Archives Archive 1 (January 2005 to June 2005) Archive 2 (July 2005 to October 2005) Archive 3 (November 2005) Archive 4 (December 2005) Archive 5 (January 2006) Archive 6 (February 2006) Archive 7 (March 2006) Archive 8 (April 2006) Archive 9 (May 2006) Archive 10 (June 2006) Archive 11 (July/August 2006) Archive 12 (September 2006) Archive 13 (October 2006) Archive 14 (November 2006) Archive 15 (December 2006) Archive 16 (January 2007) Archive 17 (February 2007) Archive 18 (March 2007) Archive 19 (April 2007) Archive 20 (May 2007) Archive 21 (June 2007) Archive 22 (July 2007) Archive 23 (August 2007) Archive 24 (September/October 2007) Archive 25 (November/December 2007) Archive 26 (January, February and March 2008) Archive 27 (April to December 2008) Archive 28 (2009) Archive 29 (January to June 2010) Archive 30 (July to December 2010)) Archive 31 (2011))

Would you please provide your opinion any of the proposals given on the 9/11 article talk page?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks. It's refreshing to have someone compliment me on my maturity rather than point out my age.

Anyway, keep up what you do - we need level-headed editors. :) Toa Nidhiki05 02:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure...if indeed your age is what you claim, I am the one that may need lessons from you in maturity for I seem to lack it at times when I most need it. Best wishes!--MONGO 03:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you said, wow. "Amanda", the NYU student who "trying to understand the ins and outs of Wiki to further her knowledge of the online encyclopedia", certainly has a deep voice, no? It added a certain entertainment value to my otherwise mundane Monday morning. Antandrus (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, lessons learned the hard way...besides the threats to you and others which sounded like you were all headed to some waterboarding experiences at GITMO, I was particularily amused by how she changes all your delete votes to keep at the Afd! I don't think I've ever seen that before...MONGO 19:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have started one at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 3. If you would like to add yourself as a certifying party and perhaps make a statement, it would be appreciated. Also, if you would like to change the formatting a bit, please feel free. This is my first RfC creation and this also isn't a common type of RfC, so I used a generalized format. Silverseren^C 23:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mongo, I'll put it up this afternoon if you promise to fix all the links to DAB pages so the bots don't attack me. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a pain...the BOTS are taking over! While some useful, others hardly give a feller the time to make an adjusting edit...I will surely help you on this, but the speed and determination of these BOT-zoids will make it tough to guarantee that they won't show up en masse at your talkpage with warnings of impending doom.--MONGO 18:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its done at List of mountain ranges in Idaho --Mike Cline (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah oh...too fast...I am just now heading out...won't be much help until 6pm CST...oops.--MONGO 19:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

....is at FAC. I'm ok on the prose and formatting but am not hugely familiar with it, so might benefit from review by a local.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure...will take a look...I live 12 miles from the river, but spend more time near the Platte River which flows into it. Nice to hear from you.--MONGO 01:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning what you said to Mkat, when an editor essentially starts Godwinning an article in such a blatant manner I think admins tend to give out lengthy sanctions. An ARBPIA case recently was filed on an editor who kept trying to insert the Nazi flag into the belligerents section of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War article alongside the Arab states and that editor also got indeffed. As to your comment about my history with him, I didn't file the request out of any hostility to Tom. Obviously he was intent on inserting woefully inappropriate statements into prominent parts of the article that essentially smeared all adherents of 9/11 conspiracy theories as antisemitic even after I asked him to stop. Something that far off the reservation should generally not be overlooked, in my opinion, and I have overlooked a lot.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is it that is "far off the reservation" in your opinion...perhaps I am overlooking something.--MONGO 23:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The basic problem with Tom's edits 2, 3 and 4 is that it looks like he was purposely putting stuff into the article to make CT look bad, as opposed to simply writing about it neutrally.

Also, while I think the For Dummies books meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability, it doesn't look good. It's a shame, too, because there are stronger sources as I pointed out at the talk page of AE.

But indefinite banning of a productive editor for a first time offense is beyond the pale. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The For Dummies series of books are generally well reviewed and authoritative...so if the admins in this matter had been doing a decent job they may have considered that The Devils Advocate, the filer of this request for arbcom enforcement, had himself been topic banned in this area for 30 days not too long ago and has had 2 blocks placed against him also due to this topic area...and Tom harrison commented at the arbcom enforcement request against The Devils Advocate back in November...Tom has been editing for 8 years, never been blocked or topic banned and the admins in this case seem to have no idea what a benefit it has been to have Tom harrison work in this difficult topic area and yet always remain cool, always use reliable sources and be a tremendous benefit to Wikipedia...his "reward" for doing such a fine job is to be told to go away it seems...I am totally disgusted...these admins have done no justice here.--MONGO 00:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, many the CT's regarding 9/11 DO HAVE a strong anti-Jewish undertones...the entire CT that "no Jews died on 9/11" was indeed hate mongering from anti-Jewish sources...just to be clear, I am not Jewish, nor is Tom Harrison I don't think.--MONGO 00:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know, and I pointed that out at AE talk.[1] AQFK (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've only been consulting the banning admin...I haven't yet asked why the one admin who gave a 30 day topic ban to TDA but supported an indefinite ban on Tom Harrison...I've worked with Tom harrison a long time on this website and I know he is meek and he isn't ever going to want this to be some drama-bomb for him...you have no idea what level of harassment he has sidestepped in his efforts to keep the CT's at bay...this injustice is not going to stand.--MONGO 01:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For example, adding in the editorial voice the claim that 9/11 conspiracy theories "in fact" articulate antisemitic themes while "ostensibly" blaming others was plainly in appropriate. Putting it in the lede of the article was even more inappropriate. The things Tom was inserting were all in the editorial voice, all placed high up in the article, and all highly inflammatory. Don't you think saying 9/11 conspiracy theories and all other conspiracy theories have their origin in "hatred and fear of Jews" is inflammatory?

Now, as to the fact that he has been involved for a long time, I think that would have worked well had he not made insertions like that three times in a row despite the obviously objectionable nature of the edits. Also, Tom probably did himself no favors with the kind of responses he left on the AE case. Seems to me this is symptomatic of the issues with any article on conspiracy theories. People who plainly express their disdain for conspiracy theories too often use WP:V as a way to ignore basically every other policy at times plainly running afoul of common sense. It is also taken too readily that any editor that tries to have articles be less absolute about describing the conspiracy theories must agree with them and therefore must be editing tendentiously. Unfortunately, this is the result of a systemic bias that goes well beyond Wikipedia.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was a momentary lapse in reason. Apart from this one incident, has Tom H seemed reasonable to you? Do you honestly think he deserves an indefinite topic ban? AQFK (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even think I would say that...the diffs provided by TDA didn't = indefinite ban...if there was an edit war going on, why not protect the page...instead, some overzealous admins wanted to show their "power" by once again overreacting.--MONGO 02:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I don't like it when anyone is given an indef, but sometimes people dig their own graves and there is not much to do about it. While an editor with a long editing history and clean block log gets a lot more consideration and good will there are plenty of things they can do to lose it all. Had Tom made one edit like that, I think the admins might have given him some slack, but three edits like that obviously exhausted his good will. Take a step back and imagine if it was the other way around like some article on skeptics getting repeated edits essentially claiming skeptics are all religion-hating Stalinists. Even if the editor was also otherwise productive I imagine you would be less sympathetic to them. Sometimes admins really do overstep, but I think you will have a hard time convincing anyone that this was one of those times. I am sure if Tom goes on making good contributions elsewhere there will be some positive consideration of a future appeal provided he is apologetic about those actions.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't post here again...ever.MONGO 12:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there was some way to email you, but I didn't figure it out, so I am ccing you on your talk page:

Forwarded message ----------

From: Beth Wellington <communitypoweredreporting@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 2:12 PM Subject: Why reliable new editors/ female editors may be discouraged To: Fabrice Florin <fflorin@wikimedia.org> Cc: Alan Aycock <aycock@uwm.edu>, John Aycock <aycock@ucalgary.ca>

Fabrice,

Since, in your new position, you are tasked w. encouraging new editors, I thought this might be of interest...

In 2005, I spent lot of time editing the article "Walmarting" to prevent it from being deleted as I knew that it was an academic neologism from writing about Wal-mart for the New River Free Press.

Today, scanning down my talk page, I happened to notice an old entry from Alan Aycock. an antropologist at the University of Wisconsin under the user name Aaycock. http://www4.uwm.edu/letsci/anthropology/faculty/aycock.cfm

His name showed in red, which I knew it hadn't at the time he wrote me: Beth, I'm the Anthropology professor referred to in the links for this entry. I've attempted to fill out the definition of Walmarting a little based on my own reading of the (amazingly substantial) literature. I've striven for a NPOV, though I'm not entirely satisfied on this score and would welcome further interventions! best, Alan Aycock (aycock@uwm.edu) Note: The preceeding unsigned comment was added by--Aacock 07:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It turned out his user name had been deleted in 2008 by MZMcBride, whomever that may be, s/he has no bio on the user page, but from the talk page appears to be very active. Here's what I left at that user's page:

Walmarting article. Not sure why you deleted this user as he is an anthropologist, Alan Aycock, Ph.D. who coined the term and indicated on my talk page back in 2006 that he had edited my work to clarify the concept when the article was in danger of deletion. (cur | prev) 09:49, 30 April 2006‎ Aaycock (talk | contribs)‎ (5,725 bytes) (→Background) (undo) (cur | prev) 07:54, 30 April 2006‎ Aaycock (talk | contribs)‎ (5,692 bytes) (→Background) (undo) (cur | prev) 07:40, 30 April 2006‎ Aaycock (talk | contribs)‎ (5,639 bytes) (→Background) (undo)

He even wrote about the experience of editing in this article: http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ854850.pdf

In the article, you will see that he even encouraged his students. Also in that article, hs co-author John Aycock notes:

Thanks to one Wikipedia entry, I was sent on a wild goose chase while preparing my lecture for a computer science class. And after all this...[the unsubtantiated date],1588 still persists in the Wikipedia universe – the digging I’ve done constitutes original research, which is prohibited content according to Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia, c). Ironically, if Aycock were to pubish the results of his digging in an article on the topic, rather than about Wikipedia and I were to cite them, they wouldn't be "original research."

BTW, User MONGO was very helpful and pleasant in dealing w. me on the article. And yet for some reason he lost his sysop privileges and was unable to get them reinstated.

Forgot to name stamp: --Beth Wellington (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

B.

At left under toolbox there is a link "email this user"...but you have to have your email enabled as well. It's been a loooong time, but nice to hear to hear from you. Walmarting is still an article, User:Aacock was an account deleted under category for speedy deletion, nonexistent user [2]...--MONGO 07:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Falls

Thanks, I didn't even know there was a Cowstar! It will help keep me from having a cow. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that one is my own invention!--MONGO 22:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More like he needs anyone who questions the result of the case banned; God-forbid we do so, because questioning an admin will cause something mind-bogglingly terrible to happen! All this really does it give more legitimacy to the argument that he is seeking retaliatory blocks/bans against anyone who has done something he doesn't like. Toa Nidhiki05 23:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is well put. I generally really hate questioning adminstrators...they aren't paid to do what they do and most of them do just fine...I imagine even the three involved in this affair are probably fine overall. The issue I have is that the parameters make it difficult for the administrators to dwelve deeper into the situation so that they may make a more impartial assessment....3 edits possibly construed as problematic enough to warrant an indefinite topic ban vs. the (I'm probably underestimating) 5000 edits to the same topic area that no one else found an issue with. There isn't much justice sometimes, not here or in real ife...about all Tom can hope for now should he even want to edit 9/11 pages again is that the one administrator Tim, will discuss the situation with WGFinley...--MONGO 23:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, its sad. The ban is entire inappropriate as an indef, but at least Tom is fighting it now. Toa Nidhiki05 23:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was overkill...--MONGO 23:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, but this is an impressive first edit.--MONGO 00:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And how long it stayed dormant until then. Can't imagine why. --DHeyward (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you DHeyward...and interesting...MONGO 12:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, just finished off a set of list of the trails of Wyoming for your editing pleasure. List of trails in Wyoming. Let the bots begin. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice...yeah...lots of redlined links...I keep repeatedly seeing people say the majority of articles have already been written...that isn't true by a long shot.--MONGO 03:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Honorsteem again. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you get stations in Kansas City with that? Acroterion (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can reach all the way to Greenland and see how the latest invasion is going...--MONGO 19:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think the Vikings had digital TV. Make sure to put a carefully crafted lining of tinfoil in to keep the satellite control channels from getting in. Acroterion (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure it's real tin. Aluminum just amplifies their signal. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it's tin lined already...from the finest tin mines in Norway, with a shell of bronze...I use it only for ceremonial purposes...in actual battle such as at the 9/11 articles, I wear the Modular Integrated Communications Helmet...--MONGO 22:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Granite Canyon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Marion Lake

Middle Fork Cut Off Trail (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Marion Lake

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I'd like to include your "We need to fight to the end to do everything possible to keep paid corporate hacks off this website" (J.Wales's talk) on my user page. Would you feel comfortable with that? If not, would it be OK with you for me to quote it without attribution? Writegeist (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

--MONGO 22:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spiffing. Writegeist (talk) 05:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find edits like this to be unacceptable, so I am raising the possibility of a topic ban for you here. --John (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]