User talk:MONGO/Archive20

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your diligence in fighting the CT POV pushers, I hereby award you the Defender of the Wiki Barnstar--rogerd 03:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I Hereby Award You The Tin-Foil Hat of Comeuppance For service in the endless war to rid Wikipedia of Conspiracy Theory Vanispamcruftisement  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 06:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...you guys are great...please keep up the good work yourselves!--MONGO 06:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm working on a guideline for user security practices and I wondered what you thought of it. My text so far is here: User:Academy Leader/UserSecurity. Everything past "Interacting with others" is copied straight from the Wikimedia Privacy policy, except for the information under "See also" and "References," which are links gathered from anywhere. This is not intended as a means of revisiting or in any way affecting the "attack sites" debates, I am simply curious as to what you may think of this. Best,—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 04:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi...I copied this again here so we can keep this in one place. I'll try and help out as I can...maybe a guideline might be possible..but here's the thing...if we word it that it looks like a cautionary tale, it might discourage editors from being able to contribute...so as it progresses, it would be best to not name those that have had themselves stalked, etc. Maybe err on the side of caution by making it a suggestion as much as possible. There are also plenty of contributors who don't care if they are known since they are public figures anyway. But I think you have a good start...there are others who might be interested in contributing as well.--MONGO 05:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I would only want to discourage editors from providing any revealing details about themselves without considering the possible consequences, not from editing the encyclopedia. I very much agree that we don't have to reference specific cases or examples in doing this. Public figures I am not sure what to do with, evidentially they don't care, but still the main thing I'd like to work out is a codified process for discretely handling stalking or other harassment cases involving personal information, with minimal further exposure to the victim through the encyclopedia. I think it would be in everyone's interest if there were some well known public text somewhere that pointed to an email that could be used to report such instances to admins without using WP:AN/I. Best, —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 05:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have always suggested to people who want to remain anoymous that they should create a completely fictious identity for use anywhere on the web. I was amazed at the amount of information that can be gleemed from just knowing someone's name and approximate location. If I query my real name on a couple websites, it lists the cities I have lived in over the last 20 years...it even gave my real age...all that for zero cost! If someone wants to know more, for less than 20 bucks they can get real addresses, marriage records, etc. I would recommend that Wikipedia:Oversight be incorporated in the text to ensure everyone knows that personally identifying information can be permanenet removed by the Stewards...additionally, history can be removed by deleting and then recreating any page minus the paricular edit that identified the person...but it is still available to administrators, all of which can see deleted histories and pages...maybe you have that in there already...I'll read it again.--MONGO 06:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, if anyone asked me I'd say not to bother, as true anonymity online becomes unrealistic even with one or more pseudonyms. Wikipedia:Oversight capabilities are alluded to but not specifically addressed yet. At this point, feel free to contact others or edit the text yourself if you want. I am not sure at what point it would be "proposal-ready" as a guideline, if the idea of it couldn't be better incorporated elsewhere or in some other fashion. I may be off-line for much of tomorrow. Thanks for your thoughts.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 07:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you check out User:Crockspot/Sandbox and let me know what you think? This is my proposed submission of evidence to the NYScholar arbcom. The last section in particular is what I am most unsure about. It's something that needs to be said, but I could be wrong about that. Let me know what you think on my talk page. - Crockspot 19:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the Yellow bading part might be better if you leave out personal sentiments about what your perceptions are, though I don't disagree with these sentiments. What I have found when submitting anything to arbcom is it's best to be very short and offer precise evidence...ie "Joe is incivil...(and then examples: [1],[2],[3],[4]"). Four to ten examples of recent editing activity...if it has been months and months...then the evidence has less immediancy to it. Personal sentiments are fine, but I think arbcom is mostly interested in clear demonstration of the points that have been violated. I haven't looked over the exact case, thouigh I did see, even before you mentioned it, that you had posted comments on the arbcom case before it was accepted. Mostly, your discussion looks fine though...I might just trim that last section down and cite specific examples related to the case.--MONGO 05:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I would basically not post what you have written in the last section after the comment..."We have people repeatedly tagging Matt Drudge and Larry Craig as gay, based on very dubious sourcing."...except to expand on that theme...stay away from the politics of the issue.--MONGO 05:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I may just kill that last section, or chop it way down. It's a little rantish, and I don't think the phenomenon is anything the arbitrators aren't already aware of. - Crockspot 03:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Or, they may feel the opposite as well. No doubt, the issue of misuse of biographies to attack political opponents is one of our biggest concerns.--MONGO 04:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten that section to remove all the left/right and ranting aspects, and posted it to the evidence page. I think I got my message through without making it political. I even invoked Hanlon's razor. :) - Crockspot 06:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Your comments are appreciated. ●DanMS • Talk 01:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• You can put Milner Dam on your to-do list, if it's not already. It's the only dam on the Snake River left to do. ●DanMS • Talk 04:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

 

Chris has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Save an egg crack a smile:)

MONGO, you're right. I failed in my civility. I was frustrated at our apparent failure to communicate. I'm sorry, and I'll be more careful not to post in hasted in.

You seem to think that I support linking to "attack sites", when in fact I don't. You also keep calling them "attack sites", which I think is hurting your case. I support your case, so what should I do when I see you hurting it? Should I look away, or try to help? You seem to generally take it wrong when I try to help, because you... I don't know what you must think I'm about. I've only ever been on your side, in every action.

I don't think you've replied to the arguments I have been making, about why making the policy explicit is a bad idea. I honestly believe that the best way to protect Wikipedians (my goal as well as yours) is to refrain from mentioning "attack sites" or the fact that there are sites "outing" Wikipedians, in policy. I think that would constitute a dangerous WP:BEANS violation. I don't feel you've addressed this point, and I'm hurt that you continue to suggest that I think linking to "attack sites" is ok. I don't, and I've said so clearly and repeatedly. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the trolling from my talk page, and also for the good work that I see you doing around here. :) ElinorD (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly...I see all your good work as well.--MONGO 18:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Design and construction of the World Trade Center - This article is one of a series of articles on the WTC that should be improved to WP:FA quality. It's ready for review now. Is the article comprehensive, or is it missing anything? Are the concepts here explained clearly enough? Any other suggestions would be welcome, should you have time to look over the article? --Aude (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to take the chance to approach you somewhere slightly less noisy than WT:NPA regarding your comments. First and foremost, I agree with your fundamental opinions: there are Very Bad Places doing Very Bad Things, and we shouldn't link to them.

On the other side of the coin, I see how the project has struggled to define "attack site" in a meaningful way (is Free Republic or LGF, both of which have engaged in outing at one point or another? or Stormfront, an attack site of a totally different sort?). I can see how keeping a master list of bad sites is a WP:BEANS problem, and even how directly saying there are bad sites out there trying to hurt people might invite publicity for them.

I've been trying to help and find a middle ground, but because both sides feel passionately about what they believe to be right — and because there are a few people whose good faith in the debate might be questioned — little progress has been made. Having a major policy page perm-protected with disclaimer labels hurts the project. It makes it look as though we cannot set our own standards. And, maybe that's because, at a certain level, we can't. But I think that, at some point, the community has to settle on something, and take to dispute resolution (likely fasttracked to ArbCom) those users who insist on disrupt the project, whether by posting injurious links or by other tendentious editing.

By administrative request, my proposal has been userfied to User:Serpent's Choice/NPA/Proposal. I'd like your appraisal, especially regarding the "Removal of text" section. It has been suggested that a "firmer" version of the acceptance clause may be required, and I am considering suggesting replacing "...absent a specific, compelling benefit..." with "...absent a demonstrated, compelling benefit to the encyclopedia that cannot be achieved without its inclusion...".

Do either of those satisfy your concerns? From the talk at NPA and BADSITES before that, it seems unlikely that policy text explicitly describing site-bans will survive long in the projectspace. Can this be an acceptable compromise? If not, please, offer suggestions. I've been attempting to negotiate a way out of this for a month, and even still, can barely get more than a scattering of editors to sit down at the table.

Regards, Serpent's Choice 06:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Any time, sweetie! ;) Btw, check your mail in a few mins, k? Hugs! Phaedriel - 17:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I also messed up a redirect I think...I don't nominate things for deletion very often, so I'm rusty.--MONGO 17:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Worry not, Sire, for I have fixed that too ;) Phaedriel - 17:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice...can you nail this one? When I moved the afd to the (2nd) since it was the second nomination, it created an unneeded redirect. I fixed the link to the correct afd on the article page already.--MONGO 17:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

PastorDavid got there two minutes before I did! :( Phaedriel - 17:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank thee very much, noble Princess.--MONGO 18:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi MONGO, thanks for your support in my RfA, which passed unopposed. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance. I also look forward to working more on articles for the Glaciers WikiProject once the assessments for WikiProject Volcanoes are done soon. And I still need to make the modified versions of {{Infobox Protected area}}, which sort of fell off my radar screen last week. --Seattle Skier (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Howdy! I see that you've re-created User:XP. You may not have realized it, but Rootology/XP requested (and was granted) a m:Right to vanish request. By recreating the page in question (and any other Rootology based ones) you're throwing a bit of a wrench in the works. If this is an error, please delete the pages. If there's a specific reason you're reversing Jimbo's decision on this, let me know. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I saw a note on the talk page so I tagged the account for who it is, so delete them both. I can't.--MONGO 06:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I've done so. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't use #wikipedia IRC, do you? --rogerd 19:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No...I have never used IRC, except gmail chat...but that isn't Wikipedia related of course. IRC is useful if something needs to be taken care of immediately...(an overt troll or BLP violation), but it has also been used to block people without discussion here on Wikipedia in enough detail...that has led to problems...but I know that wouldn't be something you would do anyway.--MONGO 19:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's for Ron Paul to be allowed in the debates. [1] --BenBurch 03:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hum...--MONGO 03:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello MONGO, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Men in Black Poster.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:MONGO/Archive03. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 13:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Tanks...me no chat with no bots!...opps did it anyway...duh.--MONGO 17:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I didn't wanna edit your user page; some (including me) frown on that.. but the "Stern Barnstar" has an outdated link due to archiving. Should be this -- Ling.Nut 15:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I went and done fixed 'er now...should be a-working'!--MONGO 17:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The elk page is looking good. I have been sidetracked as I was in the home stretch getting Common Raven to FAC; will be busy dealing with reviewer stuff I guess for a bit but whould be back soon to take a look. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 10:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...input appreciated.--MONGO 17:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, MONGO, I've just seen the new owl on your userpage. Fantastic photo, and lovely looking bird. I was curious, so I followed the link to Commons, and saw that you've given a lot of very fine images to the project, so I just want to say thanks. ElinorD (talk) 08:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		I, ElinorD (talk), award this barnstar to MONGO for all the good work he does here in contributing useful images, and especially for this one. 08:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow...! I can't say I deserve this one...I had a "captive audience" for my camera for the Burrowing Owl...he was only 5 feet or less away and in a walk through aviary...so he's used to having his/her picture taken and was very patient with me especially! The barnstar is very much appreciated!--MONGO 08:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens is now up for featured article review. The article is in pretty good shape, but lacks inline cites. Would you be interested in helping out with this, as you did with Yellowstone? --Aude (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I can try I suppose...thanks!--MONGO 18:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

USGS Professional Paper 1250 [2] appears to be a good, authoritative source, but not sure how much time I have to work on it myself. I'm beginning work on another featured article, United States Congress, that has no cites. --Aude (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoa...well, I see that yourself and a number of others have already been doing some fine tuning to the St. Helens article...I'll try and join in...let me know when U.S. Congress goes to peer review.--MONGO 18:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind...I see it is already featured...but lacking some of the same stuff the St. Helens article lacks.--MONGO 18:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Mongo, I have a question, how is is possible for some crazy "attack" discussion forums expose the real-life identity of Wikipedians? Does Dan Brandt have CIA skills or something? Please explain a little, thanks! Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

On a number of websites, editors actively try to work collaboratively to identify the real life identities of some of our editors. They then post this information openly. I'd rather not discuss the specifics of how they "find" the information, but indeed, some of these people are very skilled at tracking things across the web.--MONGO 21:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Which means, anonymity should not be taken granted on the internet, alas. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well probably not. Most people have much better things to do than to stalk others...but there is the infatuated, the jealous or the insane that seem to have so little self respect, they can't possibly have respect for others. Nevertheless, if we can do what we can to help our editors work here with a minimalization of harassment, then that is a good thing to strive for.--MONGO 21:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I also wanted to add that some of these people aren't very skilled, and instead post complete nonsense simply for the sake of harassment.--MONGO 21:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay I get it thanks MONGO, harassment is wrong, that's simple. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

	Friend, don't be sad as you read this, Whatever your trouble or grief, I want you to know and to heed this: The day draweth near with relief. No sorrow, no woe is unending, Though heaven seems voiceless and dumb; So sure as your cry is ascending, So surely an answer will come. Whatever temptation is near you, Whose eyes on this simple verse fall; Remember good angels will hear you And help you to stand, if you call. Though stunned with despair I beseech you, Whatever your losses, your need, Believe, when these written words reach you, Believe you were born to succeed. You are stronger, I tell you, this minute, Than any unfortunate fate! And the coveted prize - you can win it; While life lasts 'tis never too late!
Emily Dickinson

Love you, Phaedriel - 06:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, this is most kind.--MONGO 19:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have made roughly the same comment on Mr. Merkey's talk page, perhaps you could reinforce my message there? SirFozzie 21:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Also, thank you for having promptly listed them on AIV. Georgewilliamherbert 21:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I rarely do unless it is a BLP issue. Thanks for all your good work.--MONGO 21:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

So who's sock do you think this is? - Crockspot 23:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hum...I'm not sure.--MONGO 04:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I had a whole well-worded response to the anon's post and by the time I got it written, you had made it disappear....oh well. I posted it the anon's talk page, though I think User:Phaedriel would appericate it. :) Take Care....NeutralHomer ^T:C 20:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Had it been someone who was willing to use their regular account username, I would have left it on the talkpage. But since it's just someone trying to be a jerk, I figured it's best to remove it.--MONGO 20:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah....more than likely just someone wanting to, as my Great-Great Grandmother would say, "smack the beehive and see if he gets stung". I posted my response, though, on the anon's talk page, in case you want to read what I wrote. Took me a good 10mins to write that the way I wanted. Take Care....NeutralHomer ^T:C 20:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I agree with you as to the events of Anglo-Native relationships in the U.S. It is the American Holocaust.--MONGO 23:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No worries, User:Phaedriel responded on her talk page with something better than I could ever hope to write, so it all works out. Take Care....NeutralHomer ^T:C 00:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

 Hello, MONGO. Thank you very much for your kind support on my recent Rfa, it succeeded! I feel thrilled and hope to live up to your expectations. If you see me doing anything inappropriate, please do let me know. Thanks once again. ~ Best wishes, PeaceNT 11:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The upside and the downside of wikipedia is that anyone who can get to a computer stands on an equal footing with everyone else, regardless of knowledge and experience with a particular issue. I think we are seeing the downside at WP:NPA at the moment so I can't be bothered anymore and will carry on as I always have. If you spot anything dodgy that you need help keeping gone, please feel free to e-mail me and I will help where I can. Sophia 11:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, and thanks for all your work on the matter.--MONGO 18:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for so gallantly coming to my aid while I was receiving death threats! Wow! Wikipedia has all sorts of weird people! It makes me feel all the sorrier for people whose identities have been outed. I want to say also that it's nice to have vandalism or attacks reverted by friends. It makes me feel that there are people looking out for me, not just random RC patrollers, though of course I appreciate that very much, too, and sometimes do it myself. ElinorD (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I try to do whatever I can to keep the place as harassment free as possible. It was my pleasure...but to be knighted! With my luck my fate might be akin to this!...I have a distinct fear of rabbits...for obvious reasons!--MONGO 22:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I responded to your message here. Thanks. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPADE applies.[3]--MONGO 22:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Mongo, I asked several times on WT:NPA if it there is finally sufficient consensus for the removal of links where they are clearly not needed or justifiable. If so, I'd gladly start to politely ask users (perhaps per email, so as not to produce much noise) to remove those links. But examples like this one, where anybody is immediately catapulted to that site, should go. I assume we do agree on that much. —AldeBaer 11:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how long that link has been there. Well, I have said that I'm not going to be removing preexisting links, but if people want to ask users to not link to these pages and see how they react, then they have my support to do so.--MONGO 14:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I did. —AldeBaer 01:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen this essay? This guy is ranting censorship and all, while missing the whole point about "bad sites". The proposal is about sites that are actively trying to harm wikipedia editors! --rogerd 13:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, precisely...I got to the part about Nazis and stop reading it. The issue is about websites that actively engage in efforts to identify the real life identities of our contributors. One reason that a lot of the victims of these attacks have not come forward to fight the issue is because they don't want further reprecussions from the trolls and very bored people who have already caused them grief. Thanks for recognizing what the reality of this situation is.--MONGO 17:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)