No edit summary |
Tryptofish (talk | contribs) →Notification: new section Tag: contentious topics alert |
||
Line 262: | Line 262: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
--[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 06:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC) |
--[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 06:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC) |
||
== Notification == |
|||
{{Ivm|2=''This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does '''not''' imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.'' |
|||
'''Please carefully read this information:''' |
|||
The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]] has authorised [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions|discretionary sanctions]] to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2|here]]. |
|||
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins|uninvolved]] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|purpose of Wikipedia]], our [[:Category:Wikipedia conduct policies|standards of behavior]], or relevant [[Wikipedia:List of policies|policies]]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as [[Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Types of restrictions|editing restrictions]], [[Wikipedia:Banning policy#Types of bans|bans]], or [[WP:Blocking policy|blocks]]. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. |
|||
}}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:08, 30 June 2018
FACs needing feedback view • | |
---|---|
Mission: Impossible – Fallout | Review it now |
Galileo project | Review it now |
Worlds (Porter Robinson album) | Review it now |
I'm God | Review it now |
This is the talkpage of the notorious MONGO! Leave me a message if you dare!
13 years of editing, today
Wow...I must be insane!--MONGO 03:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- MONGO 13 years old! Acroterion (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Many congratulations, please keep up the good work. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 11:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you...I sure feel old now. Can't believe I am now a teenager.--MONGO 12:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Many congratulations, please keep up the good work. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 11:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- So pleased I missed that one. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ha! But that doesn't compare to my ergophobia actually.MONGO 12:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- So pleased I missed that one. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Jan 2018
Sir, please check, user Krishb is vandalizing North India article again after you have reverted his edits on 23rd Jan 2018. He has deleted citations and removed Sub Headings. Khairaarsh (talk) 06:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm @krishb here...No I am not vandalizing the page. I am new to Wikipedia edits, and not much aware of its edit policies. My humble submission is, don't call West Bengal and Gujarat North Indian states, they are from East and West part of India respectively. I have a feeling, there are gross misreporting in this regard in this page, which I am objecting. Here are reasons
1. Latitude-based definition does not work here: Latitude & longitudes are the coordinates or two types of key lines to locate each point on the Earth's surface and don't define or divide geography of country. We don't say North Mexico or North China or North Bangladesh based on Tropic of Cancer.
2. Indian press definition does not make sense. Stray reports from The Hindu can't be conclusive here. Also, if we look at the the following report which has been used as reference, does not conclusively, categorically and absolutely club West Bengal in North India. It is a report about cold wave where for the sake of convenience of layout and inclusion of news, it has been used. It does not prove anything and can't stand as a solid, conclusive reference. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/Intense-cold-in-North-eight-die-in-Uttar-Pradesh-West-Bengal/article14020459.ece
4. If The Hindu newspaper in it's Noida edition puts Bihar under 'North' pages, then we may seek an explanation or resonance from Hindu editorial unless there is Government directive/s (which classifies Bihar in North India) (Wrt: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/12qm2uzgokj3n74/AAB8MYR9brTeCt77uHCtK13ka?dl=0)
For your kind attention Khairaarsh
- I see...all this needs to be at that article's talkpage as I was merely doing recent changes patrol and am not involved in that article otherwise. It appears an edit war is ongoing so I put a request in for page protection and you'll need to talk to each other on the article talkpage to sort this out.--MONGO 14:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
There has been alot of geological activity in the Pacific Northwest - Mount Jefferson (Oregon) is likely being buffed for FAC...wanna cast your eyes over it for some feedback? Remember, at the end of the day, the content will sit there when all the drama fades into the past.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for thinking about me Cas. I will do most definitely. Watchlisted now.--MONGO 19:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Actually there are quite a few mountains sitting at GAN too I just saw! But I need to drink more coffee and get to work now....sigh...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hum...makes me think hard about the lack of FAs on actual mountains, but I'd have to check and see how many there are. I'll definitely keep an eye on the aforementioned and I have a bio and then a full national park article both overdue for expansion and possible FAC efforts.--MONGO 19:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- (Came here after seeing your edits on Kilimanjaro) My personal idle speculation is that it's too difficult to track down reliable non-recentist sources for mountaineering. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Right. I hate to steal anyone's mojo and surely anyone climbing such a peak deserves a big pat on the back, but not here in the article itself. I think significant achievements like when a severely handicapped person or someone very young or old should be easier to reference but not sure why someone spending 22 hours on the summit is noteworthy as a claim in itself, especially since it appeared this claim is self made and not actually supported by outside witnesses.--MONGO 00:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- (Came here after seeing your edits on Kilimanjaro) My personal idle speculation is that it's too difficult to track down reliable non-recentist sources for mountaineering. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Hum...makes me think hard about the lack of FAs on actual mountains, but I'd have to check and see how many there are. I'll definitely keep an eye on the aforementioned and I have a bio and then a full national park article both overdue for expansion and possible FAC efforts.--MONGO 19:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Actually there are quite a few mountains sitting at GAN too I just saw! But I need to drink more coffee and get to work now....sigh...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Personal attacks and comments on contributors listing
[2] then refers ot my warning as fake and that I am a partisan editor.
Highest unclimbed mountain
I've just come to thank you for the huge improvements you have made to Highest unclimbed mountain which had got into a rather sorry state. I have a nostalgic interest because it is the first article I ever created (early in 2005). I have occasionally looked back on it since then but could never gather the energy to try and make substantive improvements. I was quite pleased with it at the time though it would have failed AFC now. It had two inline links as references (but I think footnote references didn't exist in those days!). At the time browsing the web left it utterly unclear as to what the highest mountain was although the Gangkhar Puensum article was already making the claim. I did my own web searches and agreed with the conclusion although at the time there was a wide range of claims. Anyway, best wishes and thanks again. Thincat (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- Wow. I almost feel guilty now and hope I did not step on your toes! I actually asked a far better editor than I to do a cleanup of my writing. I tried to add more context but I think I am still a bit off the mark. Please do step in and make any and all corrections you feel are needed!--MONGO 18:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- No, you didn't step on my toes at all – I was genuinely delighted. It was sad to see it in the state it had got into. The tags were correct but entirely unhelpful and over the years extra information had simply been shovelled in. I remember once feeling guilty about doing a major rewrite to a technically helpful article that was in a bit of an editorial state. I was very pleased when the original editor came along to say how grateful he was to have it improved but he had not known who to ask. Thincat (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Great work, MONGO, and a great read! Thincat, don't feel bad about not being able to gather the energy to go back to an old article and do new research etc. It may be a common reluctance — at least, I know the feeling exactly. It's like chewing old gum! Bishonen | talk 17:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC).
- @Bishonen: Yes, I prefer just plodding away creating new articles. And I get slower and slower at that! Thincat (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- Many of my older article starts have had others take over and some I have not touched in a decade. I saw your comments on the talkpage Thincat and will get to that in a day or two. Bishonen, thank you for giving the article a once over...its an interesting subject I agree. My fascination is with wishing I could someday see some of those mountains but I'm far too old to consider actually reaching the tops of them...and those that do are a courageous bunch.--MONGO 20:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Bishonen: Yes, I prefer just plodding away creating new articles. And I get slower and slower at that! Thincat (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
THANKS!
Dude, thanks for undoing my screw up over on Antonius Pius. Totally did NOT mean to delete all that. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.223.36 (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lake Shannon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thunder Creek (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
On what basis
are you violating the page restrictions? As made clear everywhere, there is no 3RRNO exemption for that edit Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- I am willing to admit ignorance if you explain what I did wrong and I will self revert.--MONGO 15:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Violation of consensus required before restriction. If you see the history of Donald Trump, you can see that the sentence was inserted and challenged (in fact, twice), and the prestanding version is without that sentence. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Is there an Rfc on that issue/sentence? Forgive me for I almost never have made any edits t that page at all. I saw a clear BLP violation (a nasty accusation but no rebuttal permitted? odd). I can self revert if that will be the correct thing to do.--MONGO 15:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- You should probably self-revert. This is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Anythingyouwant and no admin has so far said the revert was exempt from the consensus required before restriction. --NeilN talk to me 15:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Already did. Never seen an editing restriction like that. I suppose hiding out at my national park articles has sheltered me from the high anxiety sections of our website that have such restrictions. Wow. I have to be more careful. I appreciate everyone's assistance.--MONGO 15:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- That restriction was crafted by an admin who has since quit the project and been de-sysopped. It has been debated for months. Many editors have begged and pleaded for this restriction to go away, but admins refuse to remove it. The restriction is very "effective" on controversial topics like AmPol because it is extremely tough to gain new consensus for things that paint right wing or conservative viewpoints in a positive light. Look at this mess we are going through to simply add some balance to an article. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- All news to me. As I said, never seen such a restriction before. The whole thing sounds like bad plan.--MONGO 18:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Mr Ernie: A single admin cannot remove restrictions placed by another admin even if they've left the project or given up the bit (yes, this is an issue with the discretionary sanctions system). Appeals for modifications must be made at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA. --NeilN talk to me 18:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- @NeilN: I was talking about the discussions raised at AE and ARCA about that restriction. I know it's been appealed in both locations here is the ARCA and here it is at AE. You'll notice a lot of the names look familiar. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Mr Ernie: Neither of your diffs are particularly convincing with respect to "[m]any editors have begged and pleaded for this restriction to go away". Both cases have the same editor advocating for it to go away and both cases were raised in the wrong venue. Arbcom isn't going overrule admins for following the rules they've set down and an enforcement request against an editor for breaking that restriction isn't going to result in the mass lifting of that restriction across all affected articles. An appeal needs to be made solely focused on the restriction and not be entangled with an enforcement request. Concerned editors can start small (e.g., asking for the restriction to be lifted on certain articles) or go big and ask for a blanket lifting. I doubt the latter would be granted, though. --NeilN talk to me 14:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- NeilN, how many articles are protected in this manner. Any idea? I am of course familiar with 1RR restriction, and generally support that, but frankly, this sort of restriction seems draconian since we do have 3RR rules etc.--MONGO 14:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Each restriction needs to be logged here. Search for "consensus". The restriction was designed to stop tag-team edit warring and sustained edit warring over days/weeks. It promotes article stability and discussion rather than daily reverts. --NeilN talk to me 14:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- NeilN Somehow the appeals seemed a lot more compelling in my memory ;). Mr Ernie (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- NeilN, how many articles are protected in this manner. Any idea? I am of course familiar with 1RR restriction, and generally support that, but frankly, this sort of restriction seems draconian since we do have 3RR rules etc.--MONGO 14:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Mr Ernie: Neither of your diffs are particularly convincing with respect to "[m]any editors have begged and pleaded for this restriction to go away". Both cases have the same editor advocating for it to go away and both cases were raised in the wrong venue. Arbcom isn't going overrule admins for following the rules they've set down and an enforcement request against an editor for breaking that restriction isn't going to result in the mass lifting of that restriction across all affected articles. An appeal needs to be made solely focused on the restriction and not be entangled with an enforcement request. Concerned editors can start small (e.g., asking for the restriction to be lifted on certain articles) or go big and ask for a blanket lifting. I doubt the latter would be granted, though. --NeilN talk to me 14:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- @NeilN: I was talking about the discussions raised at AE and ARCA about that restriction. I know it's been appealed in both locations here is the ARCA and here it is at AE. You'll notice a lot of the names look familiar. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- That restriction was crafted by an admin who has since quit the project and been de-sysopped. It has been debated for months. Many editors have begged and pleaded for this restriction to go away, but admins refuse to remove it. The restriction is very "effective" on controversial topics like AmPol because it is extremely tough to gain new consensus for things that paint right wing or conservative viewpoints in a positive light. Look at this mess we are going through to simply add some balance to an article. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Already did. Never seen an editing restriction like that. I suppose hiding out at my national park articles has sheltered me from the high anxiety sections of our website that have such restrictions. Wow. I have to be more careful. I appreciate everyone's assistance.--MONGO 15:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- You should probably self-revert. This is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Anythingyouwant and no admin has so far said the revert was exempt from the consensus required before restriction. --NeilN talk to me 15:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Is there an Rfc on that issue/sentence? Forgive me for I almost never have made any edits t that page at all. I saw a clear BLP violation (a nasty accusation but no rebuttal permitted? odd). I can self revert if that will be the correct thing to do.--MONGO 15:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Violation of consensus required before restriction. If you see the history of Donald Trump, you can see that the sentence was inserted and challenged (in fact, twice), and the prestanding version is without that sentence. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
For your help on dealing with that rapid page-blanking IP vandal. Nice job! SemiHypercube (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC) |
- Wow..been a long time since anyone gave me one of these! Thank you SemiHypercube! May the Force of Eternal Vandal fighting Be With You!--MONGO 19:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Notifying
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Anythingyouwant and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.
Thanks, Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I have linked a recent diff of yours on WP:AN. Andrevan@ 03:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Andrevan, I'm not emailing you anything, but I will tell you that I've known MONGO for years. He is no agent. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- You sure? Heehee. Well the thing is something is not right. I looked at Andrevan's editing history and it's extremely scanty over the most recent years but then this somewhat odd flurry of activity out of nowhere which makes me wonder: is this a crash and burn, is this a strawman, or a possible personal issue or...a compromised account? I mean it is certainly possible that we could have some paid ops folks lurking about on political articles and it possible like in some social media that something could be going on here. But I have to brag that Wikipedia tends to attract generally higher educated persons some of whom are excellent sniffers that would detect such nefarious activity rather quickly. Andrevan's argument isn't out of the question but I find it to be simply bizarre.--MONGO 15:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't think the account is compromised. I do think that first of all the accusation toward you was unfounded and ill-prepared. Strategically the whole thing was just not a good move, and it may well be that they'll be topic-banned. At the least, it seems to me, they will have lost credibility in that area, and that's never a good thing. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Its just a bizarre thing really when viewed in its entirety as this person is a admin and a crat and while both were obtained long ago, that's still two times the community granted them extra trusts and to see this unraveling in this manner just strikes me as something being amiss. I'm sorry Andrevan if you are reading this, but I do hope if things are not well they improve for you.--MONGO 16:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't think the account is compromised. I do think that first of all the accusation toward you was unfounded and ill-prepared. Strategically the whole thing was just not a good move, and it may well be that they'll be topic-banned. At the least, it seems to me, they will have lost credibility in that area, and that's never a good thing. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- You sure? Heehee. Well the thing is something is not right. I looked at Andrevan's editing history and it's extremely scanty over the most recent years but then this somewhat odd flurry of activity out of nowhere which makes me wonder: is this a crash and burn, is this a strawman, or a possible personal issue or...a compromised account? I mean it is certainly possible that we could have some paid ops folks lurking about on political articles and it possible like in some social media that something could be going on here. But I have to brag that Wikipedia tends to attract generally higher educated persons some of whom are excellent sniffers that would detect such nefarious activity rather quickly. Andrevan's argument isn't out of the question but I find it to be simply bizarre.--MONGO 15:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
Your comedic timing--even in a TP thread--is excellent. Your paycheck problem is probably just a glitch with direct deposit converting from rubles to dollars. You could do come standup until your cashflow gets back on track. – Lionel(talk) 10:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC) |
- Why thank you comrade! I'm hoping by being humorous I was able to cover up the truth that has been unearthed about my editing or else I may have wasted 13 years of editing land management and similar articles about National Parks and mountains!--MONGO 12:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- I sure hope that Putin pays quicker than Soros. I'm still waiting on my checks. And I never saw those buses anyway--I had to drive myself to the demos, at $.53 a mile. Drmies (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hahaha! I knew it! These guys expect us to do their evil bidding, promise us vast riches and yet we're all stuck eating crackers!--MONGO 14:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- See that's your problem, Soros and Putin are deadbeats. The NRA money is where it's at. PackMecEng (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Well, Soros isn't really a deadbeat--he's someone who's had the most awful things hurled at him for no good reason besides antisemitism. Putin is a different kettle of fish, I hope we can all agree on that. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know if Soros is a good or bad guy, I do think he gets way to much credit from the ignorant fringes of the world. I also do not think any one person is as powerful as some people are lead to believe. Also tanks are acceptable as long as it does not have a filled barrel, otherwise how would you defend against the govment takin yer guns! PackMecEng (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Well, Soros isn't really a deadbeat--he's someone who's had the most awful things hurled at him for no good reason besides antisemitism. Putin is a different kettle of fish, I hope we can all agree on that. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- See that's your problem, Soros and Putin are deadbeats. The NRA money is where it's at. PackMecEng (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hahaha! I knew it! These guys expect us to do their evil bidding, promise us vast riches and yet we're all stuck eating crackers!--MONGO 14:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- I sure hope that Putin pays quicker than Soros. I'm still waiting on my checks. And I never saw those buses anyway--I had to drive myself to the demos, at $.53 a mile. Drmies (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
United Airlines Flight 93
Hi, you reverted my edit to United Airlines Flight 93, may I have a reason why? 67.8.19.70 (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) IP 67.8.19.70, that claim is wholly unsourced? The article does have a relevant source which says this: "U.S. officials were considering shooting down the hijacked airliner that crashed in western Pennsylvania, but it crashed first." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- In the article [3], which was used as the source for the quote about heroism, that was on the same line as my edit, it says:
- After the planes struck the twin towers, a third took a chunk out of the Pentagon. Cheney then heard a report that a plane over Pennsylvania was heading for Washington. A military assistant asked Cheney twice for authority to shoot it down.
- "The vice president said yes again," remembered Josh Bolton, deputy White House chief of staff. "And the aide then asked a third time. He said, 'Just confirming, sir, authority to engage?' And the vice president -- his voice got a little annoyed then -- said, 'I said yes.'"
- 67.8.19.70 (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- I would also like to clarify, that my edit didn't imply that Flight 93 was successfully shot down, in fact my edit implied the opposite, consistent with the source, that the plane crashed before it could be shot down. 67.8.19.70 (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe I was just too surprised that such a detail had not been added before now (although there is a slight mention in Archive 1 of the Talk page). There might even be justification for adding that Cheney authorized it three times and almost got a bit angry. IP 67:8, thanks for adding. A small tip for any future additions - just use an edit summary that says something like "adding detail from existing source." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Drmies...we have to be careful about these sorts of things because they start to transform into wording that gives credence to conspiracy theories. It's been a long believed CT of the 9/11 articles that we shot down the planes, used a missle(s) on the Pentagon and etc. So when an IP shows up on this article right after another I reverted who was peddling similar POV issues I see some red flags popping. This was the edit just a bit before that I took out--MONGO 18:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Examine the history and see at least two other editors also removed similar wording. As it stands now it's fine but should this escalate I won't be surprised as I've seen this many times before.--MONGO 18:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- I totally agree with MONGO's comments above. Those of us with special interests in 9/11 articles have constantly had to revert conspiracy theories from IP's. Flight 93 crashed almost at the same time that the shoot down order was given, the recent original IP changes appeared to be relating that the flight was shot down - which is entirely untrue. We have to be on our guard when these "edits" come-up. Regards to all, David J Johnson (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- I sympathize with the effort to not allow the article to devolve into conspiracies, and with the amount of trouble you all have to deal with from rogue IPs, I'm sorry if my edit appeared in line with such kinds of edits from others. That said, the fact that such orders were given, felt like a very important detail historically; so not seeing it anywhere in the article or talk page seemed somewhat stunning to me. If anyone feels that phrasing of my edit gives room for CTs, I apologize and would wish for someone to make it clearer. Thank you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.19.70 (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- No orders were given to shoot down UAL 93. After the first 3 planes crashed into WTC and Pentagon, there were reports of other planes within 80 miles of DC. Cheney gave authorization for those planes near DC to be shot down. None of the military planes were armed though and the report of planes was erroneous. There were no orders for UAL 93 and it wasn't close to DC. Because there were no planes near DC, the shoot down order never even made it to the pilots. This is not new[4]. We are not going to discover "gotcha" information about 9/11 by re-examining and re-interpreting sources in 2018. Might as well add "Kennedy shot first" as new possible self-defense motive/conspiracy to the JFK assassination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:192C:D49F:EAB:7AEC (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- I sympathize with the effort to not allow the article to devolve into conspiracies, and with the amount of trouble you all have to deal with from rogue IPs, I'm sorry if my edit appeared in line with such kinds of edits from others. That said, the fact that such orders were given, felt like a very important detail historically; so not seeing it anywhere in the article or talk page seemed somewhat stunning to me. If anyone feels that phrasing of my edit gives room for CTs, I apologize and would wish for someone to make it clearer. Thank you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.19.70 (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
This recent article appears to be in your department
Mongo Department. --Shirt58 (talk) 08:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Darn it...I told them to spell it in all caps!!!MONGO 11:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
If you no longer wish to receive notifications for this case please remove your name from the listing here
For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 19:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Personal favor
Hi! I would like to ask you, along a couple of the editors I know, for a personal favor. I choose you because every time I see something that you have edited I have been impressed with the quality.
What I would like you to do is to help expand our article on Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. This topic is something that Jimbo has been pushing on his talk page,[5] and there may (or may not) be a SOPA-style blackout of Wikipedia to try to influence the EU legislators.[6]
As a personal favor to me, could you please help with this article? I am offering double the normal pay... --Guy Macon (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- I will look it over an assist but not much for 36 hours yet. I'm honored you find my efforts here to be a benefit. The feelings are mutual.--MONGO 02:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Guy Macon:, I was wondering how I can help there. It's not a subject matter I am familiar with but I guess I could seek out further sourcing and expand sections? Right now all I did was clean up some refs formatting and it's watchlisted.--MONGO 03:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Signature
You didn't sign your comment at AN/I. Just a heads up. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
- My radio buttons are all wacky on this desktop...but tanks!MONGO 14:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Talk page comments
I responded to your comments at my talk page, but forgot to ping you. Just a heads-up. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- All I know is I cannot change anyone's mind, only perhaps their understanding. Sadly, article like the Trump one are solely reliant on the latest attention grabbing headlines and it will be probably long after I am dead before a truly dispassionate article could evolve regarding that subject. But I find it extremely alarming when the sole efforts by some are to denigrate the subject because they disagree with his policies or his comments and related actions. I do know that if I were a partisan as some claim, I would be over at articles about those I do not share similar views and trying to undermine the integrity of those articles, which is exactly what a POV pusher does...see Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. Instead, when the Hillary Clinton article was at FAC I supported the promotion of her bio to FA...I could easily opposed it as even then I felt it went very easy on her faults, though it did not cover them up entirely.MONGO 18:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- I just noticed the discussion and I agree with the positions you two folks have expressed on WV's talk page. I've gotten to be sporadic in my contributions lately (it's a temporary situation) but I'll try to weigh in more when appropriate. Coretheapple (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your "thanks", Coretheapple. The AE was abruptly closed five minutes after I made a very important point there. The discussion is continuing at the closing admin's talk page, if you're interested. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- The admins that have monitored those pages are probably all worn out now and the hatred being spewed is simply too much. I don't know if its intended to bait so myself or others type something bad and hit publish but I do know that whether that is the case or not, its still textbook battlefield and talkpage disruption that does nothing towards article improvement.MONGO 15:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- "Nothing towards article improvement" is correct. I think I've said this before to you, MONGO, but article talk pages and noticeboards have becoming nothing more than an extension of Facebook in their content, approach, fixation, and style of communication. In other words: it's broken and needs to be fixed. But who will do it, who will care, and is it already too late? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- This is why it's sad. Numbers win and if you dare defend your opinion, you end up getting blocked. I already unwatched the Trump page and this is another reason why Wiki is not neutral in contentious areas. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- "Nothing towards article improvement" is correct. I think I've said this before to you, MONGO, but article talk pages and noticeboards have becoming nothing more than an extension of Facebook in their content, approach, fixation, and style of communication. In other words: it's broken and needs to be fixed. But who will do it, who will care, and is it already too late? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- The admins that have monitored those pages are probably all worn out now and the hatred being spewed is simply too much. I don't know if its intended to bait so myself or others type something bad and hit publish but I do know that whether that is the case or not, its still textbook battlefield and talkpage disruption that does nothing towards article improvement.MONGO 15:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your "thanks", Coretheapple. The AE was abruptly closed five minutes after I made a very important point there. The discussion is continuing at the closing admin's talk page, if you're interested. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- I just noticed the discussion and I agree with the positions you two folks have expressed on WV's talk page. I've gotten to be sporadic in my contributions lately (it's a temporary situation) but I'll try to weigh in more when appropriate. Coretheapple (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
One way to feel better about simply not participating is to know that a lot of the arguing really impacts almost no one since most articles see almost no real traffic...a few thousand hits a day considering there are a billion English speakers means any extra heartbeats expended arguing with partisan morons is more than just a waste of life, it's simply stupid overall. as an example--MONGO 09:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Also, I am not advocating not stating your case and !vote, but when the conversation turns into arguments and the person you're arguing with starts casting aspersions, it's best to walk away since the discussion will only go downhill from there.MONGO 11:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yep, it's really hard to do and that's something I have to work on. In the meanwhile, I'm back to doing my gnome work and spert requests. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed and I am lecturing myself as well here as I too have sometimes said things that are unnecessary about what others motives may be or similar. I mean, a POV on hot topics like Trump is nearly inevitable and all that is fine so long as everyone rises above that as much as possible and that is, as you have stated, very hard at times.MONGO 13:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
1RR
With these edits[7][8] you made two reverts to the same article within 24 hours. Given the minefield of editing restrictions, it would be safer to self-revert your second edit. I happen to agree with you on substance, just trying to avoid drama on process. — JFG talk 11:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- You beat me by 30 minutes. Tanks.MONGO 11:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
DS vio
This edit violates the consensus formed in the closed RfC. Please self revert or I will have to bring the matter to AE.- MrX 🖋 13:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- It was closed out of process and MelanieN even said she would remove her wording that you attached additional information onto. There is no consensus for your addition, but I reverted anyway so we can discuss there.MONGO 13:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- The original proposed wording has consensus and includes that sentence (in bold, below). Any alterations to that requires a new consensus. Do you disagree with that?- MrX 🖋 14:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
In April 2018, Trump enacted a "zero tolerance" policy overturning previous administrations' practice of making exceptions for families unlawfully crossing into the U.S. with children. By the sixth week, nearly 2000 children had been separated from their parents, culminating in demands from Democrats, Republicans, Trump allies, and religious groups that the policy be rescinded. Trump falsely asserted that his administration was merely following the law.
- - MrX 🖋 14:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- MelanieN reopened the Rfc before I made my edit MrX. Allow some more time to go by and stop being in such a hurry if possible.MONGO 14:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- The original proposed wording has consensus and includes that sentence (in bold, below). Any alterations to that requires a new consensus. Do you disagree with that?- MrX 🖋 14:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
Six years! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Notification
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Template:Z33 --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)