User talk:MONGO

Archives Archive 1 (January 2005 to June 2005) Archive 2 (July 2005 to October 2005) Archive 3 (November 2005) Archive 4 (December 2005) Archive 5 (January 2006) Archive 6 (February 2006) Archive 7 (March 2006) Archive 8 (April 2006) Archive 9 (May 2006) Archive 10 (June 2006) Archive 11 (July 2006)

Even with the server problems, one ought to be careful about such things. (Especially if, um, you were aware that there were server issues). john k 17:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough. I suppose no harm's done, since I restored it. john k 22:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be offended by this (for speedy deletion now). I am not trying to upset you or anything, just letting you know, you're not the only one. Hardvice 07:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering whether you could protect this page - User:Daniel.Bryant/GraalOnline - because the mediation submissions are finished, and now I (the mediator) will go off and deliberate. In this time, I want to minimize a war of words. Killfest2 ^(Talk) 10:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop tampering with deletion reviews. I made no personal attacks and merely noted the process by which the article was deleted, which is perfectly consistent with how deletion review works. Stanfordandson 17:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mongo, I've filed an RfC for you to respond to based on some of the personal attacks that you delivered and failed to apologize for during the recent drama. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO (second RfC) SchmuckyTheCat 17:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I sign the barnstar above? Based on the diffs in the RFC I'd say "good job". Guettarda 18:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should modify it with a section for Endorsements? KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if you were offended. I was not trying to be rude - merely familiar. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking in! The article history seem to have stabilized, thanks to your efforts earlier. 172 | Talk 05:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please unlock and add Category:Wikipedia navigation templates to {{commonscat}}, so it's listed with the rest of the family (see the cat). Thanks for the Speedy-D earlier. // FrankB 06:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done...hopefully I got that right.--MONGO 07:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MONGO! I'll be back from the beach and in the city for a week or two starting next week and would like to try to face my 9/11 demons and help WP at the same time - which street addresses or specific locations/features would you like me to shoot? I'd be glad to go out 'on location' (even if it's just down the block) for a WP photo shoot! :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I recently created the article Comparison of Windows and Mac OS X. As you can see from the original copy (actually the second was the original, the first was me hitting save page instead of show preview), that I had worked long and hard on opening the article.

A day after opening, user Alistair McMillan proposed it for deletion. I feel this is rather outrageous, especially because comparing Windows and Mac OS X is a much more widely-regarded topic then a Comparison of Windows and Linux... Either way, the article has had a rocky beginning, but with proper editations I'm sure it could be a great one.

I also have recieved much shunning from Mr. McMillan, for he seemed to sort of treat me as a less intelligent individual, being extremely snobbish toward myself (I can often make mistakes such as forgetting to sign), and it seems his judgement is based on a bias and shouldnt be well noted.

I am only 14, and do much work throughout the summer: so I cannot spend a long time on protecting/enhancing my articles; so I'd be very happy to see some help & support.

Thanks alot,

--Alegoo92 03:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mongo, since you've come right out now and said that your initial response to my attempts to introduce CD in the Collapse of the World Trade Center article was to assume that they were made in bad faith (if "he must be nuts" can't be interpreted that way I don't know what can), I thought I'd come over here and take particular exception to the way you've been treating me. I know you get a lot of praise for being a direct and merciless editor, but if you go back and look at the discussions we've been having I think you will see that your contributions could have been a good deal more constructive. There was nothing to indicate that I was what I turned out to be: namely, someone who would put up with your rude behaviour for the sake of a better article. Your actions risked driving someone away who would have made a useful contribution to the article. You consistently misrepresented my views and refused to address the actual suggestions I made: that is, you responded to me as though I was making claims for controlled demolition (when I never once did that and repeatedly corrected you), and you proceeded early on on an assumption about my background political views (CT, government culpability), which were not only false, but irrelevant in the way I framed the suggestion and pejorative in their insinuating tone. The best example, here, is the first one, which is also, since nothing else is at this point known, the clearest example of a WP:FAITH violation. First, I explain why I think CD is a useful baseline collapse mechanism to have in mind. Next, you try to summarize my views by saying, "So in a nutshell, you believe that the U.S. Government is culpable?" The question mark clearly indicates a rhetorical question. The intellectual tradition that I come from, and Wikipedia seems at least in point of policy to participate in, is founded on the interpretative "principle of charity", especially in first time encounters. The idea is to read a collection of utterances in such a way as to grant them maximal coherence and truth. You didn't do that. The words "controlled demolition" made you "feel like" shouting "you're nuts", and your actions were in effect to do that in all but the letter. As you now know, people like you (or people like you have until now pretended to be) don't really put me off. But people like me should not be required to make the sorts of improvements that have been made to the Collapse of the WTC article. Other rhetorical postures must be viable also. Since I will be around from now on, I'd appreciate it if you laid off the heavyhanded, presumptuous, impatient and uncharitable bullying. Let me deal with those who might insist on writing claims about CD into the article from now on. Only if we acknowledge their curiosity, and assume their good faith, i.e., only if we treat each other as Wikipedians, can working on the article be pleasant work. Your dog fights are not a source of hope in this regard. With all due respect, --Thomas Basboll 10:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I defend the proven facts, not hypothesis's. Anyone, who tells me that there is any chance of controlled demolition, even in just some mildly passing manner, is going to get a raised eyebrow, at a minimum from me. I pretty much treat the notion of controlled demolition on 9/11 as the biggest insult one can have on the U.S. Government and many, many of it's people. Otherwise, my comment wasn't a personal attack, unless of course, you are here ultimately to POV push controlled demolition. I made it clear, I see no reason to have nonsense in the article, yet you expanded it and have it written in such a way that it looks like it was dismissed by the experts soon after it was first brought up...almost as if this now leaves room for expansion upon that theme, maybe even opportunity to further discuss the matter in article space. Any rational, sane human being would have known it wasn't controlled demolition the moment the first plane hit the north tower at WTC. I cannot imagine how CT could ever be a useful baseline collapse mechanism to have in mind. You're editing a controversial article, so if you make utterances that appear to me to be controversial, then, naturally, I am going to treat them as with differing degrees of circumspect. What exactly did you expect?--MONGO 12:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, after many, many months of arguing, we are finally getting the article into proper shape. Lets not fight about it now. Self-Described Seabhcán 13:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Seabhcán. I guess it's because I've really only been arguing about this for a week, getting nothing but flak from Mongo the whole the way, that I decided to come over here. I think this is more person-oriented than article-oriented, but certainly not PA territory. As best I can make out, these are issues of WP:FAITH and WP:BITE, values which the "experienced" Mongo decided to set aside because of his preformed opinion about CD ...

Not CT, Mongo. I said controlled demolition, not conspiracy theory, is a baseline mechanism. That is certainly plausible from a layman's perspective (as the newscasters made clear on 9/11, when it was all they think to compare it to) and it has now been given a modicum of plausibility event by Bazant, even Sunder is more respectful of people who worry about controlled demolition than you are. You continue to treat the very idea of CD as an immediate accusation of government complicity, when it could be an accusation of ordinary treason aimed at as yet unknown, unnamed elements working for al-Qaida, but on the inside; and even this I haven't suggested. You have (don't tell me this unintentional) now called me irrational and insane (as you hinted earlier) since I didn't "know it wasn't controlled demolition the moment the first plane hit the north tower at WTC" (whatever your basis for saying that may be).

You didn't treat me with circumspect, Mongo, but disrespect. I expected a modicum of respect and got bitten. As it happens, this won't effect my work on the article, but that doesn't justify your behaviour. It took way too much effort to make a much needed and completely NPOV change to the CT section. And it greatly soured the work on the rest of the article. Be, I don't know, "happier", Mongo.--Thomas Basboll 13:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, CD, not CT...as I said, controlled demolition is the path of ignorance, and yes, anyone who is mislead to believe that controlled demolition was in anyway a part of the scenario, is ignorant...that is of course, not the same thing as calling someone stupid. Furthermore, I do not think your changes to the section on controlled demolition are indeed NPOV. I think they present a foothold of nonsense in the article which can easily be misconstrued. Your seeming desire to link in the 9/11 Truth Movement indicates to me that you are familiar with their "work"...but they are just one group of many that profess, without any basis in factuality, the "hypothesis" of controlled demolition on 9/11...in that, I think they are either ignorant or stupid. I don't know what more can be said on the matter. You have to understand that I am first and foremost a man of science. I support only what has been properly peer reviewed by those that could do an effective cross examination of the material...then we can add that information. I have basically left your edits alone, so I really don't know what you're disturbed about...I haven't been rude to you in the least...and I have every right to question where you're coming from.--MONGO 16:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to WP:FAITH you have every right to ask me where I'm coming from, not to question my good faith (or sanity, or knowledge, or intelligence). I can see you're not going to give any ground on this, so I'll leave you be. I think you are wrong about the CD section, of course. You are both wrong and working without any firm basis when you suggest that I have some brute "desire to link to the 9/11 truth movement". It strikes me as the right direction to point people who want to pursue the demolition option. Science is full of hypotheses the pursuit of which led to important discoveries even though they turned out to be false. You are a man of a particular kind of science at best. Finally, the reason you have left my edits alone is not, I trust, because you're being nice to me, but because they're good edits. Just as I've left your edits alone because they were correct, not because I'm being polite. Doesn't seem to be much call for that with you. See you around.--Thomas Basboll 18:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mongo - I've started going through the glacier-stubs, shifting them out and marking location-geo-stubs on them, and it looks like I owe you an apology. The majority of the articles do still have geo-stub templates... I'm sorry I accused you of deliberately removing them. Any that were removed must have been done accidentally - it wouldn't make sense for you to have deliberately removed them from some but left them on all the others. Apologies. Grutness...wha? 14:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Indigenous Peoples of North America Portal The Indigenous Peoples of North America Portal has been established, as a starting point for those wishing to learn more about the subject, with information and links on a wide variety of issues. It also contains news regarding the continent's various tribes and nations. It's a graphically pleasing site, and everyone is encouraged to check it out. Home Page Reorganization The project's home page has a new design, featuring tabbed subpages on participants, templates, articles, categories, and the to do list. Article Classification Move The Article Classification lists have been moved to their own subpage due to size. This is a sign of progress in the ongoing work of this project. New Talk Page Template The project's talk page template has been updated, along with the classification system, to include the assessment on the talk pages of the articles that have been classified and assessed.

Balance As the Project reaches its first six months of activity, the great effort all of you have invested in it has turned the vast information available on Indigenous North American topics from a deorganized cumulous into an excellent and easy to consult database. Although much work is still in order, few WikiProjects are able to obtain the amazing results we are proud to show today. To all of you, thank you and congratulations! What You Can Do to Help The assessment of articles within the scope of the project is still an ongoing process. We need people to help in this who are not contributors to the articles they are assessing. Also, there is the ongoing need for identifying and cataloguing articles that fall within the scope of this project. As of today, nearly 1,500 have been identified within the Project's scope. Signed by Aaron Walden & Phaedriel - 15:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you reverted that users sumary of Presidents life and career? Maybe because its all sooooo true?

Ice Cold 20:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well,since hes blocked,I figured its right to show people why hes been blocked for(if Im wrong,then I apologize and you can delete it from his page,or I can).But if hes really block,then I think it should stay

Ice Cold 20:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]