participating is to know that a lot of the arguing really impacts almost no one since most articles see almost no real traffic...a few thousand hits a day considering there are a billion English speakers means any extra heartbeats expended arguing with partisan morons is more than just a waste of life, it's simply stupid overall. as an example--MONGO 09:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, I am not advocating not stating your case and !vote, but when the conversation turns into arguments and the person you're arguing with starts casting aspersions, it's best to walk away since the discussion will only go downhill from there.MONGO 11:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Yep, it's really hard to do and that's something I have to work on. In the meanwhile, I'm back to doing my gnome work and spert requests. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Indeed and I am lecturing myself as well here as I too have sometimes said things that are unnecessary about what others motives may be or similar. I mean, a POV on hot topics like Trump is nearly inevitable and all that is fine so long as everyone rises above that as much as possible and that is, as you have stated, very hard at times.MONGO 13:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

1RR

With these edits[8][9] you made two reverts to the same article within 24 hours. Given the minefield of editing restrictions, it would be safer to self-revert your second edit. I happen to agree with you on substance, just trying to avoid drama on process. — JFG ^talk 11:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

You beat me by 30 minutes. Tanks.MONGO 11:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

DS vio

This edit violates the consensus formed in the closed RfC. Please self revert or I will have to bring the matter to AE.- MrX 🖋 13:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

It was closed out of process and MelanieN even said she would remove her wording that you attached additional information onto. There is no consensus for your addition, but I reverted anyway so we can discuss there.MONGO 13:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The original proposed wording has consensus and includes that sentence (in bold, below). Any alterations to that requires a new consensus. Do you disagree with that?- MrX 🖋 14:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

In April 2018, Trump enacted a "zero tolerance" policy overturning previous administrations' practice of making exceptions for families unlawfully crossing into the U.S. with children. By the sixth week, nearly 2000 children had been separated from their parents, culminating in demands from Democrats, Republicans, Trump allies, and religious groups that the policy be rescinded. Trump falsely asserted that his administration was merely following the law.

- MrX 🖋 14:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN reopened the Rfc before I made my edit MrX. Allow some more time to go by and stop being in such a hurry if possible.MONGO 14:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I understand you didn't technically violate consensus because of when you made the edit, but the consensus was clear regardless. I'm sorry, but I don't understand you comment about allowing more time to go by. The article has been out of date for 10 days now.- MrX 🖋 14:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Notification

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks...I think I was alerted earlier this year but can't remember if I was or wasn't.--MONGO (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

FA

Congrats to your new FA! How do you feel about TFA on 2 October, day of establishment? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I guess it just got promoted...very nice. Yes, I was hoping to have it mainpaged on October 2, 2018 as that is the 50th anniversary of the park being established. Redwoods National and State Parks was also created on that same date but it was already on the mainpage like a dozen years ago!MONGO (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I made a note in WP:TFARP. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda...Ill check it out.--MONGO (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations! --Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Its for you especially Wsiegmund..and for everyone else too.--MONGO (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi! Quick message.

I hope your family fucking dies of cancer you worthless PoS. You should do your family a favour and kill yourself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.246.14.127 (talk • contribs)

I love you too!--MONGO (talk)

This rando is such a cutie pie. I've never seen someone so upset they can't spam goatse on wikipedia. "Grrr you took away my vandalism I'm so maaaaad." —StarkinMN 14:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, a very pleasant person for sure.--MONGO (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks

I didn't even know the thing existed until today. Of course you qualify if you want to declare. --rogerd (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I would likely be thrown out since I'm MONGO!--MONGO (talk) 09:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

"I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member" -- Quotations related to Groucho Marx at Wikiquote--rogerd (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

You didn't know I was a Marxist, did you? --rogerd (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I stick with the three stooges...I'm not intelligent enough to get the Marx Brothers usually...I'm just a MONGO!--MONGO (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Because of Mongos unexplained deletion, Am I right that to show existing critique is not allowed in Wiki?

BR Mik-kiss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mik-kiss (talk • contribs) 15:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes..I am well known as Mr.Nasty or Mr.BigMeanie.--MONGO (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

So are you here in WIKI mainly for harassing people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mik-kiss (talk • contribs) 17:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes..I am here for that reason mainly. How am I doing?--MONGO (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) He is. It's his primary purpose and goal (not the 1200 articles he's created or the dozens or articles he's brought to FA or GA status or the tens-of-thousands of edits he's made to improve articles and build an encyclopedia). p.s., MONGO -- you're doing a stellar job at the harassment. ;-) -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

You might have a remarkable history (good or bad), but the good stuff must be earned every time again and again.

I still think that WIKI should allow fair critique and not promote censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mik-kiss (talk • contribs) 18:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Cool beans...I agree!--MONGO (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes but what you do is more important here. I seem to be censored here from contributing Wiki without warning - what a shame - to Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mik-kiss (talk • contribs) 19:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I wish people who yell "OMG censorship!!" at us would consider the possibility they might be pushing something that does not belong in Wikipedia. Hint: go back and reread WP:NPOV. If a whole lot of people are pushing back at what you want to add, it just might not be NPOV. Antandrus (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

North Cascades National Park scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the North Cascades National Park article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 2, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 2, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! And on its anniversary! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

While you are at it

Note this[10]. @Samf4u: might care to comment. It concerns 9-11 incident articles....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Take it to the article talkpage.--MONGO (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Look in your email box (including spam)!

Hello, MONGO. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I think any argument at all with these loons is akin to arguing with 9/11 CTers. I've become convinced they are mentally ill and/or emotionally unstable, almost all of them.--MONGO (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

😴

Why is it so quiet? Have our most active editors gone back to school? 📓📚🤓 ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I haven't been to school since third grade...in fact was expelled half way though that.--MONGO (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Why doesn't that surprise me? 😂 ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I had 4 F's and one D in coloring so they threw me out.--MONGO (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I failed Duck, duck, goose in second grade - I ducked when It came around and got sent to the principal's office. The principal was a bit bemused and let me hang out in the outer office for a while before sending me back to class. In coloring, though, I excelled. I had the full 64-crayon set and used 'em all. Acroterion (talk) 02:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

😂 Acroterion duck!! Btw, your picture of Sawtooth Valley is beautiful. Looks like coloring in grade school paid off in ways most don't even consider at that age. I just came back from Yellowstone and have some park pictures to upload but post production has been killer because of the haze from the fires. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a FP on WP and Commons. It was a good day. I may be in Yellowstone in a couple of weeks, I thought there were no big fires in the area - is the smoke from Idaho and Washington?

Fire haze isn't necessarily a bad thing - I had low hopes for this picture - File:Tatoosh Range WA MRNP1.jpg, but it turned out fine. This one was taken a little beforeb- File:Paradise VC 1.jpg - and the haze sets it apart from the background. Acroterion (talk) 02:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Most big fires are in far west in WA, OR and CA. That Mendocino complex fire in CA is nearly contained but it's still near 500k acres. Most of the haze (even noticeable in Omaha) are from those fires. [11] Also check Webcam atop Mount Washburn in Yellowstone at it usually has a line of sight to the Tetons if it's clear but it hasn't since about July due to haze. [12] Biggest fire in Montana right now is in Glacier on Howe Ridge on north side of Lake McDonald.--MONGO (talk) 03:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you'll get lucky and catch Steamboat Geyser erupting. I was reading some data somewhere the other day that at least one of the eruptions there was higher than any ever recorded before which says alot since it is already the world's tallest erupting geyser.--MONGO (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Steamboat's been erupting on about a ten-day basis all year - by the accounts I've read it's deeply impressive to witness. Some strategy is called for in parking your car, though, it showers the parking lot with sinter-laden water. Acroterion (talk) 12:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Saw car after car coming out of park on May 23, 2005 into West Yellowstone covered in sinter and particulates. I was up there the following day but of course too late to see the eruption the geyser was still steaming...my image of that is on that article page.--MONGO (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any photo requests? Obviously I'll get a shot of Steamboat if we're that lucky, and I'll see what can be shot around Ear Spring, though the NPS photos look good. We'll be around the park for three days at the end of next week, and in Grand Teton for a day or more, so weather permitting I'll take requests. We'll be going via Theodore Roosevelt NP and the Beartooth Highway and coming back through maybe Thermopolis and Buffalo, WY. Acroterion (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Wow. Let me think to over and post tomorrow. The Beartooths are poorly documented with images. Supposed from the Beartooth Hwy its possible to see the bears tooth itself as well as a few other prominent peaks perhaps. It's been 25 years since I travelled that road so it's vague to me. Let me think about it.--MONGO (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I doubt there will be sparkling clear conditions with the smoke from farther west, but the forecast looks good so far. Both of my primary cameras have GPS tagging and the newer one will tag headings as well, which will make ex post facto documentation easier. I'd like to re-shoot some of the Tetons that have less-than-ideal images of mine too. Acroterion (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Me thinks your Teton shots were all top notch. If you're going over the Big Horns I do not know if Cloud Peak can be seen (especially the massive eastern face) from the highway. I'll have to stew about what other images you may capture.--MONGO (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

We'll be in and around the Bighorns, probably more to the south. I don't think Cloud Peak is visible from the road as anything more than a bump on the horizon. Acroterion (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Just not sure right now of any specific images that would be ideal to get. I'm sure you'll turn up some newbies that will be great to add to your collection. Have a save trip.--MONGO (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll shoot what I can see and sort out what it is when we get back. Snow is expected on the Beartooth this Sunday night - we'll be in the vicinity Thursday - Sunday, more or less, then around the Bighorns for a couple of days. Acroterion (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I do not see a lot of images for Theodore Roosevelt NP so any from there would be great. Sounds like you'll be taking I94 to I90 to Billings? So we lack Red Lodge region images as well as better images of northern Absarokas and Beartooth region. Lamar Valley region. We could also use images of northern Tetons. The boardwalk at Ear Spring is apparently closed off so some of the impacted nearby pools may be as well. I'll post more in next day or two if I think of anything. Whatever NRHS sites structures that are easy to locate fine as well.--MONGO (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Air tankers drop retardant on Roosevelt Fire

• Watch air tanker drop retardant on fast spreading Roosevelt Fire...here.--MONGO (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • A DC-10! Do you know where the tankers are staging? Greybull, perhaps - we've seen fire crews there, and it has long runways, otherwise probably Idaho. Acroterion (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Pretty sure its Greybull. This fire just blew up in last 2 days really. More info will be available by tomorrow I am sure. I read they may shut down US 189/191 south of Jackson if this thing starts to threaten the hwy.--MONGO (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Since my grandfather dug a lot of the wells and septic systems for the Hoback Ranches I've been watching this pretty closely also. Just a matter of time to get burned out when you build in the timber in the West.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Thats interesting. It's been quite some time since I drove that route south of Jackson since my visits back to that area are always in or out over Togwotee Pass to the north, but it is more timbered there than I recollect.--MONGO (talk) 03:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The Hoback Ranches are a subdivision of a large tract of private land that spans the rim divide between the Green River and Hoback River Watersheds southeast of Bondurant. When it was originally subdivided, it was with the understanding that the roads would not be kept open during the winter; if you want to live there year-round you have to park down on the highway and ride up in a snowmobile. Anyway, most of the houses are on the Hoback side and the terrain varies. Some houses are on lots up in the timber, others are more in the open. There were 150 houses and 55 burned. So, it really depended on where the houses were.

Bondurant proper, down in the basin along the highway, was fine. There's not enough fuel down there to sustain a fire. But, the fire burned a significant amount of the watershed of the Hoback and its South Fork. A heavy rain over the burn area or next Spring's runoff could cause a lot of problems down there.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:17, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

MONGO's daily pearl of wisdom

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Everyone I ever met that was a psychiatrist needed a psychiatrist, present company omitted of course. Only in a totalitarian state of fascists or communists would an unsubstantiated and uncollaborated allegation be sufficient grounds to find a defendant of such an allegation guilty. "How do you know she is a witch?"...."Well, she looks like one!"--MONGO (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC) Brett Kavanaugh has the full support of every decent, right-minded, family-loving American. (allegedly) Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC) I support the law and in a court of law, this would result in a not guilty verdict. In fact, the lack of evidence provided to an investigator would result in no investigation. The only time investigators look for evidence where there is none to begin with is if they want to find Bigfoot, but that's not done by the FBI, that's done by reality TV schemers or 3rd rate buffoon lawyers.--MONGO (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC) Well, I must admit, some of us here in UK weren't entirely sure if we were watching the Senate panel or something else. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC) Right. I guess justice there is different than here? We have real courts here that decide things based on evidence rendered and not based on public opinions. Regardless of the heartfelt comments by those yesterday, no evidence aside from an allegation is insufficient to impugn another's character much less render a guilty verdict.--MONGO (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC) Hang on, I've got a great idea for compelling daytime TV... Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC) The world according to MONGO...premieres here on a yet to be determined time and date.--MONGO (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC) It's infuriating. It's as if instead of interviewing for a SCOTUS Justice job, he's interviewing for a SCOTUS Social Justice job. I served on a jury once for a murder trial, and I remember the judge and the case and how we had to use evidence and not emotion to reach our verdict. What I said elsewhere is that this is damaging to women and to sexual assault victims. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC) Something happened to that Doctor...but aside from her testimony there is no other evidence that implicates the SCOTUS nominee. The other idiotic accusations don't even deserve a mention...only a third rate ambulance chasing buffoon lawyer would even defend them publically.--MONGO (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC) It's reaching a point where I really fear for the future of this country. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC) When your argument has no strength, you can resort to doxing your opponents from a US House of Representatives IP address, accost, impede, harass people while they eat in a restaurant, lie, wait till the last minute to release felonious accusations, or march through the streets like total cowards wearing black outfits and masks and vandalize property and get in fisticuffs with those you disagree with.--MONGO (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC) I'll leave aside the question of whether, in an ideal society, the powerful should be able to take children away from the powerless, and imprison them in cages as a political gambit, without having to face criticism when they go out for a prime rib. It does seem odd to obstruct all efforts to investigate an allegation, and then to dismiss it as uncorroborated, but again, I don't feel like unpacking that right now. I'm interjecting myself to say that your insinuation, above, that a sexual-assault victim must be crazy—because she works in the mental-health field—is beneath you. MastCell Talk 20:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC) They had this information about this alleged FELONY months ago but knew it was unsubstantiated and that had they brought forth the "evidence" in a timely manner the case would have been dropped for lack of evidence but...nah...they wait till right before the vote deliberately and then demand this alleged heinous crime be investigated to delay the vote till after the midterms. The power brokers therefore have been guilty of taking advantage of the Doctor a hell of a lot more than the conservatives have...the left is USING this woman. As far as the ideal society crapola, in between ordering the IRS to deliberately target conservative groups, the Obama administration put innocent illegal children in "cages" [13] built tent cities for illegals before the Trump administration considered it [14] and gave immigrant children to human traffickers [15] so spare me the crapola that only the Trump administration behaved poorly regarding the overwhelming influx of illegal aliens.--MONGO (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC) Hi Mongo, as people were pointing out yesterday, this is a job interview, not a criminal inquiry, so that the proceedings would have resulted in a not-guilty verdict isn't the point. Not that I'm defending how this has been conducted. I'm glad to hear that the FBI will investigate, but I hope for as long as they need to, rather than just a week. SarahSV (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC) Then rather than go this way, hammer the nominee on his decision record as a federal judge. As the nominee stated, he is not disputing that the event mentioned by the Doctor happened to her, only that he had nothing to do with it. The witnesses she named have presented written testimony under penalty of federal perjury that they recollect none of the details presented by the Doctor. The Doctor refuses to say who transported her to and from the location where the alleged offense happened and she doesn't recollect the precise year, month, date or even where it happened. All this could have been taken care of months ago...but now, they bring forth this at the last minute. Sorry, not buying it, and frankly, I don't even like the nominee. I disagree with him on his stand on many things. The Doctor is being used and the end result of all this is the powerbrokers will destroy her life far more than it currently is.--MONGO (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC) It isn't surprising that others alleged to be at the party wouldn't remember it if nothing memorable happened to them there. This shouldn't be a party-political issue at this point. The current situation is that a credible allegation needs to be investigated. How long it takes shouldn't matter. SarahSV (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC) Nothing memorable?...the Doctor says one witness that has provided written testimony he knows nothing about this has been claimed by the Doctor to be in the room while it happened. How long Sarah? Long as the Mueller investigation? This is just a deliberate ploy to delay the vote until after the midterms.--MONGO (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC) At the risk of kicking a hornet's nest, I'd like to ask you a question, because I'm not sure I understand your viewpoint here, and I'd like to. (Of course, if you're uncomfortable answering it or just don't feel like doing so, you're free to say so and I won't bother you anymore). Reading what you wrote above, in the collapsed section, it sounds like you believe Dr. Ford's testimony that she was sexually assaulted, but you also believe that she was either lying or "mixed up" (to use Orrin Hatch's phrase) when she identified Kavanaugh as the perpetrator under oath, with certainty. Is that a correct summary of your view? (This isn't a trick question; it feels important to me to understand where you're coming from). MastCell Talk 00:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC) I shut this down out of respect to Sarah...not you Mastcell. I stand with Susan Collins speech she made before she voted to confirm the nominee. That speech is available in its entirety on YouTube. Watch it listen to it and pay attention to it.--MONGO (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Congratulations for the excellent work you did on North Cascades National Park and for helping to make it today’s FA of the day!! Atsme✍🏻📧 03:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Why thank you very much!--MONGO (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

TRNP

I've started uploading some images to Commons, as you've probably noticed. Good clouds but difficult lighting conditions in the South Unit. Processing takes a while and I probably ought to tweak them a bit more. There should be gradual uploads for a while, there are lots to choose from for the whole trip. Sorry I missed NCNP on the main page! Acroterion (talk) 01:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I shall keep an eye out for these at Commons. Looking forward to them.--MONGO (talk) 11:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I see you are adding categories but I also added them to the Commons page dedicated to the park [16]. Nice job!--MONGO (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I've got about about a dozen more of TRNP to add, most from the north unit. I expect to be uploading images for the next three weeks or so as I get them processed. Acroterion (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

That park is not oft visited as you found out...so anything especially of the caliber you usually take will be of great benefit.--MONGO (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

56 files for TRNP and a few for Medora, ND. I expect I'll add a few more when I revisit some of the images I passed over. The badlands tend to not look terribly interesting in thumbnails, but work out fine when opened. I could wish the second day had better sky conditions, but it was still pretty good - at least the veiled sun made shadows less harsh. I'll work on some other place tomorrow, I'm a little tired of looking at North Dakota. Acroterion (talk) 04:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Added a bunch here. The place looks deserted...bet that was nice. Reminds me of a trip I made to the Great Sand Dunes in early 80s...no one else in camp ground and maybe one other car filtered through.--MONGO (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

MONGO's world of wisdom

When using news sources, especially in BLP's, the chances the source is not biased is near zero.[17]--MONGO (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

MONGO heritage revealed!

In addition to being almost entirely of English ancestry I was recently informed I "probably had" a Native American ancestor ten generations ago!!! This person married my first American ancestor after he left England in the 1630s. That makes me 1/1024th Native American!!! Sad part is I am likely more Neanderthal Man than I am Native American.

We have that in common, cool. Mine was in the late 17th century in New England. It was just family lore before we got the DNA results back last year. Seems my ancestors were people of imperfect virtue, and did a bit of messing around... who knew. Antandrus (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

My ancestors came from England but they were all Neanderthal actually. They did not leave England willingly...lol--MONGO (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

That scares me considering we all came from the same mother. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 21:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Reptilians need trees to climb.

Thats a fable that excludes our alien ancestry.--MONGO (talk) 22:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

On reptilian planets they probably make action movies about mammalians.

For my own part I was well over 3% Neanderthal which I am told is unusually high. Probably explains some of the terrible things I did when I was an undergrad. Antandrus (talk) 22:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Reptilians know all humans are repugnant so if they have such movies they are probably done very secretively and shown only at adult reptilian swamps.--MONGO (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

It’s the preamble to the Holiday Season!

Trick or Treat!!!	Happy Halloween!
	Why are demons and ghouls always together? Because demons are a ghoul's best friend. What happens when you goose a ghost? You get a hand full of sheet. Atsme✍🏻📧 00:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Cease using The Washington Post as a source?

MONGO: "we need to cease using them as a source". Let's see how far you get with that. Will you get one of the most respected and reliable sources deprecated? Which policy will you cite? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Sad.--MONGO (talk) 06:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Are you sure it is a good idea to be citing WP:CIR at people? PackMecEng (talk) 12:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

In wacky world of Wikipedia the competent are obviously ones that misuse our server space to post preposterous POV laden essays of screeching nonsense. Imagine had that time wasted been put towards working on building a neutral encyclopedia?--MONGO (talk) 13:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Truth be told, the POV agenda pushers are capitalizing on the fact that major news publications are blatantly anti-Trump and anti-GOP and what they publish reflects that. Wikipedia has a policy against citing blogs or opinion pieces, even from reliable sources, because they are inherently biased and unsourced. But what we are seeing now is publications like the WaPo and the NYT as well as CNN, MSNBC, Newsweek, Time, and so on, turning their front page/headline stories into opinion pieces without labeling them as such. This allows the anti-Trumpers/never-Trumpers/anti-Conservative Wikipedia editors (which is the majority who contribute to the politically-based articles) to say "We follow the sources!" intentionally because they know that these sources are their go-to for confirmation bias. The WaPo, with all of its false flags and retractions that follow, has become unreliable. Same with the NYT. But that will never be noted or considered in Wikipedia. The anti-Trump/anti-GOP/anti-Conservative majority will never allow it. Neutrality here in the way of politics is dead because of that majority. This is one of the reasons why Wikipedia is no longer an encyclopedia. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Anyone that doesn't grasp the fact that journalism is a discipline that naturally attracts the more liberally minded is fooling themselves. But you are correct that so much of the especially web based news is so partisan it hardly meets our NPOV standards even if it is does meet our reliable sources standards. In any BLP about a politician, the chances it can be neutral is directly related to how long it has been since they left elected office.--MONGO (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The news media are supposed to critique the government. It is their job. The fact that Trump is a uniquely problematic individual, far outside the norms of political behaviour, is not their fault and not their problem. News media on all sides of the poltiical spectrum outside the US reflect this fact, they report on his systematic dishonesty and his apparent corruption. Bob Woodward's book is painfully fair, yet paints a picture of unprecedented chaos. Only in the US do right-wing media feel the need to airbrush this out of the story. It's like climate change: the fact that everyone other than Fox reports it as real, doesn't mean that everyone other than Fox is biased against the fossil fuel industry. Guy (Help!) 11:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

"The fact that Trump is a uniquely problematic individual" What I see as problematic in your statement is that it's personal opinion, not fact. The other problematic thing here is that if the WaPo sees Trump as "a problematic individual", and that's the basis for their stories on him, then this absolutely proves the WaPo is biased and not objectively reporting on the 45th POTUS.

"far outside the norms of political behaviour" (1) I'm going to assume from your spelling of 'behaviour', you're either not living in the US or are not a US citizen? (feel free to clear that up). That in mind, you might not be very well versed on the historical "political behavior" of US presidents. While Twitter didn't exist until just recently, Trump is hardly the first publicly outspoken and brash POTUS. (2) "Norms" as measured by whom?

"Bob Woodward's book is painfully fair, yet paints a picture of unprecedented chaos." There are those inside the White House that say Woodward's book is full of bullshit and gossip. And the 'those' includes honorable men such as Gen. James Mattis. Whose word should we believe: the word of a guy who's looking to remain relevant in the public eye and sell books or the guy who has honorably served his country, making countless sacrifices to do so, and is actually in the White House, part of the inner circle? I'll take the latter over the former any day.

-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Nice the folks across the pond have a lock on the truth while us silly Americans are all brainwashed eh? What an arrogant preposterous post colonial load of socialist bullshit, JzG. You know I think a lot of you but well, this is about as clueless as most of your other statements as of late. I also simply do not get why American politics are so fascinating to Europeans....why do you give a crap really? Hold your breath JzG...Fox has a recent piece on Trump and his supposed denial of AGW...[18]...neither apologetic nor condemning, Fox simply reports it, but the CNN acolytes want to go off on a tangent about how the US under Trump is going to imperil the entire Planet since we won't shut down our coal fired power plants and build 300 million tax subsidized wind towers to offset the lost electricity. Any conversation that is about "fixing" climate change that doesn't A.) include the nuclear power option, B). have a serious and ethical discussion about controlling the exploding human population and C). non human impacts to the climate, is a waste of time.--MONGO (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Winkelvi...you're being labeled an "extreme Trump supporter" by the same guy above who questioned my competency to edit. Please do nothing since a few admins seem to think you have no right to do the same but if these personal attacks persist I will seek a resolution on my own.--MONGO (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, isn't that incredibly amusing?! I'd be interested to know what Bull's reliable source for that is, since I've never expressed my support for any politician in Wikipedia. Apparently, the truth doesn't matter when it comes to claims about other editors. Should this be considered a personal attack? Perhaps so, since Bull's comment is clearly not meant to be a compliment. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The left has ownership of the facts and reality show so if you aren't on their bandwagon you are not competent to edit. Its not about FA or other high levels of work here such as you have done...the competency is determined by ones ability to write a one sided opinionated essay.--MONGO (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments about me

Your comments about me are bordering on harrassment. You are a cheerleader for a very distructive editor and are quickly turning into a troll like him. In fact, I wonder if you might be his sockpuppet or something. Stop this crap now. Legacypac (talk) 05:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes...I am his sockpuppet. Run checkuser right now cause I am a troll!--MONGO (talk) 11:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I checked my edits...only once did I call you out specifically and that was regarding the fact you have 6 blocks in the last not even 3 years. If there has been harassment, it has been (once again) your harassment against Winkelvi at his talkpage and your draconian drive a stake in their heart comments regarding Winkelvi that you have been barfing all over noticeboards. This is the second time you have done this apparently as you were blocked for a month back in 2016 for well golly: "gravedancing, perpetuating a feud, on User talk:Winkelvi" as shown here. Be smart...don't give me another reason to demand a second long term block to add to your collection.--MONGO (talk) 13:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Characterizing PolitiFact as opinion

As a seasoned editor, you know very well that PolitiFact is a RS and not "opinion". Yet that was your rationale for removing RS content from the Don Bacon (politician) page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned, we must be careful to not use sources one-sidedly. The removal of a source you did not like and replacing it with one you did was done deliberately to mislead and by doing so you violated the undue weight clause of NPOV and it becomes a BLP violation. Thanks!--MONGO (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

"The removal of a source you did not like" - The govtrack website for the Tax Cuts bill?[19] Is this a joke? This is some seriously WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior. First you stalk me to the Don Bacon page, then you falsely claim that PolitiFact is "opinion" and now you suggest that I removed or omitted important info from a reliable source (when the source in question is a govtrack website for a bill - which added no new text that could not be found in the PolitiFact piece - and which SHOULD be replace by secondary RS per nearly every editor in American politics). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

No one is stalking you anywhere! You think someone disagrees with your edits they are stalking you? But thanks for the diff of wrong accusation and lack of AGF.--MONGO (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

MONGO is a mean nasty person and must be punished section

By now everybody is aware you don't like using major news outlets as sources. WP:AE is the wrong venue for airing those complaints. [20] If you think you have a case then take it to WP:RS/N. Also, responding specifically to your statement that "we are limited for references by the least worthy source of information, namely, the NEWS" Is there some news organization out there that has tied your hands and is preventing you from using better sources? Are you not allowed to go to your library and check out books, or get a Wikipedia scholar pass and read peer-reviewed published articles? Are you for some reason unable to look up subjects in tertiary sources like Britannica and to use those sources as a guide for balance here? ~Awilley (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

If you can find books or scholarly works on all the breaking news junk that gets added I would like to see them! From what I read they are referring to all the recentism that keeps getting added. Which would of course not have higher quality sources yet. PackMecEng (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Apparently Awilley seems to have misread my post that he linked to above. I do not agree that more rules or changes to long existing rules will make things "better". What User:Coffee set in place and what Awilley wants are both efforts in good faith to correct an issue, but its an issue that is not as big as they surmise. I dropped out almost entirely from AmPol articles months ago because of several reasons. Firstly, as PackMecEng points out correctly, we do not have higher sources available for the recentism issues mainly because they are...recent. News is editor reviewed, not peer reviewed in the same way a scholarly entity is. Secondly, I see almost all news sources as less than useful on political issues because they are all mostly partisan...that includes CNN and Fox and the rest. Thirdly, I know I have a bias so I know I am not likely to edit those areas without that bias...and I will as other biased persons, I will likely want to use those news sources that tend to bolster my biases more. It is sad the others with bias are unable to check themselves on this matter. Lastly, and this is to Awilley...excuse me fine Sir, but I have 13 FA works and have started another 1200 articles and not one has ever been deleted. Its insulting to the extreme that you would assume I am unable to look up things in tertiary sources to achieve a balanced neutral treatise on a particular subject. Sadly, for current event political articles, there are few to none of these sources available YET. And that is my point that Awilley in his zeal seems to want me to shut up about apparently, in his condescending manner, but since he is a lofty admin and he sees his job as some sort of corrective action policeman I best adhere to his demands or face a block for daring to challenge his supremacy.--MONGO (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. A couple points: 1: breaking news is a very small subset of post-1932 American politics. Stuff over about a year old starts showing up in other sources. 2: We are apparently talking about different types of news sources. I have a low opinion of cable news stations that seem to spend 2 minutes reporting the news itself and the rest of the hour bringing in panels of talking heads to spin the news in different directions. When I talk about news sources I'm talking about major newspapers and outlets like the New York Times, Guardian, Reuters, and Associated Press, that have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, and that issue corrections when they get things wrong. Forgive my millennial cord cutter bias. ~Awilley (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

All of those entities have had to issue numerous corrections so no, they still fall short of what I would deem as scholarly. Furthermore, the reliance on opinion pieces (which the NYTimes has a plethora of) as "news" pieces is far too rampant on the articles. But well, I think the efforts to find a new way to enforce an old issue is noble but not needed. Simply let them go back to 3RR, allow some vigorous back and forth to be performed in the talkpages and unless someone violates 3RR or Spirit of 3RR routinely, then let it go.--MONGO (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

You speak of corrections as if they are a bad thing. I'd be more worried if a news organization didn't issue corrections. Certainly opinion pieces shouldn't be used as news, and I'd expect you to call it out when you see it. Just be careful about crying wolf. Edit summaries like this (implying a RS is "opinion") can damage your credibility. ~Awilley (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Paris Graffiti Impasse Planchette - look at the sky

No, I speak of corrections as they happen after print, meaning they are so hurried to get a story out they lack the oversight (and intergrity) to make sure its correct to begin with because they want to SELL. Wikipedia is not the NEWS is policy. I know where your partisanship lies Awilley, so leave me out of your crusade to make things better when you fail yourself to demonstrate adequately that you have any article writing capability of note. With that, be free to seek solutions to problems that aren't nearly as big as you might pretend they are...as I shall not even think to interfere with your efforts again as I have once again learned my place as a peon and I am unworthy. I shall slither off to my little corner now...be well.--MONGO (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

There's the ad hominem. ~Awilley (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I mean... they are not really wrong are they? PackMecEng (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

No reason to continue the discussion if its led to an impasse.--MONGO (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

nous sommes dans une impasse et ne serons probablement pas d'accord! peut-être la prochaine fois nous aurons un meilleur désaccord--MONGO (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Look MONGO, I respect you for the amount of content you have created, although I don't particularly appreciate having it lorded over me. And you have a legitimate point about recentism in our articles and the scramble to SELL news. I believe that the majority of news sources do have an inherent bias: a bias toward controversy, and that unfortunately bleeds into Wikipedia. (You could probably gather that from my userpage.) As far as other kinds of bias in sources, for the purposes of Wikipedia I try to outsource that judgement. If print sources are available I try to find the most reputable respected scholarly source available—the one everybody else cites and that appears in all the bibliographies—and adopt its POV as my own. If I were editing about recent American politics and only news sources were available I would probably look for a chart like this and try to only use sources in the green box. That's my approach to NPOV in a nutshell. Find the highest quality sources available and pretend their POV is my own. You of course are free to do as you like.

@PackMecEng: if you are genuinely curious about my own personal views (not sure why you would be) then feel free to ask me a direct question on my user talk page. I'm not going to play along with Ive-got-u-pegged-and-ur-biased-against-me-now-plz-give-me-some-personal-info-about-urself-so-i-can-find-a-way-to-use-it-against-you. ~Awilley (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Apologies if you thought I was asking what your POV is, I was not nor do I particularly care to find out. PackMecEng (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Egads....its a I have to have the final word contest! Awilley...that chart shows Reuters as near top best source yet didnt they stage images sonetime back to make it look like something else had happened when it did not. It says FoxNews is hyper partisan right and that it is persuasive in its coverage? So that is what we go by? Ok...I am done and shall report to the local gaol and take my shackles and or chains or lashings as applicable. I am obviously ill prepared to vet sources and shall leave such intricacies to those best prepared to provide a truly neutral rendition of the our BLPs. Time to pout.--MONGO (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

naughty MONGO on the right...Willy on Wheels at left

=

MONGO love shack

It's a nonstop love fest!!

Welcome to the MONGO love shack where love and happiness is spread by all...its a nonstop orgy!

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 27, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Camp Fire arbitration case request

The case request has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Reply Request

When you have time, please reply to the messages at Talk:September_11_attacks#No_Idea. Thank you so much in advance. KachaleMouferferee (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, MONGO. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

A note about Montana and Glacier National Park

So when I saw your reasons for a revert, I decided to make add this note, but keep the other stuff. The note says: "However, the Grizzly Bear and Canada Lynx are only listed as a threatened species for the mainland 48 states. In general, the Grizzly bear and Canadian Lynx are not a threatened species, the IUCN lists both of the two animals' conservation statuses as 'least concern' (LC)." Does it sound clarifying? If not, how can I make it more clear? Tigerdude9 (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The IUCN is not always accurate/updated but that works with me. The issue is since we are writing about those entities, when we speak about the fauna within them we list things as the reliable sources say, which in this case, they are listed as threatened in those location.--MONGO (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I'm glad the IUCN works with you. The section just looked unclear despite not having a "clarification needed" tag and I didn't want me and other readers to get confused. That's why I added the note. Tigerdude9 (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

No worries.--MONGO (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

It's that time again!!!

Want more yams? No thanks, I'm stuffed.	Wishing You A Happy Turkey Day!
	Thanksgiving funnies... What smells best at a Thanksgiving dinner? Your nose. What did the turkey say to the computer? Google, google, google. 😊🦃 Atsme✍🏻📧 17:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Atsme..have a wonderful Thanksgiving.--MONGO (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Question-- Opinion Request

Hi, hope you are fine. May I add this reference to the "Military operations" section of encyclopedia's article 'September 11 attacks' now, or do you still disagree? The reason for adding this reference is making the final statement of that section more verifiable and reliable. The reference article has been published in a prestigious and high-quality US military journal (CTC Sentinel by Combating Terrorism Center) and can be considered as academic/scholarly (or at least semi-academic/semi-scholarly). The relevant lines in the reference article are "In the months after 9/11, Soleimani saw an opportunity to defeat the Taliban once and for all by unconventional means—namely, cooperation with the United States. Early in the war, he directed Iranian diplomats to share intelligence on Taliban military positions with their U.S. counterparts. The Americans, in return, told the Iranians what they knew about an al-Qa`ida fixer hiding out in eastern Iran.33". The article's author is a former FBI officer/agent in the Anti-terrorism Division of FBI. Your reply will be highly appreciated. Thanks. Sincerely: KachaleMouferferee (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@KachaleMouferferee: feel free to post the above at Talk:September 11 attacks and gain feedback there.--MONGO (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you. KachaleMouferferee (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

A day even the "notorious" can appreciate!!

	Santa Claus is coming to town!
	There's still time to be naughty or nice!! Wishing Santa makes all your holiday wishes come true!! Atsme✍🏻📧 23:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I am always naughty...but your wishes are welcomed and thank you.--MONGO (talk) 13:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Seasons

	Gothic Seasons Greetings
	Wishing you all the best for x-mass, hope it is a time of, some but not too much, cheer. Ceoil (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Merry Christmas to you and yours and Happy New Year too!--MONGO (talk) 05:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Austral season's greetings

	Austral season's greetings
	Tuck into this! We've made about three of these in the last few days for various festivities. Supermarkets are stuffed with cheap berries. Season's greetings! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you and Merry Christmas to you!--MONGO (talk) 14:47, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, MONGO!

I hope you have a nice holiday, maybe a screening of Blazing Saddles. --rogerd (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas...I may watch myself again during the New Year break. I've been eating a lot of beans lately.--MONGO (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, don't let Mr. Taggart know, he may tell you you've had enough. BTW, how many times have you seen it? --rogerd (talk) 01:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Bits and pieces 100 times but all the way through at least 25 I bet. For holiday movies always like the traditional storied but prefer mostly comedies. Watched Christmas Vacation two days ago and that was first time I saw that in maybe 20 years...still has some funny parts that seem timeless.--MONGO (talk) 03:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yellow Mountain (Montana), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seward Mountain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

You made it to wikipedia signpost!

I think I saw you photo on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-12-24/Humour! --rogerd (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I should sue over artistic license infringement of something or another! Oops...hope they don't consider that a real legal threat.--MONGO (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)