User talk:MONGO - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MONGO (talk | contribs) at 04:11, 26 November 2011 (→Personal attacks: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:11, 26 November 2011 by MONGO (talk | contribs) (→Personal attacks: r)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Help with identifying Glacier National Park images?

They are over at Commons, at Category:Walter McClintock Lantern Slides. Many photographs appear to be from the Glacier National Park area. Someone familiar with the park could probably identify the mountains and lakes-- could you take a look? Djembayz (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Most of the mountains are, or from the Swan Range to the south...I can ID the peaks, add an appropriate Category to each image and perhaps make a note on the Category page about each peak.MONGO 19:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I looked the images over...the only ones I could ID were already tagged on the image itself.--MONGO 05:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort! Djembayz (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello MONGO! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Thanks

It was me who wrote the motion (and the long long long long section of a statement underneath) :) SirFozzie (talk) 02:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha...thanks very much...it needs to be written in stone. I don't know if that case is the place to do it aside from the motion and I don't think either admin needs to be dragged over the coals on this issue or used as examples, but perhaps you and other arbitrators can "coerce" the blocking policy. Also, my goal with Malleus wasn't to get him as a named party in that case...but I've been in his shoes, not knowing when to shut up, nor take a chill pill...and like him, I had a block reverted by a friend and though I didn't contest that then as it was less common than now, I still think blocks of merit should stand and that admins should do precisely as you've written to minimize future problems. Good work!--MONGO 02:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it would go better for you if you stopped trying to invent history, and stopped right now. Malleus Fatuorum 02:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I wish I could "invent" a motion as eloquent as what SirFozzie wrote--MONGO 02:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Invention indeed. Misplaced Pages's civility policy has more in common with Old Wild West lynchings than 21st-century jurisprudence. But I know the truth is an anathema to you, so I shall bother you no more here on your talk page. Malleus Fatuorum 02:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I already told you that you could say anything you wish to me here...the goal was to give you a place to vent without threat of retaliation on what you post HERE...other places, the gloves are off. I don't know that lynchings were as common in the wild west as the movies seem to indicate...I think dying by way of bison stampede was about as common as a lynching.--MONGO 03:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

OK EQ

There's now a modest article on Benedictine Hall (Shawnee, Oklahoma), mainly sourced to the NRHP nomination. Acroterion (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Cool beans! I'll check it out tonight.MONGO 19:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I looked it over on my Blackberry...looks just fine...thanx!MONGO 20:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Back from "retirement"

Hi MONGO! I decided to come back. Some things I still want to do here. Enjoyed the break immensely. Guess that's what I needed, a rest. See you around. BusterD (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Breaks are good...my editing is low as of late due to various non-Misplaced Pages related issues. Hope you find some interesting areas to contribute to again.--MONGO 03:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 2011 Oklahoma earthquake

On 16 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2011 Oklahoma earthquake, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the 5.6 magnitude earthquake which struck the U.S. state of Oklahoma on November 5, 2011, was the most powerful recorded in state history? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2011 Oklahoma earthquake.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Panyd 16:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil

Hi, MONGO. I see no problem at all if you do some copy-edit to the article. I'm glad to see your will to help. However, I must warn you that Malleus Fatuorum won't change his opinion no matter how much you improve the article. His stance is based on personal feelings, not on a rational motive. Nonetheless, thank you very much. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 10:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I shall work on it as best I can starting Friday evening. In Malleus defense, he is an excellent copyeditor, whereby I'm not known for such...I'm mainly best at the research end and all of the featured articles I produced always had the help of others, especially in terms of copyediting. However, I'll do what I can and perhaps Malleus may be swayed.MONGO 12:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

That's ok. Any help is appreciated. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Lecen's opinion is contrary to the facts, not that that seems ever to have stopped him before, as the FAC of Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil quite clearly shows. Malleus Fatuorum 12:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Lecen, I have a number of things I will adjust to the article this weekend.--MONGO 12:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, MONGO. I never bothered her. It was she the one who appeared and made comments. If she is so busy, why she did it, then? Anyway, I'm going to wait for your improvements. I really appreaciate your help. --Lecen (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean it that way...I'll do what I can but my forte is research so maybe this will be a good exercise for me. Overall, the article is interesting and had you not written it, we may have had to wait some time yet to see it on en.wiki.--MONGO 02:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Bishonen said the she saw "other problems besides the prose". What are they? --Lecen (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on some of them now...and will do more over the next day or two. Chck my edit summaries as I tend to leave notes in that whenever I make substantive changes to unfamiliar articles.--MONGO 07:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Was she talking about unreliable sources? What exactly did she mean by "other problems besides the prose"? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Not so much unreliable as just not enough different sources I think. I'm heading out now to do so things, but will work on this more tonight. I'll post coments at the article talkpage after I do somre more copyediting..hang in there! I hope to make whatever adjustments I can by the 23rd as I won't be around much for the 4 days after that I think.--MONGO 20:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to be a pain in the ass but I must be sincere to you and tell you that I disagree if your last edit. First, because it's the kind of information that would make sense in the articles about Pedro I and the war between him and his brother. The focus in here should be Maria Amélia. Second, because neither Britan nor France aided him. The most they did was that once the war was practically finished (with Pedro I's victory) both nations sent a joint warning to Miguel I that they supported Pedro I. In toher words: they did absolutely nothing. They didn't send troops, arms, money or anything helpful. Not even moral support until the war was almost over. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Lecen, you're not being a pain at all...but lets resume article discussion at the article talkpage.--MONGO 03:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

First, Malleus Fatuorum called me a "dickhead" twice merely because I awarded another reviewer with a barnstar and not him. That's why he doesn't like me and that's why he opposed the article in the TFA candidates (and I had never met him before that!). Where I live people do not insult someone and this kind of behavior is not accepted as "normal". However, I noticed that he has many supporters who love this "Malleus Fatuorum's lifestyle". There is no excuse for being rude to other people. Even less with no good reason. I also noticed that he likes playing the victim type and is always crying out loud that he is harassed by "civility cops" and that no one supports him. That's a lie. There are more people bullying those "civility cops" and supporting him than the other way around. Second, if Bishonen doesn't think the article is realiable enough, well, then, she should point out waht is wrong instead of blindly accusing me. Empire of Brazil, Pedro Álvares Cabral, José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco, Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil, Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná, Pedro II of Brazil and Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies all of these seven articles are FAs and all were written by me. Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil was recently promoted to FA and now it's just not good enough? What? Why? The article is being butchered beyond recognition merely to please Malleus Fatuorum who will never grant his support. Damn. Why should I be worried about pleasing him on the first place? Who is he? Somekind of God in here? I'm really sorry for being so frank, I'm not complaing about you at all, and you are helping me a lot, but the truth is that this is all a huge waiste of time. If people won't give their support because Malleus Fatuorum said "no" than we should simply change the entire FAC process and place Malleus Fatuorum as the sole reviewer since his word is law. Damn it. Said enough already. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have a staggering lack of insight into your own behaviour Lecen, while being excessively critical of the behaviour of others. But surely with a modicum of effort you can see that your continuing personal attacks against me are inconsistent with your repeated bleating about having been called a dickhead? Time for it to stop. The reason I opposed your TFAR is because the article is very poorly written, as was Afonso before I helped you with that. Simple as that. Got it? Malleus Fatuorum 16:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

What would be of me without you, ó greatest of the great ones! --Lecen (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The lesson you have to learn Lecen is that you do not have the command of English you believe yourself to have, as a cursory glance at any of your FAs demonstrates. I'm giving you fair notice that your personal attacks must stop. Malleus Fatuorum 16:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I never said I was exceptional when writing in English. On the contrary. What I do here is to write content. It is Astynax the one who makes the copy-edit. --Lecen (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Well..let's just not do this here...I'll have more to add later.MONGO 16:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

September 11 attacks

I don't know what you mean by "personal attacks" so spare me with that nonsense because it's getting old. There is no hierarchy here it doesn't matter how long you have been on Misplaced Pages. It has nothing to do with the "settings" every other page looks fine, the text in your version is below the infobox. You deleted referenced information on the height of the towers, the speed of the planes, the floors impacted, etc. you may not, but most people consider that pertinent information one would find in an encyclopedia article, "good articles" have information in them. You do not WP:OWN the page, there is no hierarchy here. 7mike5000 (talk) 12:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem is your edits added the kind of details and links that were removed over the last few months to reduce over-linking and to more tightly focus the article. In any case, you've boldly edited, you've been reverted, and now it's time to take it to the article talk page. Tom Harrison 12:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

A number of editors, including Tom above, have been trying to reduce the article's universally acknowledged bloat over the past few months. This problem has been highlighted by a number of reviewers. The article still needs tightening, so please work with other editors to include what is needed while making the article as concise as possible. Acroterion (talk) 12:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Analyze this

Since you seem to be collecting evidence for a clique, analyze this. Geometry guy 22:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be the normative behavior at that talkpage.--MONGO 02:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted. Robust disagreement is indeed normative amongst editors with honesty and integrity. Geometry guy 05:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Now try this. Geometry guy 05:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

That Truthkeeper88 is Neptun88? --DHeyward (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't that someone pushing 9/11 CT's?--MONGO 02:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It was a sock of Giovanni33. He often created SPAs to hide. He's banned. --DHeyward (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure...Gio was in southern California I think...--MONGO 02:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

But Neptun88 was a confirmed sock of Gio...--MONGO 02:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Meh......that's 2 and a half years ago.--MONGO 04:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

How sad. By trawling back through the archives you will also find many times when Malleus and I agreed. So what? Geometry guy 12:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at his two failed Rfa's which are linked on his userpage...its not unusual for similar thinkers to bond, but highly unusual for those that have animosity or divergent views to do so.MONGO 15:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I gave Malleus the benefit of the doubt at his RfA a couple of years ago. That doesn't mean I'm a supporter or defender now. Malleus and I have also disagreed many times. We are completely different, for example, in views on and approach to civility. The post I linked is but one example of "animosity or divergent views". One editor even took me to task for it on my user talk page.

My expression of sadness was at the way you seem to filter information, in black and white: my enemy's friend is my enemy. Thanks, though, for idea that Malleus and I are "similar thinkers" who have "bonded": it made me chuckle. Geometry guy 21:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Something for you to consider

Whatever you may think of me (and believe me, I don't really give a shit), I think Sandy is right that you are, or have become, too close to the subject matter to remain impartial when editing topics related to 9/11. I also think it would be best if the maintenance and improvement of that article were taken over by newer editors who haven't been involved in the protracted disputes that have been running for all these years. That would be the best case scenario as far as we, as neutral editors of an encyclopaedia, should be concerned. I will, however, tell you that I will take you or any other editor to WP:AE and request a topic ban if they act in any manner other than what would be expected of a neutral editor of an encyclopaedia—that includes calling other editors, even editors you don't like, bigots. I suggest you use AE if you believe that another editor is not acting in a manner that would be expected of a neutral editor of an encyclopaedia, but I really think it would be best if you step away from the area. I would add that I'm here not because I think Malleus' conduct is desirable, but because you seem to have the most invested in this emotionally and because if you step away, the chances are others will follow suit. Of course, you're free to completely disregard everything I just said and there's very little I can do about it, but I hope you will consider it, because it is offered in good faith. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell...Malleus and others commented in the article GAR that the article was biased...one example was that there was no mention of NORAD and the "failure of the worlds largest airforce to act"...I ackowledged that this was an omission and added a paragraph about it but the reliable references I found indicated that opposite was true, that the airforce DID respond but in a very NPOV manner added that there were serious communication break downs between various federal agencies. On the advice of Karanacs, I worked to cleanup prosen fix citation issues and get the article more MOS compliant. Malleus has made but a few edits to the article, some relatively minor ce's...the rest of his "contributions" have been nonspecific comments at the talkpage along the lines of "you reap what you sow", "rednecks", "draped in red white and blue", that the article is "sh-t", "crap"...his "contributions" are zero. Now, I have a couple questions for you...since you come here to offer "advice" to someone that is twice your age and has been on this website far longer than you...firstly, in such an article, who is "neutral"? I don't think you are, you don't seem to think I am, I know Malleus isn't...so who are these "neutral" editors? Secondly, what would be the outcome for me if I edited an article say about the IRA (I haven't looked at the article so I don't know if it is or isn't biased)..but let's say for the sake of argument that it had a "pro-British" viewpoint/POV and went to the article talkpage and told everyone there it was crap, it was biased, it stinks, it looks like a 5 year old wrote it and finished up with, "the only people satisfied with this article are British rednecks draped in their Union Jack"...do you think any welcome would be extended to me after that? Wouldn't most think such comments are bigoted? At the least, is that the manner an argument is "won", by making ethnocentric comments?MONGO 21:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

As noted below, I do not wish to defend Malleus's post, but one interesting feature was the phrase "wrapped in red, white and blue", which applies just as much to the Union Jack as it does to the Flag of the United States. It behoves all editors of Misplaced Pages to leave nationalism (and indeed all of our individual points of view) at the doorstep, and write the best possible articles we can for the entire English speaking world. Geometry guy 22:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I also found Malleus's comment unhelpful, and you will find a thread immediately above yours on his talk page with precisely the same link. However, I urge you to consider HJ Mitchell's comments carefully: don't respond in haste. I too have noticed some emotional involvement on your part, but I've also seen that you have the ability to step back and reflect, and provide valuable input. There is a real chance for progress on the 9/11 article now, which is something I hope all editors will welcome. Geometry guy 20:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please discuss the content, not the editors. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Your drama mongering isn't helpful-- this is a really stupid warning. Oh, are you going to block him next? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Concur. Geometry guy 22:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree and abide by whatever Kaldari suggests...and I retract my comment about Malleus being a bigot or bigoted.--MONGO 23:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see User:Gerardw/Notes on civility. I'd like to call your attention to the suggestion: "In the current context, in my opinion, any editor who repeatedly complains about Malleus or admins supporting or the like is just as disruptive to Misplaced Pages as any post he may make." Gerardw (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Then AN/I in your opinion is just a dramafest, likely to only increase drama? Should repeat problems be dealt with in a RFCU or sent directly to arbcom?--MONGO 00:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you and Kaldari discuss or plan the posts you have both made here and at other venues? If so, what was your purpose? Geometry guy 01:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

No we did not...I previously discussed with her the issues regarding NPA and CIVIL in general in a couple emails...she was reminding me to follow my pledge and I think (I'd have to check) that I told her that if was out of line that she should pull me back in line.--MONGO 01:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Why did you suddenly switch from an uncompromisingly robust defense of your position to a more conciliatory one after Kaldari's post? Geometry guy 02:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Because I made a mistake, I was trying to fight fire with fire. My AN/I complaint and comments elsewhere would have perhaps fixed the issue had I been less reactionary. Kaldari is a neutral admin in my opinion.--MONGO 02:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)The point is it's premature to consider how to deal with a "problem" unless we agree it's a problem. And "Malleus" drama has already generated a 265 post, 16 days arbcom discussion , and in the end, the case was not accepted. I'm not unsympathetic to your reaction to the comment, but you saw the current consensus at the ANI post. My advice is if you really feel: 1) an editor has significantly the crossed the line, and 2) there's a reasonable chance the community will support you, do "one and done." Make one really good posting at ANI. Phrase it as neutrally and calmly as you can and include as many relevant diffs as you can. Watch the thread but avoid the tendency to reply to every comment, and especially counter claims/accusations from the other party. Answer any specific questions you get asked but otherwise let the community discussion go. Going onto an editor's talk page with anything less than a reasonably polite query or a fairly standard warning is unlikely to be productive. Gerardw (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, his name wasn't atop that case...it had a peripheral focus to him so there weren't any diffs there demonstrating the issues in detail as he wasn't a named party. However, your advice is excellent and I thank you for your time.--MONGO 02:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I also thank you for your time, and you give a lot of good advice. There are multiple explanations for what may have happened here: a conspiracy to expose double standards? a relationship in the making?...and many more mundane explanations inbetween. I came quite close to filing a report at ANI for other editors to consider, but did not, as I do not think the editing process has been significantly disrupted, and that is what really matters. Geometry guy 02:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding what exactly?--MONGO 02:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

GeometryGuy, consider this past history...that this led to this finding...and that was ONE DIFF.--MONGO 02:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks for apologizing for mistakes and continuing to engage in rational discourse. Geometry guy 03:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I've been around the 9/11 articles a long time...--MONGO 03:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Um, no, that one diff didn't lead to the Seabhacan finding (I edited around him on other articles, and he most certainly deserved the finding, and it was not based on that one diff). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

That was the only one cited but yes there were others...--MONGO 04:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)