User talk:MONGO: Difference between revisions

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/August 2006) Archive 12 (September 2006) Archive 13 (October 2006) Archive 14 (November 2006) Archive 15 (December 2006) Archive 16 (January 2007) Archive 17 (February 2007) Archive 18 (March 2007) Archive 19 (April 2007) Archive 20 (May 2007) Archive 21 (June 2007) Archive 22 (July 2007) Archive 23 (August 2007) Archive 24 (September/October 2007) Archive 25 (November/December 2007) Archive 26 (January, February and March 2008) Archive 27 (April to December 2008) Archive 28 (2009) Archive 29 (January to June 2010) Archive 30 (July to December 2010))

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uploading some peaks in Glacier. It's very slow, as my upload speed is dismal at the office and worse at home (although there's a fiber salesman who's stopping by the office tomorrow promising big bandwidth for cheap, finger crossed). I'll get better coords and descriptions, and will try to upload the context images as well. So far they're all on the east side from the Sun Road, taken in a three-hour window of nice sky. I can move them to more descriptive titles once we've hung names on them. It'll probably take a couple of days to get all up. Acroterion _(talk) 04:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good..I'll check commons and see what you have so far and recheck as time goes on...I'm usually able to ID mountain pics, especially ones off Sun Road.--MONGO 01:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a few more shortly - uploading hasn't gone smoothly today. Acroterion _(talk) 01:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one is definitely Little Chief Mountain...Nice Shot...!--MONGO 01:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And already moved to the article....--MONGO 01:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This one is Dusty Star Mountain...I need to stub that one.
• This one is Singleshot Mountain..and I think if you took that from Sun Road you where looking north....[1]...looks like another stub I missed.

Yes, north, it's in full sun. Acroterion _(talk) 02:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Positive this is Mount Jackson (Montana)...really good shot there!
• Mount Jackson in background, Citadel Mountain north flank at left.--MONGO 02:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More on the way from Logan Pass along the Garden Wall. Acroterion _(talk) 02:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those are fantastic. Keep up the good work both of you guys ... Antandrus (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But, but but...Acroterion had all the fun...I haven't been to Glacier NP in 10 years...oh well. Someday I'll go home again.--MONGO 02:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wild Goose Island in St. Mary Lake with Dusty Star Mountain, Little Chief and Mahtotopa Mountain center to far left
• Great shot along Continental divide...right to left, Pollock Mountain, Bishops Cap, Mount Gould
• View from Logan Pass looking north
• Definitely Pollock Mountain...super

You'll see that the weather was closing in as time went on. Acroterion _(talk) 03:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added this one to Clements Mountain...all your shots are better than existing ones...the pic still in the Clements Mountain infobox was one I found on Flickr.--MONGO 03:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note...I'm stopped at NP image 7...will resume with number 8 at your uploads tomorrow or by the weekend...these are all super.--MONGO 03:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is Bishops Cap...nice.
• This is Haystack Butte...and unnamed peak in back

I think 13 is Boulder Ridge. If you look at 15 it has Wynn Mountain on the right and Boulder Ridge on the left, as I read the topo. Acroterion _(talk) 04:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images 13 and 15 are both Wynn Mountain from different vantage points, or distances...Boulder Ridge is entirely tree covered according to Google Earth...if you have Google earth installed, I can email you a 3D shot of Wynn Mountain tomorrow...you took some great shots...the project benefits greatly from your trip.--MONGO 04:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I benefited greatly from the trip too, and was wishing I was back there, although it's a nice time of the year here and I'll be spending the day by the Chesapeake Bay tomorrow. Can't complain. The topo map shows Boulder Ridge as tree-covered too, so I think my perspective is askew. Wynn Mountain is a bit contorted on Google Earth. Acroterion _(talk) 04:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have some other peaks I haven't uploaded yet, as the images either suffer from severe backlighting or the general murkiness that you can see in some of the later shots from Logan Pass - the weather got worse quickly, and the images need work or are just poor, though they might look OK if downsampled. I also have more Teton images that I need to go through. Acroterion _(talk) 04:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All so far are excellent..some may qualify for featured level...that is the opinion of one other person as well. I even very much liked the surreal image taken at Swiftcurrent Lake of Grinnell and Mount Wilbur lurking in the background at right....I'll look forward to any Teton or other peaks you may have and other images you did.--MONGO 12:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<undent> The storm at Many Glacier was entertaining, with an overall coppery tint to the sky that is reflected in the sepia-like image (which is in full color). Check my contributions of 30 September - there are a bunch of Teton peaks there, and I'll have a few more. The folks at Commons FPC are very sensitive to image noise, and I think my camera does have a noisy sensor, so there might be criticism there - not much I can do but buy a new camera - I've been pricing them for a while now but have been waiting for business to pick up first. Acroterion _(talk) 23:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will check there...FPC at Commons or here is a bloodbath at times...I had but one image I have taken nominated for FP and it was unpleasant...I didn't nominate it and though I appreciate someone else thinking it was good enough, it wasn't a lot of fun having the work torn down....something about "artwork" with a camera seems more personal to have others critique it than my editing here...so, though I think you've produced some great work, I won't put you through that FPC gauntlet!--MONGO 01:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with images is that you can't fix them beyond a certain point, while you can always improve text. Having been through six years of design school and twenty-five years of architecture practice, I have a thick skin for that sort of criticism - you don't survive design juries without learning how to take far worse than FPC can dish out. Acroterion _(talk) 02:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, what great images. [/me steals the Swiftcurrent Lake Storm and runs off with it to own talkpage. ] Bishonen | talk 04:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

They are nice ones...they exceed in quality the existing images we had available to us and he has produced others we needed as we had none.--MONGO 05:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other images.....

• Mount Cannon...added
• Open Canyon and Mount Hunt at left...a great image for two articles that need at least a stub Open Canyon and Mount Hunt (Wyoming)
• Mount Moran...nice image now added to Mount Moran...Falling Ice Glacier (no image before) and Skillet Glacier (previous image lousy)
• Granite Canyon no previous image of it
• Death Canyon...Compliments existing image of Death Canyon but taken from Jackson Hole
• Mount Grinnell..in Glacier NP...no previous image
• Static Peak...no previous image
• South Teton‎...no previous image
• Middle Teton...much better pic
• Buck Mountain...no previous image
• Mount Wister...no previous image

Some new Teton images for you, noted here to spare you having to cull through my category refinements - I'm reorganizing the Commons categories so that "Grand Teton" refers only to the peak and nothing else.

• Cathedral Group wide
• Cathedral Group tight
• Disappointment Peak (please check my assessment, I think I'm right)

• Yes, Disappointment Peak is the rocky prominance below Grand, partially obscuring Garnet Canyon with Middle Teton at left...--MONGO 01:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Garnet Canyon
• Avalanche Canyon (I'm pretty sure of Mt. Wister, less so of the others)

• I adjusted this one...you're looking at the south fork of Avalanche Canyon...the big peak at left is Buck Mountain and Mount Wister is at right...a fine image!--MONGO 02:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Teewinot wide, showing the abrupt transition from mountain to Jackson Hole
• Teewinot mid crop
• Teewinot tight crop

• I've added all the above images to the articles...very nice...the Teewinot Mountain article should possibly do well with a Commons page just for it like the one for Grand Teton...and then all linked together under a super category of Teton Range Peaks/Mountains.--MONGO 02:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

• Snake River Canyon
• bear trap and scenery Acroterion _(talk) 21:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great...you've been busy at Commons...I'll probably look things over in greater detail this Friday...--MONGO 03:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Traverse and Bivouac Peaks, with Rolling Thunder Mountain behind
• Mt. Woodring
• Eagles Rest Peak
• Rockchuck Peak
• Cathedral Group/Symmetry Spire/St John/Rockchuck
• Mt. St. John
• Symmetry Spire/Ice Point
• Thor Peak
• yet another Teewinot
• Salt River range, maybe with Haystack Peak

• I believe that is Haystack Peak...or some high slopes of it as it may be slightly east of these and just out of view.--MONGO 23:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• All above images used in appropriate articles...many had no images...thank you!--MONGO 00:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Salt River Range
• Rendezvous Mountain

I've found that Google Earth's synthesized terrain view is extremely helpful in matching a given image to a viewpoint and identifying the subject, provided I'm not running Photoshop at the same time. Both are real resource hogs. Acroterion _(talk) 21:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wowwie...good. I use Google earth all the time to ID spots...but the Teton Range is easy for me...I worked there for a number of years in the 90's. Heading to Commons to check these out....--MONGO 00:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sawtooth Range
• Sawtooth Valley

• Added image to article Galena Summit--MONGO 00:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Salt River Pass
• South Park south of Jackson
• Rendezvous Peak (as opposed to Rendezvous Mountain

• Used this image to build a new stub...nice--MONGO 00:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rendezvous Mountain

I'm at a halt until I get Photoshop set up again on another computer - my old computer bluescreened last night and isn't worth the trouble to fix, but I have to wrangle a Photoshop license onto another machine. Acroterion _(talk) 04:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working those images into articles. I don't expect to upload much more for a few days until I can do a clean OS install on my new-old computer - Adobe won't install because of conflicts with older Adobe products - go figure. The images are safe on an external drive. Acroterion _(talk) 03:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After four days of fighting with Adobe's persnickety installation interface (it's incompatible with other Adobe software!), I've gotten it working again and will have some more images. National Park Mountain's on the list, for instance. Acroterion _(talk) 02:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will check those out this weekend...--MONGO 11:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, National Park Mountain's already uploaded [2]. I'm starting to forget what I've done. Acroterion _(talk) 13:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Podstar
		For your great and indefatigable image work, MONGO, and as a consolation prize for my theft of two of them, I award you the tasteful Podstar, or Little Stupid Star, created by User:RexxS.

• I'll try to think of something equally subtle and elegant for Acroterion... Bishonen | talk 05:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

That pic in the Beartooth Mountains is now 17 years old...I took it in 1993 (and it looks it, but glad you like it!)...wow...much appreciated...but you should continue to look at thread above to see all the great images Acroterion has provided us (I am about to notate others)...many of mountain peaks (plus historical buildings and even flora) that we had either lousy pics of or none at all...thanks again...I owe YOU big time!--MONGO 05:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar and for putting all those images to work - there are more of the northern and southern ends of the Tetons coming, and I still have parts of Glacier that I haven't looked at thoroughly. I figure I'll have it all accounted for by the end of the year. I may revisit those Teton peaks and adjust the color balance. While the Tetons tend to photograph rather bluer from five miles away on the valley floor (which is the way we're used to seeing them) than they really are close up, some of those go a little too far into red compensation. I think I'll have to accept a little more blue than I initially wanted. Acroterion _(talk) 15:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading them. The Mount Moran image has the best view of the Black Dike (left side of peak) I have seen...a similar igneous intrusion can be seen on the northwest side of Middle teton, but it can't be seen from the valley.--MONGO 19:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you can see the Middle Teton intrusion on my image - it's just narrower than the one on Moran. Acroterion _(talk) 19:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure enough..tis true...there is a bigger one that is best seen from the Lower Saddle, the high windswept pass between Middle and the Grand...that was the one I was thinking of...I have only seen it twice..once when I ascended Middle and another time during a loop hike along the backside of the range....--MONGO 19:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you climbed Grand or Moran? Acroterion _(talk) 19:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, neither...Middle was my highest in the range...Grand is not actually easy...least not for me. My most difficult climb was actually Going-to-the-Sun Mountain in Glacier though...but I was always a hiker, not a climber, so getting to the top of summits had less of a draw for me than just getting back into the wilderness.--MONGO 19:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar! I'm not sure that I've done much "defending" of the Wiki I've done lately, but it's nice to be appreciated. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noting your concerns regarding the Phil Jones article. Unfortunately , to put the discussion in context requires a back story—a long simmering debate about the propriety of types of sources (blogs, opinion columns, news reports, science articles, and peer-reviewed science articles). I considered summarizing the positions of those with whom I am debating, but I think that's unfair, as I may get some details wrong, so, if I may, I'll briefly summarize my position on some of the issues:

1. In science articles, peer-reviewed science articles are the gold standard.
2. In science articles, other sources are acceptable although almost never blogs, as the usage of blogs is quite restricted, and it is not easy to image how they could be used in a pure science article).
3. One reason for using a source other than a peer-reviewed science article is that peer-reviewed science article sometimes lapse into jargon, and other sources, such as science articles or new reports may be written in a way that is better for our audience, with the critical caveat that if a new report or science article is in dispute with a peer-reviewed science article, the peer-reviewed science article almost always wins. (Rare exceptions, such as when a non-peer-reviewed article notes an error in a peer-reviewed source, and virtually all agree that the peer-reviewed source is mistaken.)
4. The strong preference for peer-reviewed science articles is less compelling for articles which are not squarely science articles, such as bios of scientists, and articles about the political, commercial, and other aspects related to science questions. (If such an article makes a scientific statement, then the preference for peer-reviewed science articles remains, but in other areas, we apply the ordinary rules.)

Sorry for that long background.

The Phil Jones (climatologist) article is about a scientist, not a science article. Many aspects of the dispute relate to some editors acting as if it were a science article, insisting that statements in news stories ought to be dismissed.

The quote in question comes from the BBC. Not all Reliable Sources are equal, but I trust that the BBC is considered one of the highest quality sources. It is my opinion that in a science article, if we had a statement from the BBC and a statement form a peer-reviewed science article, we would generally default to the peer-reviewed science article (although we might decide to include both and note the discrepancy.) However, the article in question is not a science article. I was quite unhappy that some were attempting to dismiss a quote from the BBC. In addition, part of the "argument" for dismissing the quote is that some editors have personal expertise in the field, and didn't agree with the substance of the statement. Sorry, that isn't how WP works. We don't permit expert to use their personal judgment to override a quote from a scientist. We do welcome expertise - but that expertise could be used to point to relevant documents on the subject, to clarify what a scientist means when they use technical terms so that editors weighing in can make a good judgment about how to use a quote, but we don't permit experts to tell us that the scientist didn't really mean what he plainly stated. If the scientist made a mistake (and that can happen), the BBC is perfectly able to follow up with a correction, or the scientist can follow up with a correction (here is a case where a blog statement might be acceptable).

In short, it was my view that certain editors were attempting to suppress a quote in the BBC, simply because that quote didn't fit with their narrative.

Could I have done a better job making my case? Almost certainly so. I've reread much of the exchange, and I confess, a couple times, I had to pause and think about what point I was trying to make. I can only assume those I was debating may well have not fully understood my point, so that may have lead to a higher ratio of heat to light that is desirable.

Sorry for the length of this comment. I do not like when articles include bad sources to accomplish a POV, nor do I like when good sources are removed to meet a particular POV. This is a perfect example where WP fails our audience. A reader seeing a discussion about the issue may well come to this article, and will be puzzled to see no discussion of it. I think we can do better.--SPhilbrickT 01:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Sophia and I am a PhD student at University of Colorado in Boulder researching the use of social media for historically significant crises like the 9/11 attacks. I am interested in what kind of values and practices are emerging from these disasters especially with the use of ubiquitous technologies like blogs and social media sites like Wikipedia. I am contacting you because I noticed you are one of the top contributors of the September 11 attacks Wikipedia article. I was wondering if you would be open to answering some questions for my dissertation research on this topic. One example of a question I have is: You provided a considerable amount of edits to the September 11 attacks Wikipedia article. What kind of edits did you make? What story was being told before you edited the article and how does that differ from what is in Wikipedia now? Feel free to email me at Sophia.Liu@colorado.edu if you have any questions. Thanks for your time, Sophia --Sophiabliu (talk) 05:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can answer your questions here...but mostly all I have been doing is trying to keep the conspiracy theories out of the articles related to the 9/11 terrorist attacks....most of my edits have been to do that or revert vandalism to the articles. The articles related to 9/11 have less conspiracy theory misinformation than they used to have...but there are articles that discuss these notions elsewhere.--MONGO 23:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my delayed reply. I did not know you responded so quickly and forgot to check back (I'm too used to email notifications :) Thanks for your reply and for sharing your thoughts. Here are a few more specific questions if you do not mind answering them.

• What motivated you to edit the September 11 attacks Wikipedia article? What expertise are you using to edit this article?

• What are the different voices and narratives you have seen emerge from the climate change story particularly through social media like Wikipedia, Facebook, YouTube and Flickr?

• What role or value do you think these types of social media play in communicating historical crises like 9/11?

• Based on your and others' contributions to the 9/11 story online through social media like Wikipedia, do you believe you are curating the 9/11 story? I define curation broadly to mean aggregating, categorizing, archiving, preserving, organizing, filtering, verifying, juxtaposing, representing, exhibiting, and storytelling. Do you think the design of these online technologies is helping to facilitate this kind of curation especially in socially-distributed ways?

Thanks for taking the time to answer these if you can. --Sophiabliu (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on December 5, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 5, 2010. If you think that it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbh®tch^{Talk ©} Happy Holidays 03:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The elk is one of the largest species of deer in the world and one of the largest mammals in North America and eastern Asia. Elk are almost identical to Red Deer found in Europe, of which they were long believed to be a subspecies; however, mitochondrial DNA evidence strongly suggests they are a distinct species. Elk range in forest and forest-edge habitat, feeding on grasses, plants, leaves, and bark. Although native to North America and eastern Asia, they have adapted well to countries where they have been introduced. Their great adaptability may threaten endemic species and ecosystems into which they have been introduced. Male elk have large antlers which are shed each year. Males engage in ritualized mating behaviors during the rut, including posturing, antler wrestling (sparring), and bugling, a loud series of vocalizations which establishes dominance over other males and attracts females. Elk are susceptible to a number of infectious diseases, some of which can be transmitted to livestock. Efforts to eliminate infectious diseases from elk populations, largely through vaccination, have had mixed success. Some cultures revere the elk as a spiritual force. In parts of Asia, antlers and their velvet are used in traditional medicines. Elk are hunted as a game species; the meat is leaner and higher in protein than beef or chicken. (more...)

That will be great..but I will have to do a ref check and update in force on 12/4...and will complete it before it gets on the mainpage.--MONGO 06:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so, so sorry for telling you this, but Elk was replaced with Rock Steady (album) for appear as the TFA tomorrow :(. If Elk is again re-added, I'll notify you, or maybe you can put the article at WP:TFAR Tbh®tch^{Talk ©} Happy Holidays 05:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem...I requested it to be delayed...after reviewing the references and how dated and or dead they were, I asked Raul here for a delay in it being mainpaged...but thanks for the notices...I'm not online as much as I used to be and I would have missed it had you not informed me.--MONGO 05:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks for let me know, I'll return when it is re-scheduled. Regards Tbh®tch^{Talk ©} Happy Holidays 05:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't take too much. new date: December 14. Tbh®tch^{Talk ©} Happy Holidays 06:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That will be much better...gives me time to do some updates and get a few FA reviewers to do some copyediting...thanks again.--MONGO 06:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice to see elk on the Main Page! :) Cheers. --Aude (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you! Hope all is great with you!--MONGO 02:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you can find both images at Commons:Category:Algodones Dunes (the two file names starting with cb...) and I put one of them in the article Algodones Dunes (as well as de:Algodones-Dünen). Unfortunately my French is not good enough to add a sentence on the Wilderness area and the picture to their article as well. Thanks again for your help. --h-stt !? 23:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work...I am always glad to help.--MONGO 01:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are carrying on about the TFA blurb/lead here. Just notifying you, as I'm sure you've been around this particular merry-go-round a few times. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well...its off the mainpage now...I have been offline more than I have wanted to be today due to work issues, so I all but missed it's mainpage appearance...I don't know who wrote the blurb/catch phrases for the mainpage paragraph...I'll see what the discussion was about..thanks for the update!--MONGO 02:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi little Big MONGO, how do? Bishzilla very unfortunate head of stupid bish clan! Regret ever creating stupid little Bishapod. Pod stupidly create socks of his own, good twin Darwinfish, evil twin Darwinbish. Bitey little Darwinbish disrupting wiki plenty! Now regretfully running for adminship, Bishzilla tear hair scales out! :-( Credulous little arbcom user Elen of Roads nominate, disaster! Please go oppose evil little bishfish, save wiki! Greetings of season (=darwinchristmas), MONGO! bishzilla _ROARR!! 21:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Will do. Nice pic showing evolution of sled pulling critters over the eons.--MONGO 15:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per little oversight (good pun, eh, because I happen to be an "oversight"er? Oh, never mind...) I have had to strike your previous vote which was entered after the subsequent one. I am of course willing to let this go, even disregarding the use of a different name appended to your signiture, although I would warn you that Darwinbish might not - when she gets the tools. I consider that your !vote under the circumstances (the later first one, not the earlier subsequent one) to be rather ironic... LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Various dinosaurs been doing mischief....see massive spam voting overload...Happy Holidays!--MONGO 02:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mongo, I just noticed a weird outburst at the top of Archive 13 of the Collapse of the World Trade Center article[3], which you archived in October. The all-caps editorializing vaguely looks like I signed it in December 2009, though it was added in September 2010[4]. Can I get you to fix it? Best, --Thomas B (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings -- I did it for you, Mongo -- [5] since I saw this on my watchlist and wasn't sure if you were around .... Happy new year both, Antandrus (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and all the best in the New Year to you both.--Thomas B (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--MONGO 21:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment on User talk:Aude, and thought thats a nice comment, and I clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually approached by another editor who suggested I do the same...I am currently considering it. I appreciate your compliment that you have made regarding my contributions and will take your suggestion under further consideration. Wish you the best...--MONGO 02:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that you would be a great ambassador. I remember you were so helpful with my first featured article; otherwise, it would have been intimidating and maybe I never would have tried WP:FAC. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...there is a University near me that might need a rep. Speaking of FA's...I have one in mind that only you, Aude, CAN get to FA level. It's long overdue...all it needs is your talents and time...and a complete rewrite!--MONGO 03:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please put it on my to-do list. Definitely want to do more FAs. Although first I'm trying to get the Alexis Rockman article to FA status with help of folks at the Smithsonian. That one's been a challenge. --Aude (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'll hate me for it...but as you requested!--MONGO 03:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would be good to have done by 9-11-2011. It's a tough article w/o people more knowledgeable about structural engineering, though can definitely make an effort. --Aude (talk) 03:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Erie is being buffed at the moment, and I am sure the buffer would be happy for some help or feedback...this activity came about as Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTM was reactivated. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will check it out if and when it goes to peer review...tanks for the heads up.--MONGO 05:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(belatedly) the US wikiproject is being revived - I hope it sticks. There are some editors rolling up their wikisleeves and getting stuck in, so it'd be good if they got some help. My experience with US natural history lags way behind Aussie material (both from background knowledge and knowing where to find and how to access stuff). Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its pretty hard to keep people involved in any wikiproject long term but any effort to revive projects like that are great. The one WikiProject I started has but one (me) truly active member and in other projects I am involved in, there is only between 3 and 5 generally active participants. I've watchlisted pages surrounding this and will try to help out as I can, but I am stretched pretty thin...time constraints have me limited to creating stubs mostly and my next FA effort will be commencing as soon as I get some stub work finished.--MONGO 14:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which wikiproject is that? Agree about keeping folks involved, I just try and nurture some drive if I come across it, and if it folds again, then it folds. Trying to get one active de novo just doesn't work....Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Glaciers was my startup...revision history...but even I don't participate in it that much...--MONGO 03:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you'll check back at Jimbos' page so I'll copy here:

Mongo. I'd be very interested in discussing this further and in seeing if I can help arrive at solution. I assume that no one took my comments lightly ..(well except for the little joke at the end). Brain function is something I deal with in my teaching, and understanding how it plays a vital in human interactions is at the basis of designing an environment that supports both sexes. I also have a strong interest in how online communities develop and evolve. Thanks (olive (talk) 02:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC))

I just responded at Jimbo's...I am clueless as to how to retain and expand female participation. My interests in article creation is generally a "man's world"...I have had little interaction in my focus area (mountains, glaciers, 9/11 related issues, natural resources) with female editors...though a few may be female, they haven't disclosed their gender and I don't ask...but oftentimes it is obvious in the manner they write, with nuances and more prose in their response...men tend to be more terse, respond with fewer sentences, and slam the door on conversations...this combative arena seems to be a big turn off to many females. So do we need stricter civility policies, better protection from badgering or simply more outreach to encourage more female participation?--MONGO 03:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am about to go offline here shortly, but feel free to respond, only I may not get back for 24 hours almost.--MONGO 03:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The previous discussion on Jimbo's talk page was already linked there, but I wanted to make sure you don't miss it because it was much more fruitful than the current discussion. In my observation, a lot of it stems from a self-sustaining bias. Editors are more likely to stringently enforce content rules on topics that they are not familiar with, or don't consider important to themselves, while leaving the familiar alone. And with a majority male editors, articles that are predominantly of interests to women are likely to come under scrutiny, while some male oriented topics actually suffer from a lack of scrutiny. The NY Times article touches on it, and the toys and children's culture articles are excellent for observing systemic gender bias on Wikipedia. For example, compare the contents of G.I. Joe and Barbie, or Category:G.I. Joe with Category:Barbie (but stay out of Category:Transformers (franchise). ;) Siawase (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the older discussion being more fruitful. I now have had an opportunity to review that older discussion as well as the more recent one and gained some insight into some things that might be causual to this. I have to confess that it is bewildering to me that any male would think this is about affirmative action or that they would be pushed aside to make room for more female editors...I think that, as for example the G.I. Joe to Barbie thing, might be due to a higher interest level amongst younger men as opposed to younger women in the project..in fact, the vast majority of females I have worked with are (at least it seems) more likely to be in their 30's or older. However, having been at the forefront of a number of efforts to protect various editors from offwiki harassment, it appeared to me that the females on this website suffered a proportionately higher level of stalkerish experiences than do the men. In the worst of cases, a few females have had to quit outright due to this. Men usually respond differently to this sort of thing...but not always. I appreciate your input.--MONGO 01:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You brought up an interesting point which I'd like to challenge;

From Affirmative action

Interestingly, my conception of "affirmative action" didn't include the "at the expense of a majority" part, and I think I'm going to investigate the wording of that lead to see if it is verifiable. Frankly, I would have said that any policy "that take(s) factors including "race, color, religion, sex or national origin" into consideration in order to" promote "an underrepresented group" is affirmative action; and hence, a "get more women to WP" campaign would be affirmative action.

Regardless, having reconsidered what I'd said earlier, I think I'm a little more inclined to join the campaign. Primarily b/c a 9-1 ratio of women-men does seem a little ridiculous. 4-1 might be acceptable, but 9-1 strikes me as a little too high.... of course, that's entirely subjective. Out of curiosity, what ratio would you suggest was healthy?

P.S. Hope you don't mind me bringing the discussion here. I think Jimbo's page gets cluttered sometimes with silly arguments. NickCT (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the quote you provided from the Wiki article would stand up to any politically correct POV...I'm not an advocate of affirmative action, anywhere, but fully support equal rights. In the job/promotion or college entrance arena or similar, affirmative action was used to increase diversity and bridge the gender gap and I imagine in these cases there are probably some people that didn't get "in" because their group was overrepresented previously...so from their perspective, affirmative action would be a negative thing....the difference here is we don't have a limited number of seats or spots or a steep sided pyramid where but a few "generals" up top are needed...we are all equal in essence since we can purchase more server space relatively cheaply...the potential ultimately exists for everyone on this planet to contribute. I discussed this matter with a few ladies I know, none of them have the slightest interest in Wikipedia...repeatedly, they told me it is for nerds! I'm going to try and get them to better explain what it is that turns them off about the website. I can't say what the right gender mixture should be...that seems unanswerable but I think it would be a better website if there were more females participating...as they may have more interest in articles that are currently being neglected by men. I have also found our female editors to be excellent at the finesse work here like copyediting as well as in dispute resolution...their tone tends to be more gentle, less harsh and in some cases, more introspective.--MONGO 07:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Lake Frances (Glacier County, Montana), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.lakefrancessc.com.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 04:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible....I just checked the suggested page it is from a residental area in South Carolina and the page I just created is of a lake in Glacier National Park Montana! This bot is run amok.--MONGO 04:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a bot message a few minutes ago for a new article on the Fortified Sector of the Vosges where it apparently hit on a mirrored copy of my userspace draft. Given that the article is mostly sourced from dead-tree references in French, it would be quite an accomplishment for it to be a copyright violation. Coren has told me that the bot has trouble with unusual words and perhaps with proper names. Acroterion _(talk) 04:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bot needs to be flogged...bad bot! But that's okay..if it does even a 50-50 split and helps us rid copyvios, then I can deal with that. Thanks for the heads up...hope all is good with you!--MONGO 04:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All's well; I've been working on finishing my attic, building built-in bookshelves. I'll get it done one of these days. Acroterion _(talk) 05:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that is what is sometimes referred to as a Man cave? Just guessing...BTW...are you an admin at Commons?--MONGO 05:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My wife has a large say in the matter, so not really. I'm not an admin on Commons, although I've accumulated a number of permissions. By the way, I have an image of Opal Pool up on Commons for FP; it got an oppose because the colors were thought to be enhanced, as well as the expected (and justified) objection to image noise. Acroterion _(talk) 05:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice image...far superior to any others illustrating the feature...I did a boo-boo at Commons and now have 2 or three weird image files with no images after using the upload tool which assists with Flickr images...I'll get it straightened out...the others I tried all did fine.--MONGO 05:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. Don't know what that ?zz=1 business is on the filenames. I've found it's best to ping an admin directly on Commons to get something done quickly, as the regular queues don't get much action. Acroterion _(talk) 05:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...I was cornfused...so I moved it, then that didn't work so I tried to reupload it...err...well, enough said...all three simply should be deleted so I can start afresh. I don't do many Flickr transfers so it is a mystery to me...--MONGO 05:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<undent>If you feel like writing mountain articles, neither Roaring Mountain nor National Park Mountain have articles, but I did get pictures of them. Acroterion _(talk) 23:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that Commons has an Ansel Adams image of Roaring Mountain, from back when it roared. Acroterion _(talk) 19:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ask and ye shall receive...and I shall add that when I work on it shortly...I think I have a lousy pic of Roaring Mountain myself somewhere...but I won't upload it since it is surely going to be lousy!--MONGO 19:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[6] Bishonen | talk 21:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

That sort of thing will never end...so long as the website exists. But as you and others have shown, talkpages reduced to arguing with the fringe and wacky about the same issues repeatedly, does nothing to retain the editors truly committed to making improvements and undermines the chances these articles ever get better.--MONGO 19:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are not only not saying that Truthers are wrong... we are marginalizing them so much we arent giving them space in the article LOL The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are dead wrong...and some of the truthers are just trying to make a buck off a tragedy...take the main ring leader for the childish Architects and Engineers for TRUTH...made over 75 grand last year spewing this nonsense to the gullible. These other book writers...all a bunch of opportunistic scumbags.--MONGO 04:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of due process since you do not seem to want to admit that you were edit warring, this is a notice to inform you of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Discretionary sanctions, which allows administrators to impose sanctions on users who edit disruptively on articles related to 9/11. Hopefully you will refrain from further edit warring after the protection is over and no such action will prove necessary. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]