User talk:MONGO/Archive07

Hi, sorry for all that stuff. I was frustrated with PFHLai as he came off as condesending when he was questioning me about using the attribution tag. I was confused on how to tag this photo as a copyrighted image and didnt know about the image policies until later. My regards. S0berage 23:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the issue on copying other users' posts, I apologize for the misunderstanding. I should have gotten my facts straight first. --Ixfd64 22:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Forgit a-bout et.--MONGO 21:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi the MONGO, sorry to bother you. I really need to get back to creating articles, and I remembered that I had kind of promised to work on the SA parks area, do you still have all the stuff for me there? How are you doing these days? Cheers Banez 16:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

No thats all I need, that last external link is especially useful. Thank you very much for the links and help, I'm keen to get on to that as soon as possible, but right now I'm struggling with power failures and work. However, as I said, I'm keen to get to work in that area. Thanks again Banez 16:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

MONGO-

Thanks to your excellent mediation efforts, it looks like the small dust-up with Andrewudstraw is over. I just posted to his talk page, and I think things have calmed down. Thanks again, and again, please if I can help with anything that you need, don't hesitate to ask. --rogerd 17:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem...I like to see happy campers.--MONGO 21:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Since you have offered in the past, I'm requesting that you help mediate an issue on the Ward Churchill changes that I Lulu and I have been discussing. I know you have been following the discussion on the Churchill talk page, but I would appreciate it if you could look at the comment I left on the 9/11 essay controversy talk page. Based on my past experience with Lulu, and on some questionable responses from him in discussing this issue on the Churchill talk page, I do not have a high degree of confidence that this is going to be resolved simply between the two of us. As you and Lulu apparantly have a history of communication, and perhaps Lulu has a measure of trust in you, I think that maybe with your help this can be resolved amicably. Thanks in advance, – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 20:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a lookie at it tonight.--MONGO 21:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your help. I would also appreciate any suggestions for how to deal with Lulu when he keeps disparaging my motives. I have worked very hard at assuming good faith even when it is clearly lacking, yet he continues. I thought that by refusing to be sucked into responding at his level that I could keep the discussion on a higher plane. Lulu is obviously capable, at least intellectually if not emotionally, of having the conversation on a higher plane, yet he continues with the personal attacks through innuendo. Any help appreciated. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 08:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey there. Can you run a checkuser for me between User:Robsteadman and User:Robeaston99? I suspect the possibility of sockpuppetry. The edits are suspicious (in that Robsteadman wouldn't edit his own article, but he might sock to do so). And mysteriously, that signature appeared on the vote board while Rob's choice was still losing. The similarities between the names are suspicious as well, and beyond that Robeaston mysteriously disappeared until round about the time that Rob started getting blocked. I've asked Ann to run a checkuser on it, but I think I'll probably need to get someone else, as she's voted on the table. I really don't want to cause trouble but if something foul is afoot, it needs to be uncovered. Thanks! --Avery W. Krouse 21:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, MONGO. I'd already read Glacier retreat when it was new on FAC, because I have an unrequited love for such subjects. It looked great to me — I didn't notice anything missing! Sadly aware of my ignorance, I waited to see what other people would say, and lack of comprehensiveness does seem to be the main complaint. The thing is, you need to know something about a subject to spot stuff like that. In other words, no, I can't really comment, not usefully. I've made a shameless attempt to get my old friend User:Worldtraveller to take a look in my place; if he's so inclined, he would obviously be a great reviewer for you. Best wishes, Bishonen | ノート 21:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC).

Hello MONGO.

As you are an administrator, I'm asking for help with the article James W. Walter. Jimmywalter has inserted a massive diatribe into the article. Reading it confuses me, as he seems to switch between first and third person, so I'm not sure if this is a WP:POINT or WP:NOT violation. Frankly, I don't really know what's going on here.

It doesn't really matter; I tried reverting his edits, but he just reverts them back and adds onto them. I don't want to start an edit war, so I'm contacting you because I saw a message on his talk page from you.

Let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Isopropyl 06:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Isopropyl 15:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I saw that in your capacity as an admin you edited the latter article which has a link to the former. There's an AfD vote on Walmarting. Would you take a look? Thanks!--Beth Wellington 19:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually the revert was on the discussion page for globilization. Thanks for the offer of future help. I'm fairly new to wikipedia and I have found you administrators unfailingly helpful.--Beth Wellington 19:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Since you mentioned it, I'm about 3 minutes from the Hotel Roanoke (about a mile and a half ifrom the edge of Highland Park with its Alexander-Gish House, one of the oldest structures in the Roanoke Valley. It's named after James Alexander, an early settler in the area, who received a 1771 land grant of 150 acres along the Roanoke River from King George III. Sometime before 1838, a log structure was built on the site. The property changed hands several times, eventually belonging to Samuel H. Gish. The surrounding neighborhood, Old Southwest, where most of the houses date from the 1880's to the 1930's, has one of the largest concentrations of Victorian homes in the valley.--Beth Wellington 22:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendation. Most times I've been in WV it's been elsewhere, where there wasn't much fine dining, even in Charleston, the capital. Closest I've been to Montana is Kemmerer, Wyoming, the fossil fish capital of the world. Volcanic ash sifting down ensconsed whole lakes of creatures, most types of which exist today. There's one particularly magnificent example, I believe at the visitor center at Fossil Butte National Monument. Viewing it is like gazing at an aquarium where the medium rathe than water is stone.--Beth Wellington 17:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Mongo. Hello I just recently authored and article with the heading E-snob or Electronic snobbing and I feel that you have unfairly removed this article without notice or reason. This, in my opinion is very rude and I am upset to have gone to alot of trouble to contribute to the wiki community and produce a new entry, only to have it whisked away.

After the page was created an 'importance' banner appeared which invited the use of the talk feature to discuss the article importance which had not been given a fair time duration to commence.

You may feel PERSONALLY that this article was not suitable, but is it up to one person to remove information from the public ? or is it up to the public to remove the information through a democractic proces of concensus?

Please re-post my original article and let the wiki community decide wheather or not they feel it is "important" , as I know there are many people across the internet community who feel and agree that the term described in my article is vaild and truely exsists.

I apologise for the format and manner in which this comment/request has been placed, as I am unaware of how else to contact you.

Kind regards. Author. ^{(preceeding was from User:Big boi oi)}

It's not an article...the term doesn't even exist. Basically, your article stated that an "E-snob" is someone who doesn't respond to email or instant messanger alerts...it's not an article because it is completely unreferenced, and was a sijmple speedy delete based on a number of reasons. It's gone, please spend your time here creating real encyclopedic articles rather than filling up Wikipedia with non articles. Thanks!--MONGO 19:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Continued discussion from Archive 6

Hi Mongo, I've had an close eye on this user for awhile now, and its clear his actions indicate trolling/vandlaism (see his contributions). He also has refused to engaged in discussion, and merely pops back into revert and blank articles. He's also quite found of personal attacks. I would inquire for an indefinite ban. -Zero^Talk 23:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

No, he is indeed an vandal and an disruption. Please see the history on the King article. He continues to return to the site at regular intervals and periodically removes large sections of data from the article. Per his talkpage, he made personal attacks towards I and another editor, and has desisted discussion regarding his behavior. That account only exsists to disrupt. He is no help to the community and he fails to learn. I humbly request an indefinite block. -Zero^Talk 19:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I left him a note...if he returns (since there is a long period of many days sometimes between his edits) then we can implement a block.--MONGO 19:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll assume good faith and hope for the best. However, if he reacts akin to the previous comments left on his talkpage, he'll regard your warning as little more than an nuisance and ignore it. I'll stand by and await developments. -Zero^Talk 19:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me know what happens--MONGO 19:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

He decided to listen to your warning...and utilize an sockpuppet: User:67.167.98.71. Block him. -Zero^Talk 14:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, its clear this user is nothing but an irritation. Looking at his contributions, he's not constructed any valuble edits ethier. I highly recomend blocking the account and putting forth the option of an allowence when his behavior improves. -Zero^Talk 22:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Thank you for your support in my recent RFA. It passed 53/1/2 and I am now an administrator. I appreciate that some of you made exceptions to your usual requirements re length of service and so on because we've interracted positively in the past, or because of my credentials, so I will endeavour to use my new mop cautiously. I'm always open to feedback and gently constructive criticism. If you're not an admin and need some assistance do of course please let me know. Thanks again --kingboyk 00:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. If you are interested in The Beatles, User:Lar has asked me to tag on a little note advertising the creation of a new Beatles WikiProject that we are currently setting up. Please sign up and help.

No one has ever given me 100 million tonnes of ice before. I guess it is time for some serious snowcones. If you liked the map, you might enjoy a tour of my image gallery. Cheers. Dragons flight 05:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your apology. I was operating in the role as a reviewer and copy editor on the Glacial retreat article, not as a contributor, so in that role I am not making edits that change the semantics of the article. After putting so much work into reviewing and copy editing the article largely as a favor to you, to have you imply that my contributions may be in bad faith was hard to take. If my contributions there, where I went out of my way to avoid any edit controversy whatsoever, can be interpretted as bad faith, then I do wonder what the point is of continuing. I'm not thin-skinned, as perhaps you might conclude by my response to Lulu's claim that I was insulting him in my edit comments or by my response to your recent post on my talk page. However, when I work so hard to adhere to good faith and that faith is continually questioned, it undermines my motivation to continue here. Having to continually defend my honest intentions is not fun, and if it's not fun being here then there is no point to it. I'm going to have to think about whether to return or not for a while, at least until the shock caused by your comments subsides.

I wish you luck in getting the article to featured article status—I think it is an example of some of the best work here and I enjoyed making what small contributions I could. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 16:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 16:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I read your message about how you would permanently ban me if I made one wrong move.According to Wikipedia policy only those users who ONLY vandalise pages may be banned.I have added two new pages to Wikipedia-1]Bird Flu in India,2]Varanasi Temple Bombings.I have constructively edited the following pages-1]The O.C 2]Zee Cafe among others.Kindly tell me why you say I fit into the category of users who only vandalise pages.Also the tone of your message was somewhat threatening,alomst like something Tony Soprano would say to a rival "Capo".I am not trying to disrespect you in any way,I am just saying that it does not suit a wise and elderly administrator like you to openly threaten users.In future,please caution me in a more formal manner,as befits a administrator of your advanced experience and age.Thank You.Prasi90 03:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox.

Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you see I have edited 2500 articles. I don't need to say much more. And when you look at my articles, you have no problems. I think I am at the admin level.

I am getting tired of Striver claiming "vandalism" on edit history's for any of his edits that get taken out. How much other Wikipedians are given this kind of liberty? [1]--Jersey Devil 13:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

 

I'm leaving this macrophage, a particularly hungry white blood cell on your talk page, I just finished a rewrite of its article and realized they're not so different from administrators, as they keep their surroundings clean, doing away with anything that's not supposed to be there...
Anyway, with that short lecture on cell biology done with, I'd like to thank you for your vote on my RfA, which passed with (49/2/0), I'll do my best to not let you down, and if you see me heading towards a common newbie mistake, please nudge me in the right direction :)

--Obli (Talk)^? 20:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The article Jim Nussle has been repeatedly vandalized for partisan purposes by right-wing Republicans, or rather one such Republican and his various sock puppets. Then this right wing goon of an admin intrudes himself. To state it mildly, I am apoplectically angry at the sonofabitch. To respond to your message

• Was your partial blanking of User talk:Tony Sidaway intentional, or an accident? [7]. --MONGO 12:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I would seem to have been. --FourthAve 23:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the first time I've been called a "right wing goon" or something similar on Wikipedia. My political compass results seem to be consistently to the far left, libertarian parts of that compass, for what it's worth. My closes companions are Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama, although I'm considerably more to the libertarian end, by that organisation's measurement, than either. See this offsite GIF image. --Tony Sidaway 00:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, the evidence would lead most reasonable people to a different conclusion as to who the vandal is in this case. RfC on FourthAve. - Jaysus Chris 01:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Jaysus Chris routinely deletes any mention of Jim Nussle's adultery-drenched divorce; The 2nd Mrs. Nussle is the classic other woman, the homewrecking slut, in this instance, a Washington DC lobbyist who worked the K-Street Stroll: A K-Street whore. Jaysus Chris is blasphemous by his choice of user name: he clearly has a deep personal hatred of the Ten Commandments. --FourthAve 10:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

All I know is I posted a comment to Tony's talk page and then this FourthAve bloke deleted it along with a bunch of other comments. Now I see Tony blocked him for an hour prior to the blanking...looks like it's time for an improvement in attitude for this editor.--MONGO 02:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, see this and other stuff. --Tony Sidaway 03:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, I've been dealing with FourthAve off and on since the beginning of the year. He's been consistantly adding extreme POV/vandalism to three articles (Jim Nussle, University of Dubuque, and Bob Vander Plaats). Things escalated at the end of last month and he's been raging ever since. A rough outline is available at the RfC. The silver lining of all this is that I'm learning a lot about Wikipedia beyond making simple edits. - Jaysus Chris 04:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again Jaysus Chris proves himself to be a vandal, a typically Republican vandal, like those in the Speakers office editing wikipedia for partisan advantage. I am so pissed off by him and his sock puppets. --FourthAve 10:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, I had an interaction with FourthAve on 24 November 2005 that struck me as odd. [2] I mention this in case this history is helpful. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I've reviewed the exchange. It's the Jim Nussle article again, and Jaysus Chris's vile habits. Jaysus Chris is a vandal, a troll, a piece of shit.--FourthAve 10:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I see...mine eyes have been opened. Okay, next little episode I see or am notified of and the warning will be strict.--MONGO 05:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Open your eyes again to a re-read of this whole, now-annotated exchange, all of which derives from the Jim Nussle article, and Jaysus Chris's vandalism.

--FourthAve 10:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey MONGO/Archive07, how is it going? Thank you for supporting my Request for adminship! It passed with a final vote of 73/1/1, which means that I have been granted adminship! I look forward to using these tools to enhance and maintain this wonderful site. I will continue regular article/project contributions, but I will also allocate a sizable portion of my wikischedule toward administrative duties :) Thanks again, and if you have any questions/comments/tips, please let me know! — Deckiller 04:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

As you mus be knowing {old and experienced administrator that you are},Wikipedia users are allowed to write their beliefs in their userboxes-otherwise there would NOT be a "beliefs template" userbox.So if I believe in Anti-Americanism I would,according to Wikipedia policy be within my rights to express my views on my talk page.If you were indeed aagainst bigotry in all its forms you would have also edited the Anti-Pakistan comments on my userpage.Why did you not do so?I am not disrespecting you,I am merely asking why you{an aged and wise administrator} did not edit both comments.Please reply as soon as possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prasi90 (talk • contribs)

Labelling yourself as anti-American is bigotry, while stating that Pakistan is a military dictatorship is not an insult to Pakistani people, just their government...got it?--MONGO 08:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Just do a quick look-see to my edits. I worked the EB 1911 project, and about 1000 of my edits have been vaporized (I did annotations). After those vaporized ones, I have about 2500 edits.

I think Jaysus Chris is guilty of sockpuppetry. I can get very very angry when I've been abused by this bitch (this explains the past 36 hours of hotheadedness).

I would be happy if the Jim Nussle article fully acknowledges the messy nature of Jimbo's divorce, and its probable results on the November election. Ten Commandments

I've just edited Jim Nussle again, and it is hot-headed. I normally do articles on magazines I subscribe to New Yorker, the Atlantic, National Geographic, Journal of Indo-European Studies, etc. I remind you that Jim Nussle is running for my state's governorship; along with Jim Latham, Chuck Gipp, et al, all are local evil Republicans. I am partisan, but will debate, unlike Jaysuschris.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by FourthAve (talk • contribs)

Earlier I had added two userboxes to my userpage.In one I stated-This user believes he is being harassed by the administrator M-N-O.Here I did not name any administrator in particular since there is no administrator named M-N-O.So it cannot be said that I was personally insulting anyone can it?Please clarify this.Also when I mentioned your name and said that you had deleyed what I had written in the userbox because you opposed my views I was saying the truth as can be seen by viewing my userpage history.Prasi90 11:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, this diff says a lot more than "M-N-O" doesn't it?.[3] What part about being on probation do you not understand? You have had 4 different admins block you, so it's just a matter of time from what I can see. As far as your constanting asking me trollish questions here...it is disruption and another block is just around the corner...wake up.--MONGO 11:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

With recent RfA contributions (Special:Contributions/Prasi90) I think a lot of people are getting a little exasperated with this user. I've created an RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Prasi90, which I invite you to comment on. Thanks haz _(user talk)^e 20:10, 14 March 2006

Not sure how to go about placing Jackie's content on the site. I am her husband. She is standing here next to me as well. Take a look here http://www.myspace.com/amcoronany

Look at...User talk:Amcorona--MONGO 05:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam:The Shia Guild? It is pretty much what Striver did in the "Conspiracy Guild" Wikiproject to save his articles from afd's.--Jersey Devil 23:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

This other user, User:Northmeister, just broke the three revert rule on a afd page.

• First Revert
• Second Revert
• Third Revert
• Fourth Revert

In the past this user has been accused of being a Larouchite POV contributor.--Jersey Devil 05:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Please comment on my rfc Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil--Jersey Devil 21:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you should re-read the specific AfD set that caused the RFC. This is almost completely related to Islam religion and history articles. Your comments about his conspiracy theory-ism and his anti-US biases are completely irrelevant to this particular dispute. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 07:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

"Don't question the purpose of my post..." seems overly confrontational to me. If there is specific POV pushing in the Islam related articles, and there is an active issue with Striver and the main Muslim Guild project, then those references and comments are entirely on topic in the RFC and you should say so, there. What you did say the first time didn't mention those at all, and did mention prior unrelated issues with Striver. I and other editors can't see inside your head, and we don't spend all day following every thread in WP (were that even vaguely possible, given the volume). I have no idea about this other stuff going on, as to how current or serious it is. If you're going to call him on it, and that's fine, then do so and provide references so the rest of us can follow along. We can only respond based on what we do see, which in this case is what you see fit to bring in. The specific things you did bring up were rehashes of unrelated stuff, which aren't relevant here. Including that instead of the more specific stuff leads editors like me who follow but not closely with the wrong impressions.

We've now spent more time out on the side here getting to the point that you described that additional info than it would have taken you to put it in when you first edited. I understand that discussions do not leap fully formed from everyone's foreheads... they and the various points take time to get figured out and posted. But ... it could have been easier and shorter. Georgewilliamherbert 08:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

"Best thing for both editors is to not edit the same articles for 30 days." might be difficult to put into practice, or could have undesirable effects. Whoever edits a page first would then have individually blocked the other from editing it. For example, if Striver edited a Peruvian page, or Jersey Devil a Shi'a page. Esquizombi 08:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You asked me to keep you posted about the situation with FourthAve, so I thought I'd point you in the direction of the Request for Arbitration I submitted tonight. I thought involvement by outside parties might bring him around, but it sadly doesn't appear to be the case. - Jaysus Chris 11:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mongo; Thanks for the award, I appreciate it very much. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, I respect your contributions to the project, but I have to disagree with your efforts against user:DickClarkMises's mention of his political campaign. Many other admins have pointed out that this type of "promotion" is quite common and not clearly prohibited. If the policy needs to be changed then let's do so. Personally, I think userpages have become an enormous distraction and their use should be curbed. But aside from policies, your conduct appears to be targeted at the individual rather than his behavior, perhaps because of what you perceive to be his political beliefs or interests. I hope that's not true. Let's all try to move on to more productive efforts. I don't see any benefit to the project, or any of us, the contributors, to be gained from devoting further energy to this matter. -Will Beback 00:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree. I didn't notice his userpage until he incorrectly labeled me as being incivil. Once I saw that he was using his userpage as a bullten board, then it bacame an issue. It is a violation of WP:NOT if I ever saw one. Now maybe this stuff has gone on in other cases and I haven't noticed it, but if I had, my argument would have been the same. We do not use our loaned userpages for vanity self promotion...especially in the case of political campaigning such as this case. I could care less what his beliefs or interests are. In fact, I am in agreement with him on a lot of issues. The responses from several of the people to my comment were, to say the least, nauseating. I've never seen such pedantic snobbery by what are supposed to be serious contibutors. I don't have to write new policy when there already is policy prohibiting this kind of misuse of Wikipedia resources--MONGO 02:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• [4]

If making a userpage a bulletin board is a problem then add a statement in Wikipedia:user page that says "may not be used as a bulletin board to advertise any product, service, website, or political campaign" or whatever it takes. Apparently other users don't feel the existing language covers this situation. If the user has been uncivil then deal with that issue directly. But to complain about a common usage of a userpage due to the fact that the user was uncivil and holds political beliefs contrary to your own is not supported by the community, as you've found. Cheers, -Will Beback 22:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That was a nice note you left on DCM's page. While we're chiefly an encyclopedia project, we're also a community. We should be stringent with the requirements for our articles, but lenient in our requirements for our editors. Cheers, -Will Beback 05:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You have mentioned on my talk page that my RfA votes are solely for disruption?Kindly explain what you mean by that.According to Wikipedia policy I am free to vote as I please-without even necessarily giving reasons for my votes.Also please stop asking me to "grow up".In contemporary slang telling a person to "grow up" implies that the said person is immature.Thus what you said to me may be counted as a minor personal attack.Also did you notice the revert I made to my userpage under the summary "MONGO has a point".Please do understand that I just want to be a good editor.Prasi90 04:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC) —This unsigned comment is by Prasi90 (talk • contribs) .

Oh you mean the one before you did this edit? [5] in which you call me stupid...stop playing games...you are exhausting the communities' patience. Did you respond to the Rfc filed against you by another editor?--MONGO 04:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This time under the name User:CMao, doing the same nonsense of inserting thousands of copies of a GWB image (hence making diffs difficult, etc). I think that behavior warrants an immediate block for disruptive vandalism... whatdaya think, my dear admin? :-). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Done[6]...I'll check your page history to see what other usernames have been used to do this nonsense...and you're right...I couuldn't even get the page to load on the system I'm on right now.--MONGO 05:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That is not a attack page, that is a defence page. Dont worry, im not going to single out you, you just happened to be the first person on the list of people that use that. Give it a week and you'll just be a dot in the statistic.

And yes, i have not forgoten your abuse of admin power, i still hold a strog grudge against your for that, im just waiting for the right moment to do something about that abuse.

That you for your comment, dont hesitate to contanct me againg, even if we are not in friendly terms. --Striver 11:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You are indeed singling me out...you just go right ahead and do something about my "abuse"...I'll whip out the beer and popcorn and watch your nonsense play itself out.--MONGO 11:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

My e-mail in now enabled.--Jersey Devil 14:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Now it should work, I didn't check "Enable e-mail from other users" on my preferences.--Jersey Devil 16:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

MONGO...just thought i'd drop you a line to let you know I was the one who removed the orignial map from the Fort McHenry article. Someone else actually brought up the fact that having a map there looks a bit ugly back in September, and I happen to still agree with them. I like having the templete there at the top, but anyone who can read can see the location as Baltimore, Maryland. I just think it looks bad having a map there when there should be an image to grab people's attention as soon as they get to the article page. I went ahead and checked out many other shine/fort articles, and I couldn't find one that contained a map. It's still my opinion we get rid of the map and keep a good photo up there. If we're going to keep the map, it should be standard to do that on all related articles. Thoughts? --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 02:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I can see your point. I have been adding the templates with standard maps to all protected areas and the standard, if you link off my userpage to most of my article stubs, you see that all protected areas have the template infobox and a locator map. Also, take a look at the forts listed on this page, as I just finished in the past couple of days, adding the protected areas infobox and locator maps there too. It's just a standardization really to have them all somewhat uniform, but I am not adverse to you removing the map and adding the image in the infobox, just that the maps are a lot easier to do than locate public domain images for every fort. I prefer the locator maps and then having the image near the top of the article page on the left. If you put the image there, I won't revert you. Appreciate you contacting me about this issue and let me know what else I can do to help.--MONGO 03:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I can totally see your point as well and I don't necessarilly disagree with it, I guess its just a personal preference thing. Was there ever a discussion regarding the template any where its layout was discussed? As I mentioned, I like having a template, just don't see much purpose in having a map when/if a nice picture is available. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 06:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

We discussed it here and there really wasn't anything that made the issue locked in stone one way or the other. I have no objection ot putting the image in where the map is, but as I said, it is very difficult to find enough good images to rely on this form in a standard, and we lose the locator map which is integral with the template design. If you prefer the image, I won't argue the point of course. One National Park article that I know of uses a much better map...Acadia National Park courtesy of User:Kmf164, but since few of us have the ability to make such excellent maps, I prefer the simple locator map in the template and images and more detail maps elsewhere. No biggie though either way....oops, I see Kmf164 has put the loc map back in and put her map down lower...well, whatever works.--MONGO 09:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see this page Misconceptions about the Shi'a. And the recent page history. It was suppose to be merged a long time ago but Striver and User:Zereshk refuse to even let the merge tag remain.--Jersey Devil 10:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm - interesting! :) I would consider it, but I am in school and work full-time, so I wouldn't want to irresponsibly pursue an admin spot unless I really understood what the commitment would mean to my schedule, etc. Beyond being a job requiring consistently good judgment, it's an important job that yearns for people who are really willing to put in the time and legwork. That's what's so impressed me about Gator of late.

Anyway, thanks for the idea, MONGO - I'll mull it over. Can you point out any 'learning to admin' pages of particular worth? Shall I simply watch the doings of our young Padawan, and see how he learns to craft the Force? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I would check out Wikipedia:Administrators and the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and lastly, the Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. Spend some time doing some RC patrol and maybe some voting for deletions areas too. BUT...our best editors are not necessarily admins...because they are too busy doing what we are supposed to be doing...writing encyclopedia articles, watching out for violations of NPOV and editing existing pages accurately. Full time work and school too...impressive. Anyhoo, keep it in mind.--MONGO 14:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, this is just a "heads up" about what I have been doing, it case you find it useful...

A couple times I have noticed that editors get confused about placing images in articles that have the infobox, even once replacing the map with a picture. I decided to be pro-active about it, and have made it a personal policy of adding an image (no matter how remotely related to the subject matter) in a new article, or in a picture-less article, featuring an infobox.

Ideally it should be of the protected area itself (Hamilton Grange National Memorial). Or of the subject of the protected area (Father Marquette National Memorial). Occasionally I have to stretch the connection (David Berger National Memorial). In the latter two cases, I usually put a note (either in the edit summary, or talk page) to future editors, welcoming replacing the image with one of the actual resource. — Eoghanacht ^talk 18:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I see. Of the articles that I have worked on within the scope of the protected areas project, the only ones I have watchlisted are those that I created and every full National Park (58 of them) listed. What I've been doing is just adding the infobox and if images exist, moving them one paragraph down and to the left of the text, that way, there is some text to intor the subject, the infobox and at least partially some image of the resource itslef. I suppose I could also add some public domain images to each article as much as possible. As noticed by the editor a couple spots above on this page, he prefers the image instead of the loc map in the template, and this is not the first time this has happened, so I'm not going to argue with him about it, instead I just encourage other editors to help us standardize these articles. I hope to have every National Monument completed with at least an infobox in a few days.--MONGO 20:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

A good think about American federal protected areas is the general availablity of public domain images for uploading -- but good pictures are not always handy for the small stuff. For the cases where I put in a "holding" image, I just make-do with what is already in Wikipedia. Don't miss out on the green beer tomorrow. — Eoghanacht ^talk 21:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I need to do a bit more than just bulldoze my way into articles and slap an infobox on them...I kind of work like a robot when I get on one of these streaks and don't work well enough out of the box...I'll do more to locate images in commons or on the web and enhance text in articles to make them more complete as I go. Yes...green beer for sure!--MONGO 21:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Another thought occurred to me. In the Fort McHenry message above, the user commented something like "I don't see the map/infobox" on other forts". Obviously some articles have groups of interested editors who see an article as part of something separate from protected areas. As a preemptive strike, I have been making an extra effort to state why I am doing what I am doing. I use a customized my edit summary. Something like this (I am currently working on national memorials):

added the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected Areas/Infobox|protected area infobox]], part of a user project to standardize [[List of areas in the National Park System of the United States#National Memorials|National Memorial]] articles

I am also intentionally saving the higher profile memorials until last, so that I can more easily demonstrate that it is part of a larger effort. The way I see it, it can't hurt. — Eoghanacht ^talk 01:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the same thing and even had to hold back from doing a move of the entire page to coincide with the federal name of the fort, site, etc. so as not to upset military historians and other projects. I think I'll just finish all the National Monuments with the infobox and retrace back to each one and try to expand the text, links and add images to bring them all to a little higher standard...that may take some time. Additionally, why not add the info you have about standardizing to the Project template page, explaining why we might want to use that edit summary or at least state it on the discussion page as thjis is an excellent thought.--MONGO 02:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! I've decided that I've found my niche in wikipedia for the time being and that is in the protected areas project. I've started working on National Wildlife Refuges. I saw that you had worked on several so far and I wanted to make sure I wasn't duplicating your effort. I was planning on starting in the Southeastern US and work my way around the country approximately counterclockwise. BUT before, I get too involved, can you take a glance at the two I've done so far? (Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge and Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge) I wanted to make sure I wasn't making any glaring errors before writing and expanding multiple articles. Thanks for your help! ClarkBHM 20:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Good to hear! The U.S. wildlife refuges have been almost completely overlooked, so gald to see that someone else has taken interest in them. I have only created articles for wildlife refuges in 3 states and I started every one of them....Montana, Wyoming and Nebraska. I intend to do the ones in South and North Dakota next...then Kansas and Colorado..then maybe Idaho, Washington and Oregon...so I guess I've "taken it under my wing" to do what is kind of the northwest. Both of your articles look a lot better than any of the onse I have done as for the time being, I have just been trying to convert redlines into blue ones. Excellent...welcome abord...let me know if there is anything I can do. But, do whatever ones you find interesting in any order you wish...so long as they are linked into the list by using the category, we can all figure out which ones have been done and which ones haven't. It's interesting...I did a few NWR's and when I started, I was like, gee, bet this one is going to be boring...but I have to do it cause I need to get all the ones in this particular state done. Anyway, I found that each one was interesting...such as Mortenson Lake National Wildlife Refuge, in which a toad was rediscovered in the wild...and I even created the stubby artilce on the toad itself...Wyoming Toad. I should probably do a better job and not just creat stubs, but also add images as much as possible.--MONGO 20:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I've had two elections in two weeks. One was for my town council and despite being the darkhorse candidate, I won an upset victory and now this. Fortune has smiled upon my this motnh so far. I am a very lucky person.Gator (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks big guy, I appreciate your support and consider you a friend. I'm still blown away by the level of support HOLY CRAP!Gator (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Puts a big smile on my face...very happy with the results...go slow, be good and all will be well. Congrats!--MONGO 03:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfC is over now.However no decision has been communicated to me.Am I going to be blocked or put on probation or what?Please inform me at the earliest.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasi90 (talk • contribs)

I dunno.--MONGO 11:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 

 

Thanks for voting on my RFA and helping me become an admin. The final tally was 108-0-1 (putting me on the WP:100 list. I hope to do my best in upholding the integrity of Wikipedia. Thanks again, Gator (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah is saw it and fixed the subsequent ones. I've got some spamming to do..... lolGator (talk) 13:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

We both opposed Proto at his RFA six weeks or so ago, but I was impressed by his pro-active attitude. He's been asking me for advice and I said I'd ask some others to help, too. I'd appreciate it if you could look over his more recent work with a view to a possible renomination in the short-to-medium future. I know he would really take anything you have to say very seriously. --Tony Sidaway 17:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 

You inquired me to keep you updated. Well, he's at it again, and he's reverted twice now [7], vandalizing the page. Please block him. -Zero^Talk 04:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

He's byebye...--MONGO 04:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

No he is not. Sockpuppet revealed itself: User:67.167.204.228. Request an immediate indefinite block. -Zero^Talk 18:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Gone.--MONGO 21:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It appears he has another sockpuppet to avoid bocking and introvertion: User:64.136.49.225 is the lastest in vindictive edits [8] and needs a block as well. He may have other sockpuppets; I'll stand by and await developments as well as keeping you updated. In the meantime, please accept this barnstar as thanks for assisting in these bouts of sillines, and I deeply apologize if I have dragged my feet in involving you in this aurdenous affair. -Zero^Talk 22:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not simply block the IP..? -Zero^Talk 07:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Respond on your talk page.--MONGO 09:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Another one too - User:Fx sever and User:210.4.12.220 {sockpuppet} are reverting Tekken character pages with copyright violations images from Commons (I left a note to a administrator over there concerning this) such as this [9], or reverting pages with no image at all [10]. I already left a note on his talkapge concenring how copyright violations are not acceptable at wikipedia. There's also the fact of orpahned images, when he replaces a image, he simply does just that, instead of uploading a new version. Copyrights and image policy is a serious matter on wikipedia and must be taken with care. This new user's failure to do so is troubling me, as his daily vandalism of the pages. -Zero^Talk 05:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought you might want to know about the poll in the Wikipedia:Wikiethics discussion page. Actually your contribution would be very important and valuable in that page. Rgulerdem

Looks like the poll is going against since no one has supported the proposed policy...I'll try and check it out later...and I appreciate that you might think my opinion mattered.--MONGO 09:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

for reverting my user page. Now I have to figure out if incrementing my vandalism counter is vandalism. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 23:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello MONGO, it is my apologies to bring you that I've withdrawn my RFA. Due to the lack of experience, I would go under admin coaching first before trying again later. I would thank you for your vote in this RFA whether you voted support, oppose or neutral for me. I appreciate your comments (if you do have) you made and I hope to see you here in future. --Terence Ong 05:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

...so I do not appreciate the implication that I am one. I'm a member of Esperanza just like you, I don't go around vandalizing other members' (let alone other Wikipedians') userpages. I resent the implication that I vandalized karmafist's userpage. - File:Ottawa flag.png     nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 13:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Then why are you archiving his talk page when editors like myself just made a post there? I did not call you a vandal, I simply asked you a question.--MONGO 13:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Doug Bell changed the name of the child/sibling articles. His are perfectly fine from an NPOV perspective, but I'm just not entirely happy that they sound mellifluous. I wonder if you could opine over at Talk:Ward Churchill (or in the sibling talk pages); I don't feel strongly, but I'd like the best name choices. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I consolidated the discussion at Talk:Ward Churchill misconduct allegations#Article name so that there won't be three separate threads on the same subject. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 00:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Please comment on my Rfc. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil--Jersey Devil 02:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You mistakenly took out the "responses/outside views" section in the rfc. I'm just letting you know that I reverted it.--Jersey Devil 04:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's weird...I should have removed the other stuff to get the accurate time of creation in there without disrupting the rest of it...If two signatories don't endorse it, it's just another speedy.--MONGO 04:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This is unrelated, but I have a question. It seems for some reason that when ever I edit a page that page automatically becomes part of my watch list (I must have hit something by mistake). I can't find anything on the "my preferences" related to that. Do you know what the problem might be?--Jersey Devil 05:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's a preference set in the "ediiting" subsection. There's a option for "Add pages you edit to your watchlist". You most likely have that checkmarked. -Zero^Talk 14:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to say that www.911truth.org is nothing but brainwashing nonsense. Please also see WP:3RR about our three revert rule as you have tried to put the same information in the September 11, 2001 attacks three times now and a fourth attempt will violate our policies.--MONGO 08:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

There is scientific evidence, http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html, and I am logging all who inhibit the truth.

For the 7th generation

Oh, I feel so enlightened by the truth...I am so thankful that now I too can spread this gospel of science to all who need enlightenment...by logging, do you mean you're going to take a chainsaw to me?--MONGO 10:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If the vandalism has not already been reverted I will revert it.However,some times,the reverting has already been done,but warnings have not been issued.That's why I only have to add the warnings. Do you have anything constructive to add to Wikipedia? I am inclined to think that you do not.--MONGO 16:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)--Correct me if I am wrong but this seems like a minor personal attack against me. -Be a good scout and grow up now. This is not a playground.--MONGO 17:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)- This one too:please explain what you mean by "grow up and be a good scout". .Also thank you for clearing my doubts about the blog issue I e-mailed you about. PS-If you are officially asking me not to issue vandalism warnings,please express yourself more clearly.I do not know whether you are merely commenting on my actions or whether you are giving me an official warning."I do not think you are in a position to be issuing warnings to others at this time."This is what you wrote on my talk page.Now does this count as a warning or are you merely expressing your personal displeasure at my actions? User:Prasi90  08:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you say you are in Scouting, so I asked you to be a good Scout. I think you are acting immature, so I asked you to grow up. You warn editors not to vandalize articles, yet you do not revert their actions, you only issue warnings. In light of your editing history, it seems obtuse that you would consider yourself to be lecturing other editors on vandalism. As far as your emails...you mean the ones in which you stated that you were going to copy and paste some of your rude comments into blogs and that there was nothing I could do about it...yes, that is right you can do that. I strongly urge you to find all the blogs you can and post whatever you want there...if I were you, I would dedicate all my internet time to blogs, why waste your valuable time here in Wikipedia, when you could be working on a blog somewhere.--MONGO 10:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The main question I wanted an answer to was whether you were officially warning me against issuing vandalism warnings or whether you were merely expressing your personal viewpoint.If it were the former,I would have to stop warning users against vandalism since I had been formally warned by an editor.If you were making a casual statement then I would not be bound to follow your advice.Please clarify this.Also calling me immature as you have done above seems a bit like a personal attack.I am,as I have mentioned only 16.So please forgive me if I am a less mature editor than you-I am after all significantly younger than you.I will certainly take your advice and create a blog soon.Please clarify the "vandalism warning" matter.

PS:-Also in the last sentence of your message you have typed-"....why waste your valuable time....when you could be working on a blog somewhere."This is a question you have asked me,and a question is always followed by a question mark (?) not a full stop.Ofcourse I do not doubt your fluency in English.I was merely bringing to your notice an error you had made.Thank You.

User:Prasi90  16:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that this editor is very young, lacks direction in wikipedia and has a resentment of the United States.

This is an edit you made on my RfC page.Yes,I may be a young editor but I do not see what this has to do with the issue of my RfC.I believe in the value of "grey cells" not "grey hairs".So please try to refrain from using my age as a yardstick for my capabilities as an editor on Wikipedia.(Once again you made an error while typing that word out-its Wikipedia,not wikipedia-proper nouns begin with capital letters). PS-I thought I should explain my "grey cells","grey hairs" comment. "Grey cells" refers to brain-cells (neurons).Having a large number of neurons makes one more intelligent.Having "grey hairs" is a sign that one is elderly.The jist of what I wanted to say was that although I may be young,I am probably much smarter than many men who are twice or thrice my age.If you still have any doubts regarding the meaning of the sentence explained above,feel free to contact me. User:Prasi90  03:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not elderly.--MONGO 03:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I never said that you are elderly,what I said was that you are elder to me.There is a difference between the two.User:Prasi90  05:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that proper punctuation is to place a space after a comma or a period. (In fact, after the period ending a sentence, two spaces are preferred.) Just figured you might want to use proper punctuation with your capitalized proper nouns. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 04:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Period?(.)This sign is called a "Fullstop" in Commonwealth English.User:Prasi90  05:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You call it full stop, I call it period...either way it's still followed by a space. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 06:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, I suspect you would vote before this closes anyway, but I'd like to ask you to support the RfA for AzaToth. I had nothing to do with nominating him (assumed he was an admin), and haven't ever interacted directly with him, but I have benefitted greatly from his work with templates. Because his contributions have been primarily in the area of templates, many people are voting oppose based on his lack of edits in other areas. The problem is that the only way to maintain the many useful and now protected templates he has created is to become an admin. Thanks for your consideration, —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 15:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Half of edits made every day by Mikkalai are Anti-romanian. There is blocking on Anti-semitic edits, nazi edits and also on Anti-romanian edits. His hatred is manifested against all Romania/Moldova/Transnistria related articles. His favourite target is to constantly remove the words Romanian language from any Moldova related article. Moldova is also a region from Romania and was split by sovietic force in 1940 from Romania. He is russian and his hatred towards romanians is manifested by his Anti-Romanian edits made every day. Yes, he was blocked once for violating and Anti-Romanian edits. From a moldovan.

See his block log and his anti-romanian contributions. Mikkalai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.133.71.155 (talk • contribs)

I really don't know a lot about this subject matter...perhaps post this information at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard as there you will be more likely to find someone that understands the situation better than I do.--MONGO 04:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a fight between users and admins at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Str1977 Please intervene. --CTSWyneken 23:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Gator is not a party here. He refuses to act because he is editing on the pages that are in edit war. He has been attacked by Robsteadman, who has alsom smeared Musical Linguist. All this because someone he thinks should be blocked hasn't been blocked. Steadman doesn't want to hear that neither should act because it is on pages they actively edit.

I haven't looked closely at the edits, but on the surface, both editors in question appear to be in violation of 3RR. I would be inclined, were I an admin to warn both, block the page for a week and tell them to work it out. --CTSWyneken 01:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, how often does a "conspiracy" or "cabal" against an editor actually exist when one makes such an accusation? The discussion linked above accuses two parties of ganging up on the supposed victim; is this a frequent occurance? Isopropyl 08:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It may happen, but I just saw an edit war, and instead of blocking two editors for 3RR, I decided to protect the page so they can continue to iron out their differences in the article talk page.--MONGO 09:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

In the case, the user in question doesn't like other editors working together -- when his viewpoint doesn't prevail, that is. --CTSWyneken 11:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Mongo, for the action. Hopefully, things will calm down. By the way, this probably makes you a part of the cabal! --CTSWyneken 11:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

We can always hope. --CTSWyneken 11:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I have looked onto User talk:Nobs01 and found quite a number of his images deleted or about to be deleted as unsourced. I have found sources or re-uploaded equivalents for the most, but not all of the images. I have no idea there to find the sources for the rest of the images. Nobs has not enabled his e-mail and does not seem to read his talk page. Do you by any chance know how he can be contacted or who might know the sources for the rest of his images? abakharev 04:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't spoken with him since he was banned. He may still check his talk page, but I guess he can't enable his email if he is banned, if you were to ask him to do so. I'll have a look at his images and see what I can do.--MONGO 05:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, please look abakharev 05:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not replace anything with troll.I merely added the following template-

This user reverts vandalism on sight, and would block for it.

.This,as you can see,indicates that I am a student of the University of Idaho.Please explain to me why you consider this trolling.Are you implying that all the students of the concerned institution are trolls?User:Prasi90  05:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You're not a student at the University of Idaho, your IP (202.177.246.3) comes up as "MAHARASHTRA MUMBAI BROADBAND INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER" [11] in the country of India, not the U.S. Blocked for one week for disruption.--MONGO 06:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand you blocked 202.177.246.3 (Prasi90) on grounds of disruption. I've previously blocked the user for harassment, but I fail to see any disruptive edits, could you enlighten me? NSLE _(T+C) at 07:42 UTC (2006-03-21)

Is that really necessary? Show me evidence that he has any recent intention of writing an encyclopedia.--MONGO 09:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Manu Bhandari (although I cleaned it up a LOT, and it still lacks sources), for example. Anyhow, I'm about to log off, so if I were you I'd post on AN asking for a second opinion, but that's just my opinion. Good day! NSLE _(T+C) at 09:42 UTC (2006-03-21)

No, there are numerous editors that also agree with the findings of the Rfc on this editor. It's just a week and several other admins have already blocked this IP for even longer periods. Nothing but a problem user.--MONGO 09:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I realise that. I'm one of the editors who supported the RFC. ;) I think a week's a bit harsh, but I don't do wheel wars, so. NSLE _(T+C) at 09:57 UTC (2006-03-21)

I'm not putting it up for review, NSLE...this editor is nothing but a troll. A few hardly notable articles do not overcome the nonsense this editor has posted in others talk pages, in article space, in article talk, on adminship nomination attempts (voting oppose in otherwise unanimously supporting nominations for the most part), for incessent quetioning over trivialities of wordplay, and even now questioning where he made disriptive edits..all classic trolling patterns. He was actually blocked fro a month (that would still be in force had one admin not gotten soft)...after the week is up, if this editor resumes the same nonsense, the next block will be a month.--MONGO 10:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I have as you can see been unblocked by NSLE who however wants me to take the matter up with WP:RFAR.However,as I told him,I do not want to get into any more conflicts with you.I am sorry if I offended you via my e-mails or my comments on your English.I am also sorry for insulting Americans.I hope you will accept this apology.I have no desire to have any animosity with you.I will refrain from indulging in trolling-however I request you to please stop blocking me repeatedly for trivial issues.It is my wish that we can both bury the hatchet and move on since the constant arguements between us are pointless.Once again,I am sorry if I have offended you.User:Prasi90  11:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I am the one who has recommended arbcom...not NSLE. I have never blocked you for trivial reasons. I'll be watching your edits and if I see the same patterns that have dominated your time with us, then WP:RFAR will be the best thing for all.--MONGO 11:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Prasi, NSLE has stated that his unblock is conditional on you taking this matter to arbcom...per your threat to do so, along wit the other insulting emails you sent.--MONGO 11:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If I comprehend this correctly, Prasi90 was only released from his block on the condition of filing an rfar. I see this has yet to be constructed and its quite obvious he has botched the prerequisite. I recomend a re-block. -Zero^Talk 12:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

He hasn't logged in today I don't think...I'll ask him when he does, what his plans are.--MONGO 12:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, I'm sorry to bother you with more work, but I am about this close to going off right now.

At the beginning of the month, I noticed that the article exergonic reaction says very little that exergonic does not already say, and proceeded to merge the two articles under the latter with a redirect at the former. I repeated the process with endergonic, exothermic, endothermic, and their respective reactions. I justified these actions with WP:BOLD although it did not seem controversial at the time. Over the course of the past three weeks, other editors have made adjustments to the articles, and everything seemed fine.

Today, I look at my watchlist, and it appears that User:Sadi Carnot has gone through and reverted all of my edits to his versions of the articles as of February 6 or so. In addition, each and every talk page contained the following:

Isopropyl, I consider all of your edits to these pages vandalism. Protocol stipulates, for the sake of respect to other’s who have worked on these pages, to declare and to post notice of your planed intentions on the talk pages, so that interested persons can debate the merit of the proposed actions. You cannot simply go around Wikipedia doing complete deletes of pages and replacing them with redirects. Not only did you revert some 20 to 30 people's edits worth of work, but you were sloppy to say the least. For example, according to your redirects and edits if someone looks up exergonic reaction they now go to exergonic. There is a big difference between a process which is exergonic and an exergonic reaction; presently, thanks to you, there is now no article on exergonic reactions. In the process you removed the thermodynamic dictionary reference in some cases. Your mis-edits are too many to count. I will now revert your edits. If you have issues please discuss them here.--Sadi Carnot 13:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what to make of this. I don't know why redirecting is considered "sloppy"; in addition, I have always used "process" and "reaction" interchangably, unless I need to be more specific (a chemical reaction compared to a thermodynamic process). In any case, the word "exergonic" applies to both with the same meaning, and I saw no reason why they could not both be covered in the same article. For instance, the reverted exergonic reaction article contains sentences that provide parallel information with that in exergonic. Also, the comment about destroying 20 to 30 people's worth of work is confusing, as he has also reverting the work of everyone who has edited the page between his editions.

It would have been fine by me to simply be bold and revert, which we could have hashed out later. However, to accuse me of vandalism with a blanket disregard of good faith is simply inexcusable. I consider this a personal attack and am highly disturbed. I have had no prior contact with this user, nor has any message been posted to any of the above articles' discussion pages. I would leave a message on the user's talk page, but it appears that it has a history of being blanked. However, I will remain civil and ask for an outside view. I am also going to take a day's Wikibreak to cool off before I do anything.

Thank you for your help MONGO. Isopropyl 15:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I was contacted in regards to comments you made about Isopropyl. His edits are not vandalism, see WP:VAND for clarification. I believe he acted innocently in combining the articles, but the merge tag is the proper way to do this generally, but it's not a requirement in this case as the articles were not actively being edited heavily. How about combining all this stub articles under one main article? I really know nothing about Thermodynamics, but it may be best to have a main article with sections in that discussing the different reactions. Just a thought.--MONGO 02:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It certainly isn’t “vandalism” per se, however, cutting, pasting, and piling 6 nice mentally-organized, and separate articles on a confusing topic (for many), as noted by the discussions from last year in Talk:Endergonic, into 3 is a form of reverse-organization. To clarify my point, from the WP:VAND page:

• Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia.

Hence, although I sure he didn’t delete and change these pages deliberately, he did, as a result, reduce the quality of the encyclopedia by merging topics that are typically found as seperate entries in other related science dictionaries and encyclopedias. In some cases he simply deleted full definitions, hence leaving the encyclopedia with no remaining definition, such as, for example, by deleting the following:

• An exergonic reaction is a chemical reaction where the variation of free energy is negative. This tells us the direction that the reaction will follow.

Certainly we could expand on this definition, but there is no need to “delete” it and do a redirect to “exergonic”. Furthermore, the stubs were all sourced via a thermodynamics dictionary. Moreover, it is standard protocol, e.g. The Essential Dictionary of Science (Clark 2004), to have separate entries for such closely-related but subtly-different topics as:

• Exothermic – a process or reaction that involves the release of energy; usually in the form of heat.
• Exothermic reaction – a chemical reaction in which heat is give out.

Hence, where I spent several hours separating these topics, i.e. by writing and sourcing stubs, Isopropyl went the reverse direction: i.e. instead of working together, he dismantled hour’s worth of well-intentioned work. My main objection to his actions is that if failed to use any of the talk pages before making such bold moves. Regarding the loss of recent contributions made by recent users, in order to revert back to separate articles; a lot of content was lost, someone is going to have to go back and re-add these parts (certainly a time-consuming task)? Regarding my talk page (Talk:Sadi Carnot) I always respond to comments, but clear my talk-page afterwards so to keep everything clean.--Sadi Carnot 10:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, can we recreate the old articles? Where do I begin. I know nothing about this subject matter.--MONGO 11:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my talk page. You might enjoy User:Morton devonshire/Finding your inner sockpuppet. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem...and that's an interesting read too.--MONGO 13:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I knew that it existed, but I didn't exactly know why. I've read up on it and saw that many of my public domain images can go there, as you suggested. My only question is whether or not I should make an effort to move my previous public domain images to the commons or not. I could move them over there and have them speedy-deleted over here if you think its worth the effort. Thanks for the suggestion. ClarkBHM 17:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Why did you delete the Template:Marine life-stub? I'm trying to put together a marine life wikiproject and need a marine life stub. It was made to catagorize stubs that marine life could do, the same way the star wars portal has a star wars stub. It helps them organize a stub to do list, like the marine project is using. Dark jedi requiem 21:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Because it was nominated for speedy delete, fit the speedy delete criteria and I saw no reason to not speedy delete it. I also see that you and one other editor are argueing the virtues of the category in your usertalk. Let me know who "wins" and I can restore or keep delted the template.--MONGO 21:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

There already exists a: Category:Aquatic organisms and at least a dozen related category...isn't the aquatic organisms about the same as Marine life? Let me know what you think.--MONGO 21:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FourthAve. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FourthAve/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FourthAve/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 15:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I thought you might like to know the above article, which you previously deleted, has been reposted. I attempted to verify the info in the article and came to the same conclusion as you did initially... it is a hoax. I tagged it for speedy deletion — again. Regards, Accurizer 21:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

An odd fellow. This character is persistant and un-dying in his actions for vandalism. When we block a sockpuppet, he goes for another. Perhaps we should create a subpage for this..? Anywho, his lastest is User:4.158.150.116 , in whitch he did this vindictive edit. As before, I'll keep you posted. -Zero^Talk 16:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Should I simply make a sub-page for this..? -Zero^Talk 05:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I guiess you could...that IP made one edit only...isn't the page semi-protected still?--MONGO 05:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No. Splash removed the protection recently; last week I believe. An action I agree with, as SEMI should be used in more pressing cases. This is just a silly case of persistant vandlaism, and we should block every sockpuppet that makes an appearence. -Zero^Talk 06:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I've created the subpage here. So far, he's got four sockpuppets avalible, with one an AOL proxy. -Zero^Talk 14:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I've replied on my talkpage. -Zero^Talk 15:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You probably saw his assesment, Wikipedia:What it Doesn't Say. At a certain point I'm tempted to say, 'the worse the better.' Let the whole business devolve into a swamp of credulous nonsense, like UFO. I'm not at that point yet, but it may not be far off. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right; these 'theories' do not pass the smell test. The works cited are pseudo-scientific nonsense - they adopt the appearence of scholarship; They're full of footnotes, but the "references" seem to circle back to each other within the self-contained universe of true believers. As evidence of what conspiracists think they're okay (though I'm concerned our selection of links may be biased toward those who are best at self-promotion.) As evidence of the state of reality they are inadequete, Charlie Sheen notwithstanding. I support describing what the conspiracists believe, as a social phenomanon. But I do not want our articles on biology, physics, the enviornment, or history to be made unbalanced by their agendas.

It's tiring, but not exhausting, and Wikipedia is still fun. I will probably take off for a week or two at some point, but not just yet. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I missed the anniverssary on 18th January, but have come to claim my cake. Mine was on 24th March - and come to my page, grapes are ready for you - garden fresh. --Bhadani 16:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You are most welcome - I know you are always around. --Bhadani 16:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi MONGO, I just added the Protected Area Info Box to Steamtown National Historic Site as you requested on its talk page. I have some questions: 1) Where do you get the number of visitors / year information (I could not find it on Steamtown's official website)? 2) Could you please look it over and make sure I didn't make any dumb errors? IUCN category and map caption are the two I worry about. Suggestions: could you list common IUCN category examples on the Info box talk page, like all NHS are IUCN III? Also is there an automatic way to have a subroutine calculate / place the dot on the maps based on the longitude and latitude entered? Thanks, Ruhrfisch 05:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for your help - I put the attendance data in the Steamtown Infobox and corrected the area there and clarified it in the article (the rail yard is 40 acres, the site is 62 acres).

As for IUCN category, I looked at these pages/articles from the Steamtown talk page notice: first Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected Areas/Infobox and then Template talk:Infobox protected area to try and find the IUCN information and finally just guessed Category III.

Since your message, I looked at the official website [12] you gave (thanks) and Steamtown was not listed. I searched a little and the US historic sites I found were all Category V (or not categorized), so I changed it to that (from III). My thought was more that if the official website link and some examples were at the two pages/articles I looked at it might help with IUCN categories (especially when a lot of places might not be listed or if listed, might not be categorized at the official website).

Finally, I will put the infobox on the 20 Pennsylvania State Forests List of Pennsylvania state forests articles and on PA State Parks as I work on them. The state forests are on the official website but are not categorized (sigh). Thanks again Ruhrfisch 13:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You have voted for Omaha, Nebraska on the USCOTM. It was selected to be this months's collaboration. You are invited to help to contribute in order to improve Omaha, Nebraska in any way possible.

I don't disagree at all that Striver's little stunt here is WP:POINT, however, I grossly disagree with your assertion that Haney's not notable. Haney's account of life inside Delta Force is required reading for any serious scholar of special operations forces. Please reconsider your vote. I'm going to go chastise Striver for the stunt, but the article should stay. Had I realized Haney didn't already have a WP article I would have created one. Georgewilliamherbert 05:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Then vote your choice, but don't badger me here about whether you agree with my vote or not..do so there, as loud as you want. The article is lousy (as one would expect) from the originator. I also am not sure your policeman tone is the best in my usertalk...you're not a mediator, not an arbitrator, not an admin, and not really all that experienced, so i don't think you have any right to lecture me about a vote I made or to go to Strivers page and admonish him...you should concentrate on you.--MONGO 05:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

What, so all the WP policy about working things out in private and talk pages is now null and void? And you have to have ten thousand WP edits to have a) an idea about reference material b) an idea about online social / political interactions ? I've been doing this for longer than the apparent average age of Wikipedians. WP is very, very new.

I have a serious issue with people taking personal or political fights out on articles, when they're about notable subjects. You clearly care about WP, and contribute good material, and are doing a lot of good as an administrator. For these things, I congratulate you. And you also are doing a little taking it out on Striver created legit notable articles, which I dont' congratulate you for.

If you're going to vote Delete on stuff with the stated reason of not-notable, you should be prepared to defend that claim. And it's not defensible. The side stuff... which is that the stunt was WP:POINT and the like... is topical and fair and arguably correct, and I agree with it. But notability is not subject to personal disagreements.

We could clutter the AfD up with this argument from here until the close of debate, but I'd rather not a) make this all that public, and b) not subject innocent AFD browsers to it. If you insist that you want discussion there, I'll take it there, but it seems to me that it's better not to, at least initially. Georgewilliamherbert 06:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is non-notable. If you think you can improve it, then do so and I can reevaluate it later. I completely disagree with you in regrads to Striver. He completely misuses Wikipedia for his agenda. If he can't force his POV into article space, he creates POV forks. If he can't work with concensus he works around it his way, not the Wikipedia way. I have nominated maybe two of his "articles" for deletion...maybe three...who knopws...all of the ones i nominated for deletion deserved to be deleted. I voted delete on this one you mention as I do not find either the subject or the article about the subject notable. If you can rewrite it to prove he is notable, then I can reconsider. I am not worried about publicity or having fingers pointed at me as i am not infallible. Regardless, you continue in my eyes to defend someone who is one of the most prolific POV pushers in Wikipedia these days...many, many editors have been reverting his edits throughout his tenure here, so I am not on some singular witch hunt...my edit history clearly shows I have other areas and Striver is a minute fraction of my concern here...if he persists, someone more determined than me will handle it, for good.--MONGO 06:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

As I have pointed out repeatedly: the way to fix inadequate articles about notable subjects is to tag them and hopefully attract someone along who knows it and can improve it. AfD is the wrong solution. Though... I can't really blame you or JD or anyone other than striver himself for initiating this particular one.... Georgewilliamherbert 07:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Then stop looking for others to admonish or blame...concentrate on you and stop defending those that rank only a fraction of a notch above the level of troll.--MONGO 09:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

We will have to agree to disagree about Striver's abuses. I have seen a lot of good material come from him, and a moderate number of moderate abuses of process (and in a few cases, rude and slightly abusive behavior). The good IMHO outweighs the bad.

That certainly doesn't excuse the bad, and this particular stunt of his was clearly bizarre, POINT, etc. I don't disagree with that. I just don't agree that he's not contributing anything and only a troll.

Have a nice night. Georgewilliamherbert 09:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

POV...POV...POV tell that to the 30 or so other editors that combat his trollish POV pushing nonsense. Be careful with alliances...do more to protect the truly innocent. I have seen very little good to come from him...his behavior in the articles related to 9/11 are an affront to the truth..he just spews nonsense he picked up from all those mindless websites that pollute the web with bullshit. Certainly we can do as Jimbo asked...and not make the web suck! You should pick a project and concentrate on that and stop trying to convince me about Striver.--MONGO 09:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, too. They're crackpots. But...

I object to the revisionism I see a lot of, of people wanting to deny that they're out there and believe those things.

It's entirely possible to disagree with someone and still support their right to say stuff.

I don't want the web to suck. And I don't particularly appreciate the existence of conspiracy theorists in general. But they're out there, and the only way to effectively fight them is to admit that they're there, address them forthrightly, and work to convince them and their supporters and the public that the ideas are bad. This has been a problem long before 9/11 (I've been dealing with Hoagland's Face on Mars stuff for nearly 20 years now... what were you doing to fight conspiracies in 1988?). And will be a problem with new topics in the future. Denial and supression are ultimately tactics that fail.

I'm not arguing with you because I support him. I'm arguing with you because I support you. Georgewilliamherbert 09:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the same argument I had with JamesMLane for months in the George W Bush article. Major article space is not the location for an indepth discussion on opinions. They are relegated to subarticles under appropriate titles. It is not encyclopedic to dwelve into the fantastic or the opinion in major article space. I used the example of Bigfoot, not as a joke, but as an example. You pick up any Paleoanthropology or Physical Anthropology college level textbook and the absolute most they will give about this creature is just a passing mention...but more likely than not...they mention nothing. Now, lots of folks have "seen" bigfoot...lots have witnessed their tracks, heard noises and so on. Is there a chance Bigfoot exists...only in the most remote sense. Is there a chance the U.S. Government was behind in any way the 9/11 events...or did rogue operatives blow up the WTC...of course not! As an example...we don't do any more for the conspiracy theory claptrap than is done for Bigfoot in reliable reference sources. So what's left for bigfoot? A whole bunch of wacky websites that simply cannot be referenced aside from mentioning that they exist...we can't cite them, we can't rely on them and we certanly aren't going to promote their websites in major article space. This is the same for the 9/11 issue...nothing but eyebrow raising websites that offer nothing but opinion and offer zero proof but no answers. There is a fundamental other issue at stake here than the benign nature of UFO, Lock Ness Monster, Bigfoot and Elvis isn't dead stuff than there is regarding the events of 9/11. If I was in denial or trying to suppress I would march into those conspiracy theory articles and dismantle them...which could be easily done...but I don't. You think I am trying to suppress information...I am trying to protect Wikipedia from becoming a cesspool of misinformation, a repository of illusionary tales and far out sensationalistic tabloidish junk. Where was I in 1988?...I was a crew boss on forest fires in Yellowstone. This conspiracy theory junk about 9/11 is an issue...Bigfoot and Nessie do no more than provide amusement...I am not amused by the misrepresentation of evidence in the articles surrounding 9/11 by conspiracy theorists...it simply isn't benign.--MONGO 10:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

These things are notable because people believe in them, not because there's any reasonable scientific evidence that they're true (as a rule, there isn't). Documenting the belief is an important step to addressing misinformation and rumors and pseudoscience and the like. It's entirely appropriate to tag articles about those beliefs as appropriate and make sure they're NPOV and not advocacy or factually incorrect, but (unfortunately) all these things are legitimate topics for discussion because they're widely believed. These topics range from amusing to benign to extremely contentious, but the ones that keep coming up over and over again do so because more people believe them than a tiny fringe. Georgewilliamherbert 21:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks like User:Prasi90 is back as User:Happysplashy. [13] [14] --rogerd 05:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I've dug into this a bit more, and concur that Happysplashy is probably Prasi90, Big boi oi, and possibly others, although they're doing it via proxies I think (I saw three continents in my investigation). I blanked and protected Happysplashy's user talk page because he was using it to annoy. Hopefully nobody will mind too much. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I blocked the associated IP for a month...are these other editors (I didn't know Big boi oi was part of the same group)...are they still editing now? I am on my way out and will not be getting back for 4-5 hours so I will check in with you then.--MONGO 21:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

On further review I'm of the suspicion that Happysplashy isn't part of this crowd. I'm going to unblock as a result. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Check this out. Let me know what you think.Gator (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The indefinate block you placed on Prasi90 seems on the surface to be reactionary. This editor has expressed an opinion to be "Anti-american". Could you show difs that he has expressed this view in article space? I would like to form an opinion based on their contributions to article spaces that he is damaging the information base, and if you could point to specific instances it would be a great help. I might add that seeing "indefinate block", I am inclined to regard it as a "permanent block". If so, this seems to be a matter for the ArbCom to decide. I would recommend setting a block for a determined length of time. I further recommend that you endevour to explore some of the mediation outlets that Wikipedia has to offer. You asked for an RfC regarding the user in question, and it did not generate very much discussion, far less than the average RfC generates, and the suggestions I made there were only responded too by one of the parties involved. I am willing to assume good faith regarding your actions so far, and I only wish to point out in this space that to my present knowledge you and you alone have taken issue with Prasi90 to the point of essentially banning him from editing. I hope that you take these comments/requests in the spirit which I intended them to carry, that is a spirit of hope. Hope that you and Prasi90 can find some way to exist within the project, hope that you both approach your differences in a more conciliatory manner, and hope that your current position is not one of intransigence. I will look here for your reply, so as to preserve continuity. Regards, Hamster Sandwich 20:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, I read the two difs of edits that Prasi90 included in article space, at the RfC page. They are beyond any assumption of good faith by that user, there is no doubt. Is Prasi90 irredeamable? I think there is a very good chance that this user can be mentored and shaped into a more productive editor. Two bad edits to article space (horrible sentiments expressed in them, to be sure), and several others on various talk pages. Considering some of the extreme leeway given to certain other problematic editors to change their ways, I think that Prasi90 is being given the short schrift. ArbCom? Probably the best way to go here, but after all other avenues have been explored. ArbCom is the last stop. Ok, you asked for an RfC, got some support by various other editors, but no suggestions or comments from them. I think that all parties, taking a step back and prepared to try to steer Prasi90 into a more productive role is taking the high road in this case. Assuming the worst, he won't change an iota. Assuming the best, you two may eventually work together. Realistically, somewhere in between those two extremes is where we should end up, if an opportunity for some instruction/mentorship is offered to Prasi90. I don't know if I'm a good candidate to offer such a mentorship to anyone, let alone someone who has expressed sentiments such as Prasi90 has, but I would be willing to try. I havn't seen anybody else make such an offer to him, but on the surface, I only see it as helping, not hurting the project to extend the offer to him. This is presupposing that my hand offered in the spirit of co-operation is not slapped away, so to speak. As always, regards. Hamster Sandwich 21:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Hamster Sandwich...I want you to look at the number of blocks against Prasi90...I blocked him before, his block was reduced to a month by Android79, Bcorr blocked him permanently, then reduced the block after Prasi90 begged and promised. Prasi90 was unblocked but then I reblocked him for a week after further insults and bad faith editing. This week block was protested by NSLE, so I told NSLE to go ahead and unblock him and he did so provided he go to arbcom as he siad he would...he didn't, instead he "apologized"...Nsle told him agin to go to arbcom, but instead he performed only a few edits and then created Happysplashy as a sock account. Posting a lengthy accord claiming I was incivil in the Wikipedia help desk and then the same stuff on my talk page, it was brought to my attention by Rogerd...I waited and when the same lengthy nonsense was posted to my talk page, I indef blocked Prasi90, happysplashy and blocked the associated IP for one month, per the policy. This editor does nothing but vandalize...the few "good" contributions are just there to keep him just above the pain threshold for folks like yourself. I have an Rfc that numerous editors signed about Prasi90. My blocks are neither too agressive or too unilateral, as we routinely permablock accounts that primarily serve to exhaust the communities patience, vandalize, troll and harass...please Hamster Sandwich, do not unblock this editor! I will not be able to get back you you with all the diffs and further explanation for at least 4-5 hours, so assume good faith that my action has not been done unilaterally. Arbcom is not necessary and it is a waste of time, as I am sure they will reach the same conclusions I have...this editor will be all nice to get back on board and then resume the same pattern. Thais has happened 4 times already.--MONGO 21:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the reply! I have seen enough difs at the RfC page regarding Prasi90 that you needn't bother gathering any others. MONGO I must say that any comment I have made is not a question of your integrity at all, so put any such thoughts away. On balance, Prasi90 losses a great deal of credibility, by his past bad actions. The ArbCom only serves to deal with problems, and particularily problems of this sort. If Prasi90 has to tell them that he is going to abide, then by gum every admin within ear-shot is going to hold him to their terms. I ask you, and any other involved editor to allow me a chance to sheppard this user. I have no facility to check if he is using sockpuppets to commit vandalism so if there is a suggestion you could make: I want to mentor this guy, but I want to make sure he's not socking/gaming the process. So I'd need help, finding a way to watch articles he has been/is likely to vandalise so I can put them on a watchlist. Also keeping an eye on any potential socks. I would further propose to him that any he would submit to a block of up to three months if any three admins complain to me (or ArbCom or RfC etc.etc.) for bad actions/edits. He needs to have things explained to him. If he just wants to vandalize/POV articles, well I don't have a huge store of patience for bullshit anyways. I suppose what I'm proposing is an arrangement with Prasi90 that is like an ArbCom ruling, that only carries as much weight as the direct participants wish to give to it, and that any blocking that may arise from a continued pattern of vandalism from Prasi90 could be as easily reversed/overturned as it would be to un-block/reblock him now. It's the "honour system" thing... Questions, comments and further ideas are not only welcome, but crucial! I'm just holding out some hope that something really positive might be the result of a little effort on the part of the involved administration here, MONGO. Peace! Hamster Sandwich 01:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd support letting HS tkae Prasi90 under mentorship of some kind, but I'd like to see that three admins requirement be lowered to just unanimous agreement from any admins involved in this case (which would mean just me and MONGO). Prasi's shown worse behaviour before, but to an admin not familiar with this case they may not be willing to act. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:25 UTC (2006-03-29)

Okay...I give agreement to an unblocking...BUT(!), (and I do not mean to seem rude here)...I completely wash my hands of this editor...I will not watch his editing, will not participate in arbcom, will not post any evidence, will not do anything other than revert his vandalisms. If you are up to the task to convert an editor who has exhausted my patience, then please do so. Any posts he makes to my usertalk will be removed...anymore insults in email will be deleted...I won't even open them. I realize that the best way to handle this editor would have been arbitration, but, I suspect that this would be a time consuming issue that would end up with the same result. Go ahead and unblock him...I will not hold that action against either one of you in any way :) but I also am not going to waste any more of my time on this situation...and if he files some kind of complaint against me, I will not participate.--MONGO 01:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your candor! I'm not jumping right in however, without giving the idea a bit more thought, planning ect. I'll sleep on it, and offer Prasi90 my terms as a mentor. If he accepts, fine, if not, I'm hoping for even a smidgen of direction from you and NSLE. I appreciate your exasperated tone MONGO, but I may ask you for help and advice anyways. I'll probably need it sooner than later! :) But all I can do is try. Two or three heads is better than one, especially when it's mine... I'll get back to everyone concerned tomorrow with a better idea on how I personally would like to approach this. Peace! Hamster Sandwich 02:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey! Please try not to overlook adding a page you protect to the list of currently protected pages at WP:PP. Thanks a bunch. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that...I'll be more through next time...just missed a beat.--MONGO 21:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, one blip in a stellar record, you're allowed =) · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 22:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be great if you could check out and comment on the proposal for clearer language in the process description for RfAs that I posted there. Thanks. --Mmounties (Talk)   02:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

... but, given the divulgence of personal information (accurate or otherwise), shouldn't all history of the reverted data be instead purged? Thanks again. RadioKirk talk to me 05:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks :) RadioKirk talk to me 13:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You can leave it as is if the alternative is too much trouble. Everything is there and signed, so I don't see a problem. Thanks again. :) RadioKirk talk to me 13:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thakathi. Just thought I'd let you know. :) -- Mareklug ^talk 05:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! It is nice to get a little pat on the back. You sure have been taking a beating lately, you are to be commended for you defense of NPOV. --rogerd 05:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Aaahhh! Another one that's making me crazy. Let me try the backstory briefly: There's a philosopher I like named Slavoj Zizek. An editor (or two) started adding a wildly disproportionate "critiques" section; all stuff that other real academics had written, but not at all relevant to Zizek's overall notoriety, nor appropriate for an academic biography. I requested a reduction of the section to better match WP academic biographies, and also asked for outside opinion at a couple Wikiprojects that were relevant (not much response yet... but editors all have their own projects and concerns).

In the course of this an editor User:Ramanpotential turned the whole discussion into a massive flamefest, with nearly every comment he makes being a personal attack on me (relatively mild compared to some attacks on WP, but definitely impolite). (Ramanpotential is either a close friend or another name for User:58.160.223.124 and User:ShowsOn, he claims its the first thing, I tend to believe it's the second). I think I found a reasonable solution to that other issue: I refactored out an article Critiques of Slavoj Zizek; that probably doesn't need to exist, but it's well enough cited to meet WP:V, and generally is fine with WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.

I don't care about trying to draw you into the Zizek miasma, since it does relate to an academic area that's not yours. I'd rather get some opinions from philosophers and criticial theory people (not that yours wouldn't be interesting, but I understand you don't know or care about this field... nor should you).

But on a small spinoff, I would like to enlist your help. One of the critics of Zizek mentioned is David Bordwell; Bordwell's article was mostly written by Ramanpotential, and the article is perfectly fine (not brilliant, but nothing wrong with it). I put a bunch of work into cleaning up the citations for the Bordwell article by moving everything into m:cite.php and citation templates. You know how much work (but how much payoff too) using the citation templates can be. As a result, Ramanpotential first reverted all my work, then started waxing indignant at Talk:David Bordwell about how the "list of books by Bordwell" aren't citations, and therefore must be reverted to free-form, non-structured references. This issue has nothing to do with the particulars of Bordwell's work, it's just a formal matter of WP style guidelines and the like.

Any chance you can give a nudge to Ramanpotential on the use of proper citations (or at least not reverting all my work in doing so)? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Lulu...I'm heading out, but will attend to this in about 4 to 5 hours when I log back on.--MONGO 21:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This is one fantabulous article! Very informative, and was interesting to read. Congratulations on the wonderful contributions!! deeptrivia (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I thank you for the kind words...but the credit belongs to a lot of folks for working so hard to get it to where it is now. I appreciate your kind words! Happy editing!--MONGO 04:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message on my talk page, I'm glad to support work done by people who care about other's views and are willing to do their best to deal with suggestions. Good luck with your FA article nomination, it deserves to succeed and I'm sure it will get through this time. I recently had an article of my own made featured; check it out at Manuel I Comnenus if you're interested :D Laters! Bigdaddy1204 15:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like you to critique this article, if possible. I think it constructive to recieve an outside opinion on the subject and summerize if its worthy featured article material. -Zero^Talk 07:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Any more comments would be appreciated. Also, can you help me format the reference notes..? -Zero^Talk 11:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel the images are neater in gallery format, but I suggest you fiddle with them and I'll see what I think. -Zero^Talk 04:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That's lovely. Although, the only misplacement lies with the "woman" image. See this for a (horrific) explanation. Its the movie labled "Chick turns into a really ugly monster" (third to the left) -Zero^Talk 04:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you watch the movie...? And also, I need to format the references; is it {{note}} or {{ref}} for the pharagraph insertion? -Zero^Talk 04:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'll have to watch it tomorrow, zero...my system here I am on now doesn't have video allowances. Have a look at [15] for reference work.--MONGO 04:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you please as an Administrator look into the Ollanta Humala page and put a semi-protection on it? It has been repeatedly vandalized for probably more than a month now by the same group of IPs. They did the same thing in other language Wikipedias in pages about Humala and Peruvian political-related articles in general. They fill up the talk pages with these long blogs as well so you should also see the Talk:Ollanta Humala page and its talk page history. It got so bad in the Spanish Wikipedia talk page of Humala that they also have protection on that talk page. Here is the Page history of the Humala page. As you can see all they add is nonsense and have been doing so for a long time. The most recent edits "kiere robar el peru, y mandar a la mierda a todos...si no votas por él," translation "he wants to rob peru and send everyone to shit if you don't vote for him"....a little more "and killing up to 100.....Investigtions from the Den Hague War Crimes Tribunal are expected to shed some light on the incident." there is no factual basis for this it was added on by another one of the IPs. This is just pure nonsense. So I think a semi-protect is completely justified especially considering these guys just don't want to stop.--Jersey Devil 23:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Done...let me know when to lift.--MONGO 02:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be a lot better if you would not let yourself be offended. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Using "what the fuck" in an edit summary: disruption? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 09:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so now we're (well, not me, you) enforcing being nicey-nice? What's next: Singaporean-style laws? Sucks. --ILike2BeAnonymous 09:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi again! When you get a chance, do you mind checking the Talk:List of National Wildlife Refuges page? I had an idea to rearrange the list a bit and I wanted a second opinion. Thanks! ClarkBHM 15:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)