User:MONGO/user talk achive 2

rchived Talk 1

need your help on two RFCs

Please visit these pages and post a comment in support with an example of how this is true. Thanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User:Gamaliel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User:Robert_McClenon 24.147.97.230 17:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

RfC

Yes, I posted the RfC more than twenty-four hours ago. I assume that's why we're seeing comments from people who haven't previously been involved in editing the page. JamesMLane 21:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Godwin's law

You might want to check out Talk:Godwin's law, where Mike Godwin himself has stopped by to discuss the Wikipedia article. JamesMLane 11:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FYI

I've brought your actions on the George W. Bush article to the attention of an admin for clarification. I will, or they will notify you of the result. -bro 172.149.84.231 07:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, regarding not being able to talk to me, I have left numerous messages on the talk page, you can leave anything you wish for me to read there. -bro 172.149.84.231 07:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please see the George W. Bush talk page. -bro 172.149.84.231 08:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

sock puppet vandal garbage removed

Now, that seems rather rude. I'm beginning to doubt the ability to grant good faith to you with things like this. It's your user page, so do as you like, but you may want to consider how it effects -your- reputation. -bro 172.149.84.231 12:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again, there has been much discussion in regards to these issues, you have some strong sentiments so I encourage you to participate with others that have worked hard to create a neutral article with a minimal of redundancy. MONGO

Considering the blind reverts, solely on the basis of 'You don't have an account', and then the personal attacks here, I have a rather hard time believing you. You might also want to post the diff's to your 3rr post, as that is whats asked for. -bro 172.149.84.231 12:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not tolerate anyone using a sockpuppet account and am a strict adherent to Wikipedia:Accountability. The evidence of sockpuppet account is here[[1]].--MONGO 08:04, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

3RR

1. I'm afraid that I don't know what "summarily the same" means.

And you teach at Oxford???

I know what "summarily dismissed" or "summarily exectued" mean. My guess is that you mant that they were the saem in basic intent or content — but that's not enough for a 3RR violation. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They are the same in content to a dgree...I see that they aren't as far as the 3RR rule applies.

2. I made no personal attacks, and said nothing about your motivations.

Then what do you call this[[2]]

Neither a personal attack nor a comment about your motivation. I can see that a misunderstanding of personal attackmight have led you atray with regard to the former claim, but the latter leaves me completely at a loss. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your statement that I utilize my account primarily for disruption is a personal attack..perhaps you didn't blatently curse me, but how else can a person read your comment unless, by your definition, it isn't a personal attack but an opinion you have. By my interpretation of the comment, you both make a claim as to my purpose and as to my motivations.

3. I'm not sure how a "predisposed bias" differs from an ordinary bias, but I suffer from neither; I looked at the evidence.

After the first two comments, it would be hard for me to believe that you know what evidence is.

It's what I found in your contributions history, and what I found in the edit history of the article in question. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

4. Incidentally, you may, of course, delete material from your Talk page, though it's generally considered as an indication that you have something to hide. The material that you've been deleting is not, however, vandalism — not on any definition of that term, and certainly not on Wikipedia's. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My deletion of this nonsense is due to the opinion that this person is a vandal who also vandalized my user page...I have nothing to "hide" as it is all right there in the history, isn't it.

So whatever someone who has (putatively) vandalised in one place does is ipso facto vandalism, regardless of content? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I assume this is in reference to me, if you would be so kind, what exactly was this 'vandalism'? Thanks. -bro 172.147.73.11 22:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I tracked your IP...you are one and the same and we both know what I am talking about. New IP already I see...how convienent.

As I've already mentioned, I am on dialup. As I have also mentioned regarding the vandalism you attributed to me on the 3RR page, we do indeed share the same ISP, along with millions of others. I certainly object to what you labeled vandalism in my posts here on your userpage, but as I said then, thats your perogative. You only have your own reputation to tarnish in throwing around accusations and insults. -bro 172.147.73.11

00:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If anyone's reputation is at stake, it is yours for your continued refusal to create a user page...what's with this adolescent "bro" crap? the wording you cite is in the linked text so it's not like your contribution is any great discovery.

As mentioned on the talk page, the whole of the paragraph is listed in the linked text, so your reasoning is deeply flawed. Putting aside the personal attack in the 'adolescent' crack, bro is the moniker I use to allow people to recognize me in other ways than the IP address. I suppose MONGO is somehow more professional? -bro 172.147.73.11 00:39, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's an actual nickname given to me...being 6'8" and about 265 pounds, friends thought I reminded them of the character played by actor Alex Karras in the movie Blazing Saddles...it's a Montana thing, kid.

Image:Elliott Knob.jpg

Hi. You uploaded Image:Elliott Knob.jpg but did not list any source and/or copyright information on the image description page. Please mark it either as GFDL or public domain. See Image copyright tags for more info. If the image was uploaded in error or cannot be licensed for use on Wikipedia, please add it to images for deletion. Please note that images without copyright information may be deleted in the future. Thanks. RedWolf 16:36, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I wasn't implying the image was a copyright violation but I think you've realized that with your comments on my talk page. What I wrote above is a standard blurb I place on user talk pages concerning images that do not have source/copyright info. I copy/paste it from a local file to save time. Thanks for your quick response in identifying this photo as your own. I might mention that if you are planning to upload any more photos, you might want to consider putting them onto Commons (instead of uploading them onto the English wiki) so that the photos can be readily used by the other language wikis. There's nothing special you need to do to reference the images on Commons. Use the same image markup as if the image was on this Wiki and the server will automatically look on Commons if it can't find it on here. RedWolf June 28, 2005 04:28 (UTC)

Taken from talk: Fahrenheit_9/11/Not_a_documentary"

Now it's a poll? I always thought it was a request for comments. Regardless, Moore's movie is a propaganda documentary at the very least..his removal from considerations for any potential Oscars to ensure it would be seen on video by voters prior to the 2004 elections is all the proof we need.--MONGO 15:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If it were to be assumed that Moore's movie isn't propaganda, this would not change his desire to show it prior to the 2004 elections. So you're saying if it wasn't propaganda, he wouldn't have shown it? --kizzle 00:37, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Moore's movie Bowling for Columbine did well in awards and F911 did well at Cannes...he made the arrangements to ensure the movie would get on video before the elctions and by doing so he knew it would be eliminated from any Oscar considerations...but did it anyway. I can't say that he wouldn't have shown it...but I can say that it seems a little "timely"...although, due to the potentialities of bigger revenues some could also claim that his motivations were apolitical and instead based on money...somehow, I would not be inclined to believe this to be the case.--MONGO 07:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I agree he tried to release it on video to sway potential voters, he even admitted as much on his web-site. I just don't see how this a priori renders F9/11 propaganda? --kizzle 21:08, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps caling it propaganda isn't best...regardless, his efforts didn't work...the more the Democrats allow the hollywood bunch to do their talking for them, the more mainstream/centrist Americans become alienated and the harder it will be for the Democrats to regain the White House.--MONGO 21:33, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm real sick of that line, heard it about a billion times. You must watch Fox News a lot. Kerry didn't lose because of F9/11, nor did it have a negative effect on his poll numbers, unless you want to cite a poll to prove me wrong. It actually had the opposite, and helped the base along with undecideds. Just because Kerry lost, doesn't mean you can look at everything he did and say, see that's why he lost. If Bush arbitrarily had 120,000 less votes in Ohio, you could cite about a billion reasons why he lost overall.

The best way Democrats can regain the White House is to somehow educate the mainstream/centrist/republicans is that these people represent a fringe extremist section of the Republican party, and do not, in fact, speak for the majority of people except for hard-core chickenhawks who believe that the best Midde-Eastern policy is to get our hands in their political system as much as possible to avoid a Pan-Arabic movement that spurns World War III. 95% of Americans (upper middle-class, middle-class, and the poor), even those in the heartland, care about is having a good job, caring for their family, and being able to express their ideas in a free society. Somehow, these people must be taught that the Republican party as run today only represents the 5% that cares about how their stock is doing, and how they can increase the shareholder price of their corporation by firing US workers and hiring labor for a quarter of the price in India. That is how the Democrats will win, not whether or not some movie comes out. Your attribution of significance to Michael Moore is over-emphasized, it is the Democratic party which needs to change, not Hollywood, who, in making movies, has a right to express their beliefs just like any other American, or is there an inverse relationship between the amount of fame you have and your right to freedom of speech? Extremism is bad in either direction, be it Michael Moore or George W. Bush (meaning Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz), once people know these extremists for who they are and vote their conscience rather than their personal ability to make money off the candidate or that you could see yourself "buying a beer" with him, we can keep them out of the White House altogether and not be in the deep shit we are in, with the rest of the world who hates us, a country with a president's approval ratings the worst since the last president to forcefully resign in shame from the office, and a war with no end in sight, no exit strategy, and less troops and recruits by the day. --kizzle 22:51, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Continued:

Kizzle, corporations always look for the cheapest labor...this has happened throughout history...firing American workers is bad, but the American consumer wants products delivered to them at a certain rate and to remain competitive, corporations always look at ways to cut costs and one way to do this is through outsourcing their labor. I don't like this either, but to assume that corporations are solely hell bent on screwing over the American worker is incorrect..that doesn't mean that I have any admiration for the CEO's or the other fat cats in charge either.
- True, but extrapolate the situation into the future, all things being equal and considering current trends stay the way they are, do you see this as a good thing or bad? Of COURSE corporations are not bent on screwing over the American worker, but they do not have any responsibility to them either. Mainly, assuming things stay the way they are and more corporations outsource labor to foreign countries, what do you see the impact is on American life?--kizzle 23:42, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

It has a lot to do with globalization...I don't agree with it, but it is what the market will bear...in time perhaps their will be more parity for the rest of the world to the standards economically with the U.S., but the sweatshops may provide a higher standard of living than those people may enjoy currently, but since they live within their means, they become hostages to the income and without proper labor laws in place in those countries, they are almost universally takne advantage of...long term this will breed increased animositites towards the U.S. Long term for the American worker, I'm not sure what the outlook is. My experience with the private sector is that it is a dog eat dog world and few of them have any feelings of obligations to their staffs.

What is the impact on *American life* given continuously increasing outsourcing of American jobs to foreign countries? Is this not ok but to hunt for a possible solution is too hard? --kizzle 00:45, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the corporate world cares. You can always be replaced...this happens all the time. Eventually the only things we will end up exporting is technology and military arms cause we aren't do much manufacturing here otherwise. The world becomes more interdependent everyday and the only good thing is that due to this need for one another, perhaps it will reduce the chances of war...as far as the American worker, well, all he/she can do is continue to get retrained and to be prepared to commit to the understanding that they are expendable...it stinks, but that's probably not going to change.

K, that's what I thought your answer would be, that it sucks, its only going to get worse, but its probably not going to change. --kizzle 01:33, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Moore has every right to produce whatever he wants and I would never impede on that. I was merely saying without attributing Kerry's loss to Bush just because of Moore's movie, that regardless of what Moore's likly hopes were from ensuring the movie made it to video prior to the election, Moore's efforts did not contribute enough to ensure a democratic victory.
- Fair enough, but I think that was Kerry's incompetence more than the Democratic party. --kizzle 23:42, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Kerry was viewed and portrayed as a northeastern liberal and this, regardless of it's factuality, probably cost him the election. I personally had no beef with the guy.

Unfornately, I would be much more likly to have a beer with Cheney than I would Michael Moore...in fact I wouldn't even have a beer with Sean Penn, Tim Robbins or any of the other elistist holly types...the reason...they only use their position as a platform to spew their opinion...I don't like it when people of fame think that because they have access to the media they can use that as their political pulpit...this does not mean that I disagree with them...I just simply don't care what their opinion is...not do I care about what they do on Saturday mornings or who they slept with or anything else about their private lives...I wish they would just recognize that they simply have occupations that put them in the limelight, but overall, I don't respect their opinions or find their talents in their respective fields to be any more specialized than a finish carpenter....the carpenter may have great expertise, but without access to the media, their opinion is never heard...what great gift of insight does the hollywood movie star have? Zero...they live in a fantasy world.
- Of course, and being one of the biggest South Park fans in the world, you are in agreement with its creator in Team America's (one of my favorite movies) take on things. I'm somewhere in-between... these people have opinions too and in my mind are welcome to share it. It's when they believe that their opinion matters *because* they are a celebrity and not of the merit of the argument they are making, that I have a problem, which is something to the effect of what Trey said. Who cares if their occupation put them in the limelight, that's why Pat Buchanan, Chris Matthews, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and most all political pundits are there. What extremely special qualifications make them so much more authoratative or give them a license to dictate to us how they feel about current events than other celebrities? I'd take a finish carpenter to tell me the news over Hannity anyday. --kizzle 23:42, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't see Team America but know that it's attempts were solely comedic and rather insulting to some. I think these guys must be conservatives, but I imagine that they are more interested simply in lampooning the big mouths that seem to use their positions of limelight for political fingerpointing. I also understand that in the movie Team America, the puppets also made American attempts to fight terrorism look rather idiotic with the puppets destroying Paris and running roughshod all over the middle east. Everyone has a right to say whatever they want, so long as they understand that this is a well educated society that has been taught for 200 plus years to question their imput. I guess those you mention above have zero special abilities as well, but it is what they do...they are not actors, they are political commentators...it is their occupation.

C'mon Mongo, "it is their occupation"? That's the best justification you're going to give for why we get to hear hours of drivel every day from Hannity, O'Reilly, etc.? Because that's what they do? You didn't even attempt to justify their qualifications! :) Trey Parker and Matt Stone are definetely centrists who rip on both sides of the spectrum, and they take issue with Hollywood giving their opinions like you do. The brilliance in Parker's humor is disguising a well-crafted blade of social commentary with an extreme density of curses and fart jokes... doesn't sound like you buy into it, but maybe you should give it a try, specifically the South Park movie, I promise you won't be disappointed. Anyways, yes there are some Hollywood elites who believe that the world should hear them because of the celebrity status instead of their actual viewpoint, those people are definetely idiots. But we shouldn't simply ignore all of them either. It's a bit ironic in my mind that one of the most revered presidents (by Republicans) in history, Ronald Reagan, came from Hollywood. And as for a well-educated society that questions what information their given, you must be talking about another country. Cause it sure as hell isn't where I grew up. --kizzle 00:45, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the political commentators are correct, it's just this is their occupation...so not only do we have them on T.V. but also on the radio, sprinkled throughout the newspapers...etc. Perhaps I also overstated the abilty for Americans to question..I should have said that we have the right to question.

Right, but I'm questioning the personal qualifications in your eyes the "pundits" possess which gives them a license (in your mind) to preach their personal viewpoints on current events that all famous people (in your mind) do not possess. --kizzle 01:33, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle, I don't know if the political commentators have any more right than anyone else...all I am saying is, and I'm not agreeing with them, that this is what they do for an occupation...actors, act for an occupation...I have no qualms about them voicing their opinion...I would just prefer if they stuck to what they do best...which is act...I really enjoy movies, but honestly, regardless if they support the NRA such as Heston and Selleck do or are very vocally opposed to the Iraq war as is Penn and Redford, I just prefer them to understand that we love them for their talent to entertain us, not for their ability to use their positions as pulpits to preach from. I'm not sure if that answers your question or not...but I let me gather my thoughts (I'll need 7-10 minutes and a book about a pet goat!) and I'll get back to you.:)--MONGO 28 June 2005 08:14 (UTC)

I'll be waiting :). On a side note, my personal opinion about the whole pet goat episode in f9/11 is that I totally understand Bush sitting there dumbstruck by the news. We were all dumbstruck, and while I might not think it was the best course of action, I don't blame him for it. What I do blame, is his ex post facto justification that "he was trying to calm the children" which is complete bullshit. The fact that he can't admit he just froze is what pisses me off about that whole episode. --kizzle June 28, 2005 16:21 (UTC)

I think he simply was in shock. And I think he ended up looking like a moron....maybe he is, who knows. I think you have me...as far as justifing why the actors have less right to continuously belch their political opinions than the Hannity, Limbaugh, Franken (who was an actorsort of) and the rest of the paid commentators. Again, I think the only thing I can say is that, and this is the same thing so I'll have to end on this note, is that the paid commentators do that for a living...and that probably, makes them less likely to be qualified since their motivations are based more on financial gain, than what their true opinions may be...afterall, would Limbaugh be as successful if he was sometimes radical? Whereby and actor is merely stating an opinion...and the notority of such opinion is probably not always beneficial to their career...but overall, I wish they would just stick to acting, but naturally, they ahve as much right as anyone to voice their opinions.--MONGO 28 June 2005 20:14 (UTC)

Admin

MONGO: If you have a moment I hope you would seriously consider this nomination Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Feco. Thanks.Nobs01 30 June 2005 17:12 (UTC)

I reserach his/her contributions and consider it, thanks for believing that my opinion matters, Nobs!--MONGO 30 June 2005 19:46 (UTC)

Chinese Wall pic in the Bob

MONGO: I would encourage you to go ahead and post your Chinese Wall photo, even if it is lo-res. After all, in en, we just use 200-250 px thumbs anyway: many photos look good at that resolution. And, the pic that I used in Bob Marshall Wilderness was just taken off a random page in the Flathead National Forest web site -- I don't think it shows the Bob that well, anyway. So, feel free to dump the USFS pic for your Chinese Wall pic, if you think it's better. -- hike395 July 5, 2005 01:20 (UTC)

Although, I did just find http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/flathead/wilderness/Wilderness.htm, which has some pretty cool pics. I may use them for the NF article, anyway. You be the judge: I don't know what your Chinese Wall pic looks like. --- hike395

That's an awesome photo! If you have something that looks like that, I would say ditch the USFS photos and use yours, unless yours is really lo-res and obviously blurry. -- hike395 July 5, 2005 07:20 (UTC)

Brodo

I have moved an article of yours to User:MONGO/sockpuppet Brodo. -- RHaworth 2005 July 9 07:24 (UTC)

This is no way to react when you lose a minor debate. For the record, you simp, my first name is Brodie. I live in Seattle. Don't do sockpuppets, never have. Don't see any point. Lots of people use "bro"... similar to "dude" for suburban whites. You're a paranoid schmuck with a vendetta and I'll never take anything you do or say on Wikipedia seriously again. Brodo 01:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't Rfc the info. You and bro are one and the same. The only contributions you make are personal attacks...you are not fooling anyone...I don't care if you take me seriously. I never took you seriously to begin with.--MONGO 02:19, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

oh snap! --kizzle 02:47, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Ooo OOo, can I play? I would find it extremely entertaining for you to point out just 1 personal attack by me. I certainly can do so for you if you wish. -bro 172.165.157.184 03:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Why would I need to do that if you can do it for me? Personally, if the evidence is so unfounded, why would you be taking offense? If you read the evidence, I never accused you of wrong doing, only accused Brodo of having a sockpuppet account (you/him/both) and there's no rule against that so long as you follow the rules governing it. It's not impossible I am wrong, but the evidence supports events which are awfully hard refute...and so far, you haven't refuted anything.--MONGO 03:37, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Where have I taken offense? I find it rather entertaining, almost as much as your floundering on the 3RR page. But hey, funny is funny. As for refuting, whats there to refute? Your evidence is '1.look 2 users who haven't posted at the exact same time, but of course I don't know all the dynamic IP's bro has had so of course this is ridiculous on its face. 2. OMG they edited the same article. 3. They both have 'bro' in their name!!11one11!! 4. bro mentioned election fraud in washingon when discussing election fraud, and the brodo says he lives in washington!' Your 'evidence' needs no refuting, as it doesn't even qualify as evidence. -bro 172.165.157.184 04:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Why did you ask me to post evidence that you have made a personal attack, when my response was to Brodo? Interesting that a graphic Brodo has that only links to 3 pages in 600,000 plus namespaces one of which you posted details on discussing washington state election controversies which is where you and your alter ego are from. No one from virginia as YOU claim to be from could give a darn about the election irregularities in washington after nine months...only someone who lives there would be pushing that argument...why not push Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida...everyone there made it clear it was a presidential discussion, but you kept pushing it....your ruse isn't working. Why didn't you get mad yesterday when you "noticed it"...why are you mad at all?--MONGO 04:22, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I think you could benefit from reading what you type "You and bro are one and the same. The only contributions you make are personal attacks...you are not fooling anyone." And, uh, it might surprise you to know that some people are quite involved, and informed about many different things, not to mention that the recent trial regarding the fraud in that election came to a close only a few weeks ago. Ohio et al were already included in the article, once again, you swing and miss. Pity that you only have knowledge about things that occur where you live. -bro 172.165.157.184 04:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow. --kizzle 05:21, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

172-bro-Brodo, I am sorry if my post made you so mad...that wasn't my intention. However, the most common pattern of guilt denial is being set in textbook example by you. A cup of warm milk might help you.--MONGO 06:57, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Again, where have I taken offense, or gotten mad? Amusing as your delusions are, I can't help but whack you with a cluebat when you present such a large target. Mistaking destruction of your arguments for anger or offense shouldn't be all that surprising given your record. Oh, and I'm partial to chocolate milk, thanks. -bro 172.165.157.184 07:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Then warm chocolate milk for yourselfs.--MONGO 07:25, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Anybody still reading this has to be amazed that a Republican like yourself smokes this much weed. Seriously, explain to me how an AOL dialup account in West Virginia proves that... uh... whatever you are feverishly "proving" here. I live in Seattle, so OF COURSE I'm the same person as some dude in W. Virginia who enjoys winding your sorry ass up. IT ALL MAKES SENSE. Just like supply-side economics!

Actually, let it be known: there is no Brodo, no MONGO, and no guy in WV who likes to post without registering. We're all kizzle

Do they give barnstars for being a douchebag? --kizzle 07:52, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Hey Thanks...I like that picture on your user page...wonder what happened here to you: [[3]]...were you so upset for your split personality "-bro" that you looked up Calton to see if the awful slander I said about you had been removed? I see you decide to track his edits and make one right after he did. I still don't understand why you're so upset about all this...if you want to have a sock puppet that's fine...but the only thing you do by adorning your user page with my beautiful picture is make it, well, more beautiful!--MONGO 06:59, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, its Virginia, not West Virginia, I can take just about any insult but that one...-bro 172.137.190.250 23:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Then stop insulting yourself! Do you have anything, I mean anything at all to contribute to Wikipedia that might make it better? You sign in and come directly to my user talk...what a tormented fellow you must be.--MONGO 00:31, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Uh, A) I watch all the pages that I leave comments on/edit. B) Your inability to stalk my edits seems to bother you something fierce. C) Stop insulting yourself? Is that the equivalent to 'Stop hitting yourself'? Surely you can do better. D) Considering your obsession with this sockpuppetry fantasy, you should really bring it up to David Gerard. You can even point this comment out to him that I say he can/should do his thing. I would enjoy it greatly. -bro 172.137.190.250 10:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Like a bad cold, you just won't go away. You really should read this: Internet troll.--MONGO 11:07, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, As you say, David Gerard can check all the IP's to a user, but he cannot check to see if you and Brodo are one and the same with the code in place. Reason: you're logging in from two different places. AOL accounts always show up with a Virginia origin because that is where most of their equipment is. I am not going to continue this tit for tat with you because you are wasting my time. Nothing in any of your contributions history as Brodo or "bro" indicates you have any interest in creating encyclopedic articles and kizzle and company over in the 2004 elections discussion page were hardly in any agreement with you on anything...all it appears you wish to do is be a pest...why don't you go write an encyclopedia or something?--MONGO 11:48, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, more bluster, no substance. Since when is 'agreeing with me' neccessary for anything on a talk page? I suppose I'll allow you to keep digging your hole then. Perhaps you should peruse Flaming. Complaining about someone responding to an accusation is bordering on delusional. And no, not all AOL ip's originate from NoVa, but I expected as much. Oh, how about an RFC then? -bro 172.153.124.92 21:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

ann coulter

poll you might want to check out

Please sign notes

Hi MONGO: I noticed you've left a couple of "please sign your post" notes on newbies' talk pages, and it occurred to me that you might also want to let them know that they can sign using the four tildes (~~~~). Good work! -- Essjay · Talk 17:54, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I know what you mean about the Bush page; between the vandalism and the POV pushing, nobody can keep up! -- Essjay · Talk 18:03, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

montana?

where you from in montana (if you don't mind saying)? i loved a girl from there once. oh well. but i did get to see a hell of a lot of the state. beautiful. Derex 02:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Born in Helena but grew up in Missoula...I am very fortunate...but in actuality, I like a lot of Wyoming better...remember that 2/3 of Montana is like one big wheat field whereby Wyoming is mountains and high altitude desert for the most part...for me, the fewer the people, the bigger the party. Bad part is, I am not living in Montana these days, but hope I can change that some time soon. Thanks for asking.--MONGO 02:41, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

my girl was from Bozeman. but we mostly hung out in a cabin on the Madison River. i sure did catch a lot of shrubs & rocks & grass before i caught my first trout. i might be heading that general direction to work for a year soon, to laramie. pleasure to meet you, mongo. Derex 05:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I exist

Here I am: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pioneer-12

- Pioneer-12

Precision in conversion

Further to our discussion on unit conversions, I thought I would make a comment about precision. I see that you converted 3.4 million acres ->13,759 km²

Significant figures. The source value has 2 significant figures. Putting 2 significant figures in the result gives 3.4 million acres -> 14,000 km²

Implied range. If the source figure is precise to 0.1 million acres, then it is +/- 50,000 acres (200 km²). Thus 3.4 million acres -> 13,800 km².

Judgement. Converting units to the correct format is only part science. The rest is an art. It is matter of your own personal judgement. I usually just match significant figures. I may add one significant figure when converting small units into large units. I sometimes look through the rest of the article to see the precision used elsewhere. Sometimes I just do what looks right. That may include writing all the integers as in '13,759 km²'.

It does not really matter. The main thing is that the conversion is put there in some form to help metric readers.

Thanks for taking an interest in units. It does a lot for making Wikipedia an international resource. I hope that you experiment a bit with Google converter, it can do a lot, just click on the More about calculator link that appears after a conversion.

Incidentally, there is a live discussion going on about when the Manual of Style should forbid metric units. Feel free to join in the discussion
Bobblewik (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda → Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda conspiracy theory - name change vote

Hello, there is a vote to rename Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda to Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda conspiracy theory. The voting is here: Talk:Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda#poll on changing the name of this_page. I would appreciate it if you could vote. Thanks. ObsidianOrder 05:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein/Al-Qaeda vote.

Got your message, no worries. We were likely editing that Talk page at the same time, causing one version to "stomp" out the other mid-publishing. A real common thing, I didn't think anything of it. :) Shem^(talk) 09:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Re:Protection

Replied at talk page. Redwolf24 (Talk) 04:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Magdoff

If you have a moment could you look in at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Conspiracy allegations about Harry Magdoff. Thanks nobs 14:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. Let me know if I can be of help. nobs 20:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy Page

Can you help with the discussion on the Ted Kennedy page? Thanks 24.147.97.230

Kennedy Poll

Please give your vote on the talk page.[4]Voice of All(MTG) 03:01, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hello. Please remember to always provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy edits. Alphax ^τεχ 14:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

See [5]. Also, don't forget to use the preview button - and if you're having problems with timeouts, try saving your edits offline. Alphax ^τεχ 23:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

double U

Blair had a swing of 7% against him. Everyone standing on an explicitely anti-war platform did well. George galloway even managed to turn a 90,000 majority for a pro-War blair favourite into a 90,000 loss (this is an extremely large swing given the numbers participating in a single constituency in the UK). How "actually the UK re-elected Blair so really they were pro-War" can be said to be an npov description of the facts is beyond me. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 19:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

How is the election of Galloway not a surprise, turning a totally safe labour seat into a non-labour seat is a very large change. A swing of 7% is huge in british politics. If it hadn't been for the huge landslide victory in 1997, a swing of 4% would have unseated labour. 7% is huge. All the UK newspapers reported it as a defeat for Tony Blair, despite labour winning. Indeed, Tony Blair himself went on record afterward as noting that the election result expressed quite strong that the country was angry about the war, and that he would "listen" [whether or not he actually listened is a different matter]. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Bush poll

MONGO, although the vote was tied, certainly not consensus, I think the sentiment (from those not trying to put their anti-Bush spin in like Kizzle or Robert) was to delete the entire passage including the poll issue as not directly releted to Bush himself. That was my understanding of the poll since removing only one side leaves it unbalanced. --Noitall 12:20, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Your accusation of spin would make a lot more sense if I didn't try to rationally explain my viewpoint and seek dialogue on the matter. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm trying to "spin" anything. --kizzle 18:10, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle, you should be proud of your spin. You have stated your POV and are quite passionate about it, unlike others who hide from it. You have stated your views many times. We accept it. --Noitall 21:32, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Hold the phone. I stated my views many times? I didn't realize that was forbidden on Wikipedia. Like I said before, whatever you may think of my perspective, at least I invite discussion on my views. And if you noticed, in the updated poll section on GWB, I included the part about most other countries saying the Iraq war was justified despite not finding WMDs, which I should have left out if I was really trying to spin the issue. You, on the other hand, have several unanswered questions in various posts of mine towards you which you are afraid to answer, so you might want to think about answering those before accusing other people of spin. I'll leave you to your trite retort as I don't want to clutter up Mongo's page, as while I have significantly different viewpoints then Mongo's, I have an enormous respect for his ability to rationalize and not simply play partisan games (unlike you) and I enjoy debating with him. --kizzle 21:42, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy vandals

Please add Ted Kennedy to your watchlist. There are several sockpuppet anti-Kennedy POV trolls down there. Thank you.Voice of All(MTG) 01:47, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Bookmarked along with about 200 other articles...the Bush vandalism tkes up most of my energy but thanks.--MONGO 04:34, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

edit summary

Writing "rvv" kind of makes me look like a vandal when it was a legitimate edit 69.142.21.24 04:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I did try to change it to "rv" but it locked me out. Besides, I tend to (for good reasons usually) view anon IP posts as vandalism...see Wikipedia:Accountability as I am strong advocate of that viewpoint.--MONGO 04:33, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Request for Help

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency needs your input. Agriculture 07:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: Thanks?

Sorry, I fixed the spelling in your talk archive because it was in the wrong namespace (the articles). I now moved it to the User namespace. Regards, Sam Hocevar 08:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry!!!!

See User talk:Redwolf24. And my comment is sincere. Redwolf24 08:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency

I just wanted to point out that I (and I believe many or all of the other people voting delete at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency) have no interest in "censoring" people who think that Wikipedia should adhere to some baseline of decency. What we object to is the creation of a WikiProject to asouse that point of view. If the project had been one to determine what the law meant to Wikipedia, then I would vote for it, but the text of the page makes it VERY clear that that is a secondary goal. If the goal had been to consider where the line between information and purient interest is, I *might* consider that NPOV, but again that's not the goal.

Please consider that you could always vote to userify and now or after the vote is over you and other memebers of the group could put up user pages with the exact same goals. -Harmil 13:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think that the arguments pushed by the actual creator of the project have more do to with the interpretation of the laws than he may have argued. I'm not in favor of tagging pictures with a decency violation tag. Just as a background, I am not a big fan of anon editing in heavily vandalized articles either and voted for semi-protection of those types of articles in which only registered users could edit them. I strongly advocate Wikipedia:Accountability. I may propose some form of restructuring but waiting to see how things unfold.--MONGO 14:09, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice

First off thank you Mongo, for the advice about discussions. I will take it to heart. It is too bad about agriculture but if he wants to just abandon his thing then I guess, so be it. I wont grovel anymore. As a newbie, I am already developing a slightly thicker skin because of that decency debate, I try not to let it bother me, but sometimes I feel really peeved about being insulted. Anyway I'll see you around. Au revoir! Banes 14:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: Vfd

Coins tossed. Strong keep. --tomf688^<TALK> 14:43, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

My vote

You wrote, "You voted exactly as I thought you would!" Congratulations on your prediction, but... which vote of mine are you describing here? JamesMLane 09:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you must mean the VfD. I had voted on it before getting back to the GWB talk page and seeing your link to it, so I didn't make the connection. (It's probably better to put notices like that on user talk pages instead of unrelated article talk pages, but thanks for calling the VfD rumble to my attention.) JamesMLane 09:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

As for the follow-up questions you ask, sorry, but I'm clueless. I've never worked in the areas of consent from photo models or the liability of an internet site. My impression is that it's an evolving area of the law, so that, if Wikipedia decided to spend roughly its current annual budget on legal fees to get a thorough analysis, there still might not be a definitive answer. My answer may be worthless but at least it's cheap. :) JamesMLane 11:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

On the question of an attempt to take down Wikipedia, by offended religious rightists or anyone else: It might or might not work, but even if it did, the attacker would have little to gain. All the content is out there, at dozens of mirror sites. It would be too big a job to take down all of them. The software is freely available, too. If the Wikimedia Foundation were somehow to be bankrupted by a lawsuit, it wouldn't take long before somebody else scraped up some money, bought a few servers, imported the most recent content snapshot available, and spread the word that Replacementopedia was up and running, please come and edit. The attacker has gained almost nothing -- some editors don't hear about the new project, or are too lazy to make the transition, but on the other hand the publicity attendant upon the whole ruckus attracts some new editors who otherwise might not have participated. The bottom line is that the attacker has expended a lot of time and effort and accomplished virtually nothing. I'm more worried about a concerted content attack. A religious right group that was both savvy and unprincipled wouldn't bring some idiotic anti-indecency lawsuit, but instead would dispatch its drones to try to insert the group's POV wherever possible. We could deal with some of them, but not all. There's also a serious danger that some big corporation or trade association will try this. JamesMLane 00:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Wiki Point

Hi there Mongo. Enjoying the war on project decency? I noticed you warning users on the project page about violating wiki point. Can a user be banned for joining the project with the intent to disrupt it? Thanks for your time. Banes 12:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I just noticed that a couple of users are doing exactly that. Banes 07:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever the result of the Vfd, I think the project should be changed/reformed to something else. Please do keep me posted, as I am still interested in the project's future. (If there is indeed a future.) I am still keen on the concept of Project Decency. Banes 11:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency

I have noticed the VfD vote on your project. I have made my opinion clear: if some users disapprove of some of the images on Wikipedia, and want to organize themselves, it's their own freaking business.

I volunteer to host your page in my user space if it gets deleted (which is not unlikely at the moment); not because I agree with you, but to protest against this frivolous VfD. (This is not to say that I don't believe you have a point.)

Hell, and I have "Wikipedia is democracy" written on my user page. Looks like I'll have to change it to "Wikipedia is a dictatorship of the majority".

Sincerely, Mike Rosoft 09:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

WP:NOT a democracy. Rama 09:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello MONGO

Although I'm pretty sure you don't like me, I would still like to award you this barnstar for your work on controversial articles like George W. Bush. Also this barnstar is for never losing your cool at a rather frustrating time. Redwolf24 00:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

You deserve it. Really. Redwolf24 00:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

How to read another person's mind

I'm not going to revert it again unless you can't find reliable sources that back all these claims up in the next few days. If the knowledge is so common, it shouldn't be so hard to find sources. What is completely nonsense is this "Every person from the Clinton and Bush Administrations believed at the time etc": you cannot read minds, can you? Don't confuse "common knowledge" and "common opinion" because it is uncommon that people have access to other people's minds, at least where I live. I'm wasting words right now anyhow: with your constant access to my mind, why should I explain my thoughts twice?;-) NightBeAsT 01:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Interested in leaving a comment for the Wikipedia Signpost?

I'm looking for people interested in commenting about Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency and the ensuing VfD. If you want to be quoted, see User:Ral315/Signpost. (Only post in your own section, and please do not make direct comments to others' quotes. ral 315 06:35, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Re:Revert of civility addition

If you think that should be added to the VfD process, the best way to work it out would be to post a message on the talk page for WP:GVFD and see what others think. However, since it could mean depositing literally hundreds of messages on talk pages for some controversial articles I doubt it will gather wide support. I'm not sure that there would much effect to only informing the original author since many articles are widely edited and in any case, being the original author confers no special privilege or ownership of the article. Also, many pages are taken to VfD directly from Special:Newpages and are made by anons. To drop an anon a message after they've finished editing their article would be much the same as not giving them a message at all; most of them don't return under the same IP and wouldn't know what their old one was to look for it. I do not think it uncivil to say that you think a page should be deleted; it's the nature of Wikipedia, and there's a warning at the bottom of the screen warning about "merciless editing". Still, if you think it definitely should be added, strike up a discussion on the talk page or at the Village Pump and see what others think. -Splash 07:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Project Members

Once the VFD ends I hope you will delete all of the bad faith members from the project. Erwin Walsh

Responding to POV

From 2003 invasion of Iraq:

18:53, 21 August 2005 MONGO (rv, antiwar foreigners pushing their POV) [6]

Do you really mean what this sounds like? Daniel Collins 22:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Goodbye

I'm packing up for good now, and this will be my last edit. I just wanted to say sorry if I dragged you into something or made a situation worse for you, you're a good guy and you don't deserve it. I applaud your courage to stay, and wish you luck. By the looks of WfD, the trolls have already taken up roost and started to push pov. Couple this with the trollish admins like RedWolf, and you have your work cut out for you. Anyway, goodbye, good luck, it has been good knowing you. I just wish the circumstances had been better. Agriculture 06:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

MONGO, that is why I put I'm pretty sure you don't like me on your barnstar. Anyways night. Redwolf24 07:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

One other thing. You may want to change your email on your user page to mongomontanaATyahooDOTcom. The reason for this I have recently learned is because bots pick up email addresses and spam them. Or so says half the Wikipedia IRC channel. Have a good one. Redwolf24 07:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Bad faith

How dare you accuse me of bad faith. I have at all times acted towards your WikiProject with honesty, and you have absolutely no grounds for believing I have any intent to disrupt Wikipedia. I expect an immediate apology for your groundless personal attack. --Ngb 11:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. Hipocrite 15:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

If both you explain how you abide by the original document and agree with it's original focus, then you'll get an apology. Locking the page on the wrong version, including disruptive editors as "members" who may or may not include either of you, without requesting a third party, outside the reverting aspect of the pages is a violation of admin powers and you know it. This is absolutely a bad faith effort. Period.--MONGO 20:35, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree with the original focus of the Project, as it is clearly in violation of WP:NPOV. I stated this clearly and honestly up-front when I joined the project 'as an observer'; and I have engaged in polite and healthy debate with members of the project without resorting to accusations of bad faith and personal attacks. (I also voted keep on the VfD, since I believe that censoring the project would be as bad a thing as what the project itself was originally set up to do.)

My protection of the page was not a violation of administrative powers as I was not involved in the edit conflict. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' version until consensus has been achieved on the talk page. If you enter into a discussion there with the users you are edit warring with, I will cheerfully unprotect the page. --Ngb 20:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Your behavior is obstructionist. If you disagree with the project and believes it violates NPOV, then you should have voted to "delete" and lef tit at that. That you have signed on as a "member" in disagreement with the projects original aims, have protected the page while and have been directly involved in the reversion of the page without requesting a third party to do so is not in keeping with your admin rights. Lastly, that you saved the page with both a serious transformation of the project while it is in Vfd and included in the protected version people who outright state their opposition to the page is just plain wrong.--MONGO 20:54, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

What right do you have to tell me how I should and shouldn't vote? I believe the Project's original aims to be in contradiction of Wikipedia's principles, but I don't believe a reconstituted Project can't achieve anything useful. This is in no way obstructionist.

Finally, the version of the page that I protected is essentially equivalent to the version before the edit war started, i.e. not 'a major change'. I will ask again for you to withdraw your baseless accusations. --Ngb 21:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Not going to happen. I have stated the case: you are not interested in the project as it was originally written, you signed on as "member" in opposition to the original arguments presented by the project, you locked the page with a bolded anon (troll) vote as well as several other users whose obvious intent is to disrupt and you should have asked a neutral third party to lock the page as I did on the 17th...since you were involved in the arguments you have exceeded your admin powers and this is inexcusable. That is where I stand and until you can prove to me that I am wrong (which you can't) then no apology is forthcoming.--MONGO 00:58, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Deletions

I will delete them from the Wikiproject, if they let me. Their behavior may be brought up in in an Rfc as well...it is absolutely juvenile. Thanks for the imput.--MONGO 18:46, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the project to your last edit. But... I have an idea as to how to resolve the dispute. Add a clause to the project to give certain individuals (such as yourself) the right to turn down members if they are deemed to be bad faith or trolling. Erwin Walsh

I already did that and they reverted it. One of the "members" they keep reinstating is a troll (anon in bold)...that hardly constitutes a good faith edit on their part. I've reached the point I don't care about it anyway, it wasn't something I was ever up to...but there reverts make the page look nothing like the original Vfd nominated page. I had the page locked for about an hour on the 17th, but that too was overturned. They are just being silly.--MONGO 11:52, August 22, 2005 (UTC)