User talk:MONGO/Archive28

.. occurring at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains. You're welcome to join in the discussion. Thanks! hike395 (talk) 05:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I just thought I'd give you a heads up that FT2 stood down from arbcom a couple of days ago. I noticed your post at the RfC and thought you might have missed this - god knows there's now a metric ton of posts on the subject! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I saw your edit on

I reverted some unsourced info but aside from that, I don't know a lot about horses and as such wouldn't be a lot of help on a related template...thanks though.--MONGO 00:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

M - Always trying to add a bit more structure and historical perspective to articles about my backyard. Appreciate the recognition--Mike Cline (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi MONGO. I noticed this. Why did you revert? It looks like a good-faith addition to me. Is there something here I am not aware of, or was it an error? Best wishes, --John (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the original edit looked odd, but the main reason I reverted was because the addition was footnoted unlike every single other embedded ref which uses Harvard referencing. Looking at the addition again, I saw after restoring it, that this addition that was made was already cited just one sentence further along in the article, so I removed it completely again[1], aside from the "March 2005" wording....as seen here. Next time, find something better to do with your time than assume I tried to screw up an article I both started and exhaustively guided through the FA vetting process [2], [3].--MONGO 10:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No comment on the content of the revert, but please note that rollback shouldn't be used except in cases of vandalism or otherwise bad faith edits. Viridae^Talk 11:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see how it was a good faith edit...I explained myself already...take my page off your watchlist.--MONGO 04:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I keep seeing people saying that; this is a guideline with which many administrators, especially older ones from before this was even suggested as a guideline, disagree. The guideline - which is of course only a guideline - itself states "clearly unproductive", such as vandalism" (emphasis mine) not only vandalism. ABF and AGF are not mentioned that I see at all. I am wondering why the post with the strong "should" wording regarding this, and are you aware it reads like you think its a policy violation? Do you think it should be? Thanks much! KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a fine article and well done for having started it. It happens to be on my watchlist and I noticed what looked like an unusual revert of what looked like a good-faith edit, so decided to query it politely with you. Not a big deal, but next time maybe consider improving the edit rather than reverting it, if it is a constructive edit made in good faith. If it's merely a question of formatting the ref, why not just alter the formatting? Not a big deal in any case, although you might also like to consider whether

WP:BITE would apply in a case like this. --John (talk

) 14:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

WTF was there to "improve"...all that was added was a numerical footnote with the same exact ref that was already added in proper format (harvard ref as are all the refs in the article)...and that already applied ref was one sentence further along in the article...can you read what I already wrote above? WP:BITE may not apply to me since I have been around awhile...but your ongoing attitude is surely misplaced and is both condescending and unwarranted.--MONGO 04:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if it seems that way. I'm happy to leave it there, now that you've explained the matter to me. I was thinking of BITE not in relation to your fine self but from the point of view of the other user, who was (presumably) trying to improve the article and had his or her contribution reverted without comment. I'd be inclined if it was me to undo rather than revert and to leave them a note explaining why, or even an edit summary, and then you wouldn't have had me bothering you to ask what you were doing. Anyway, like I said, not a big deal and sorry to bother you. --John (talk) 05:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

And I see you've welcomed the user, so all kudos to you. --John (talk) 05:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mongo, in April of last year I changed "adjacent" to "nearby" in the WTC7 article. The reason I gave was "plain language" since "nearby" is the only sense in which WTC7 was "adjacent" to the North Tower. But I just checked Merriam-Webster again and discovered that there is actually no sense in which WTC7 was adjacent: it "may or may not imply contact but always implies the absence of anything of the same kind in between." I generally take adjacent to mean "right next to", and I think most readers do too. WTC6 was adjacent to WTC1 and (arguably) to WTC7—it was in between them. And that's why WTC7 can't be adjacent to WTC1. Also, I think Aude and Wayne and Peter can work together constructively. Why not let them?--

Your banned from editing 9/11 related articles...which means you shouldn't be cheerleading those you want to edit it, especially those that share your POV on the issue like Wayne does. Peter has done but minor edits to most of the 9/11 related articles but Aude has brought several to FA level and I have brought 8 articles myself to FA and another I greatly improved to keep it at FA level...my ability to research is invaluable to this matter and I have personal knowledge of the issues. I already explained on the collapse talk page why the buildings by NYC standards were adjacent and the only reason you don't like that word is because it implies that no debris could have struck WTC 7 when the north tower collapsed...when the fact is that the entire southern facade of WTC 7 was damaged and major fires erupted from this event. I am not sure we can trust Wayne to edit the article at all since he has openly stated that two of the most reliable sources are "BS" (bullshit I assume) in the case of the Popular Mechanics article and that results were obtained by "cheating" as is the case of the National Institute of Technology findings. If he feels that these highly regarded sources are unreliable, then he must be a conspiracy theorist like yourself, in which case there is no room for him to help me bring the article to FA level...not if indeed we want it to be considered a reliable encyclopia article. WTC 6 was a low lying structure that in no way played an obstacle preventing debris from the north tower from damaging WTC 7...however, I can change the word adjacent to a better wording.--MONGO 14:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. You're welcome. I'll decide how I help out around here, thank you very much. But you're of course welcome to report me to AE if you think I'm strying beyond the limits of my ban. Wayne seems to be able to distinguish a reliable source from one he agrees with; he does not say that NIST is "unreliable"; he says he doesn't accept their findings. He knows was RS means and sticks to it. As I said to him, however, you're likely to have the community on your side. It'd be better to let WP:AE decide who gets to work on the articles (as happened in my case). I'm not really interested in talking about my views, but the reason I don't contribute to this website is that I was treated very badly from the beginning. You're still proud of that. And WP will be what it then will be.--

talk

) 19:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

PS Well, you've removed the word adjacent, so at least we agree on the wording. You don't have to trust Wayne. You should just be grateful that he wants to spend his time fixing simple errors like that in the article so that people who know both what "adjacent" means and where the buildings were don't immediately stop reading it for fear that there are all kinds of other mistakes. One question a reader may want an answer to is whether NIST analyzed the progressive collapse. Until recently the article said that NIST did so, and "in detail". NIST, of course, did no such thing. The fact that Wayne has his own particular interest in keeping the article free of this kind of error does not change the facts. I've also offered a few more thoughts

talk

) 20:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Whatever...Wikipedia is

NOT a number of things that you may wish it was. Namely, not a soapbox nor a publisher of original thought.--MONGO

00:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"I can change the word adjacent to a better wording". Amusing. Wayne took it out because it was wrong. You put it back. Now, after someone else has looked it up in a dictionary for you, you have taken it out again. That's "better wording", I guess. We might also (and more honestly) say that Wayne was right and you were wrong. In any case, by emphasizing the proximity of the two buildings, the damage to the south side, and the "major" fires, you are sticking to a line of debunking that is now moot. (And just as the article is no place for conspiracy theorizing it is no place for armchair debunking.) NIST discovered that the building collapsed because of the critical failure of an internal column due to local heating and expansion. One fire and no structural damage would have done the trick. (In fact, as they point out, one well-placed--though unrealistically loud--explosion would have done it.) Except for the fact that the collapse of the North Tower was the likely cause of the fires, the two collapses were not related to each other, and it therefore does not really matter how close the two buildings were to each other. That is why NIST's investigations have led to a serious rethinking of building code. If the collapse of the North Tower caused the collapse of 7 structurally then there wouldn't really be a mystery, and no investigation would be necessary (just as no one has worried very much about partial collapses in building six, which was hit from above). As a member of NIST's advisory board pointed out, the collapse of building seven shows that our designs (in re fire) do not work.--

talk

) 06:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

NOTE. I didn't realize that you had actually introduced "adjacent" back in October. [4]. That's interesting.--

talk

) 08:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

NOTE2. And Raul654 (who banned me) introduced it in the WTC7 article back in April.[5] I fixed it ca. half an hour later.--

talk

) 09:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, life's bitch. "Except for the fact that the collapse of the North Tower was the likely cause of the fires, the two collapses were not related to each other, and it therefore does not really matter how close the two buildings were to each other."...get a clue...the original WTC 7 would still be standing had the North Tower not collapsed...so they are completely related...if, as you said, the closeness doesn't really matter...then why are you so distraught over the word "adjacent". Gee...could it be because adding that word makes the CD explanation of the WTC 7 collapse less likely? I remember when Raul banned you...it was like long overdue and the funny thing is that I had nothing to do with it. What is so facinating is that you still, even after all this time, still can't understand WHY you were banned. You better believe I am going to debunk the CT jargon in that article...once and for all.--MONGO 04:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Basboll...since you can't edit 9/11 related articles...you are now no longer allowed to come here and yap about them either...this is a personal request...so see ya. Let me know if you have any critical analysis of my glacier, or mountain or animal or park related work...since you aren't banned from those areas. Gee....golly...maybe if you cared about using Wikipedia to espouse information that is accurate rather than misusing it as a propaganda platform for your CT stuff, you might really help us in some fashion.--MONGO 05:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner."[6] (using a "BS" source to debunk the CT jargon that the collapse of WTC 7 and the North Tower were "unrelated").--MONGO 05:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

But my dear, dear, Mongo, that's my point. (I'm asuming that this is my last welcome comment.) You are holding to a line of debunking that was relevant in 2005 but is now moot. NIST has published its report on the collapse of WTC7 last year: "In response to comments from the building community, NIST conducted an additional computer analysis. The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events." [7] Some of us are actually trying to learn how and why the buildings collapsed, and what NIST is saying. You are trying to defeat conspiracy theories. Here at WP your project is winning. That's cool. Congratulations. Happy editing.--

talk

) 05:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No kidding...but that doesn't negate the fact that indeed, contrary to what you stated above that the two collapses were unrelated structurally, indeed a 10 story gash a fourth of the way into the building did happen and that, in combination with fire resulted in the collapse. Above you said that (again) "Except for the fact that the collapse of the North Tower was the likely cause of the fires, the two collapses were not related to each other"...they most certainly were related. And that concludes our (between YOU and me) discussion about 9/11 (forever) on my talkpage.--MONGO 06:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

ROOOOOOOOOAAAAAAARRRRRRARRRRRRRR !
Well, Bishzilla has withdrawn in disgust at this Swiss finishing school for young ladies masquerading as an encyclopedia, so I have to do my own gloomy roaring about the topic ban of ScienceApologist. :-( Bishonen | talk 00:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC).

It happens more often than not...someone gets in arguments with idiots and ends up banned because they aren't nice enough...even though their efforts have been to try and keep this website from being overrun by wackos. While standards of conduct need to be maintained, barring those that have the best interests of this website at heart simply because they weren't nice enough or didn't edit war while trying to ensure we have a reliable encyclopedia is an issue that needs to be addressed.--MONGO 19:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey MONGO, just thought you might like to know that another user is attempting to get yet another mediation case going on the Sept 11th article. Normally I'd let it alone and not bother you, but since you were named outright, I thought you should know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-03/September_11_attacks

--Tarage (talk) 09:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like that was just an editor who reappeared after being previously banned....User:DawnisuponUS. Thanks for the heads up though.--MONGO 20:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, in response to your post from last week, here's what ScienceApologist has been working on: a drive to become the first Wikipedian to write a featured article while sitebanned.[8] He needs the help of you, me, and others to review and give feedback on the draft he's creating. So since this isn't live on wiki, do help out and spread the word. :) Best regards, Durova^Charge! 19:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...but so long as he can submit it when he is unbanned.--MONGO 19:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Mongo, since you are one of the main editors of the WTC pages, I would like to ask if you might take a look on my proposed changes to WTC7. NIST recently published a new report including an interesting free-fall theory, which should be added to the main WTC7 page. I created an intial version here on the WTC talk page Talk:7_World_Trade_Center#Proposal_for_new_content_based_on_the_latest_NIST_report. However, I do not know if it is Wiki conform as it is or if it requires any modifications. best regards, Johninwiki (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually the effect of deforestation (and land use change generally) is one of the most intensive topics of research in climate change.

It isn't well documented by mainstream media...instead, they have adopted the polar bear all cute and stuff, to ensure we all understand that global warming is due to our CO₂ emissions solely and that is pretty much all that is peddled as "science"....peddled by GE which owns MSNBC and NBC news. GE stands to make mega billions since they are one of the largest entities that do "green energy". One must also wonder how Al Gore has gone from being worth a million in 2000 to over 100 million today......"green energy" is a cash cow for those that misrepresent the real facts. His docudrama "An Inconvienent Truth" used sensationalistic tools to try and scare the hell out of everyone...I guess India and China weren't watching.... I am fully in agreement that we need to reduce carbon emissions...but done so gradually and with realistic objectives and goals...of course I wish we could eliminate all carbon based energy sources, but the Obama "energy" plan is a farce since it fails to address the need for increasing nuclear energy, without which, the U.S. cannot economically become energy "independent", nor can we achieve an elimination of coal fired powerplants.--MONGO 00:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed George W. Bush for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since you are a main contributor of the article (determined based on this tool), I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but I think I will pass...the current political climate on this website ensures it will be near impossible for a rational and neutral article to emerge.--MONGO 00:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Mongo, here is something that

PS: Based a little on Wikipedia:Wikipedia loves art but obvously needs some changes...Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I got some nasty non native Cowbirds that have not only driven off the blue jays and other birds near my place, but plaster cars with their business...and they also wake me up from time to time. I had a skunk almost walk right up to me one evening as well, and we are frequented by racoons and Opossums...but in the last case, what we really need to do is find out who named the opossum and smack him since that is the one animal name I can never spell right (had to look it up this time, as I always do).--MONGO 06:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

largest brood parasite at teh bottom. Native but becoming more and more common...wait, cowbirds are introduced??? must read more....Casliber (talk · contribs

) 07:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I think the cowbirds have migrated here on their own...not sure why. I need to try and identify which species is most common here, but they do utilize Robin nests to leave behind their eggs. I saw a young Robin a month ago which should have still been in his/her nest but may have been pushed out by an immature cowbird, a commmon event apparently. I see your new FA on the

Australian Magpie...looks like that bird can be pretty fiesty too, but I don't know that cowbirds attack people as a rule. If you and Moni3 want what I would consider to be a great WikiProject to get started, why not start the one I have had redlined linked at the bottom of my userpage for over a year...namely, Wikipedia:WikiProject Endangered Species...there the emphasis can be placed on ensuring all endangered species have articles, and record as in other projects, which of those articles need enhancements, etc.--MONGO

07:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Gah! Your talkpage came up on my watchlist - I was contemplating your proposal. I did a bit of snooping and noted Wikipedia:WikiProject Ecology, which seems to have a low level of activity, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment, which seems largely inactive. Maybe a good idea is an Endangered Species task force, which can be a subgroup of WP:Birds, WP:plants, mammals, ecology, environment etc. and can be crosslinked to all the wikiprojects. I am trying to think of ways to get maximum involvement. Also, an endangered species parameter can be added to the wikiproject templates on the talk pages, and can be crossindexed (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

My edits are so infrequent, but suprisingly, I read onsite often and am "onwiki" still 5 days a week at least...anyway...as far as a wikiproject for endangered species, a tag would work fine, but then again, coordinating a project that ensures species that are endangered worldwide all have articles, etc., might be a worthwhile enterprise. I started the project on glaciers, and though it hasn't really taken off, least it has a coordinating point. I can follow your lead if you set one, but my time is still limited for indepth (and high concentration) style editing...I can't give the amount of concentration due to so many external distractions (work, money etc.)...I feel like the website is overwhelming to a degree...I hate vandalism reversion and too simplistic stuff...have no interest in dealing with admin chores...so all that is left for me is high level work that I have too little time to do at the level I want to achieve. Anyway, maybe the two projects you mentioned need to be better focused or combined...I dunno...--MONGO 00:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Leave it with me - I did muse on this before and will figure out the mechanics of it, then we can figure out tagging/classifying etc. Something valuable you could do that might be more enjoyable is keeping an eye out for enviro/nature articles at

WP:PR and giving some feedback. Folks there would be highly appreciative. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs

) 01:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, what we don't want is another project that languishes...so there may be some other way to ensure we can prioritize the endangered species articles and I think you may have touched on that. Surprisingly, my real life knowledge of nature is self taught generally...I actually involved in a completely different line of work currently, so I am no expert. I will check out WP:PR as you suggest....--MONGO 01:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) agree - my take on wikiproject tags is that they are good flags to classify and keep watch over articles as one can have recentchanges + cat:wikiproject etc. Thus it doesn't matter if they are inactive. I did just notice this one --> Wikipedia:WikiProject Extinction - something about it is klutzy though, as it encompasses recently extirpated with prehistoric critters which I find a bit of an artificial union. I also find working on recently extinct critters a bit depressing too. I have an idea and will give you a heads up in a couple of days. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you have not noticed, but Jayjg has stopped editing WP. Apparently the Arbcom decision restricting his editing, and removing administrative privileges, was the last straw. 173.68.231.58 (talk) 11:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Knew nothing of it...the arbcom is generally oftentimes too likely to side with trolls and losers than with those that may bend the rules a little so that the overall integrity of the website is preserved. Tenured editors and especially former arbcom members should be given great latitude, especially when they are oftentimes dealing with garbage.--MONGO 00:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I am sad he chose to leave rather than taking it on the chin and moving forward, as he contributed some good content. The Jayjg account is still an admin last time I checked. (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

One management approach is to support your staff who are experienced and productive, and realize that they'll occasionally screw up. Another is to bring 'em in, burn 'em out, and move 'em on. Both can work but the latter relies on having an infinite pool of newcomers to replace the ones you've used up and discarded.

talk

) 15:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Mongo never been whooped before. Mongo have great feelings for sheriff Bart.

Lol. ;)--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is the talk page where choo-choo go! Can Mongo find candy there?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

In all seriousness, you chose an awesome user name! I'm jealous that I didn't think of it first. Dammit! Oh well. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There are many imitations, but only I am the real MONGO.--MONGO 22:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I would welcome your input to the discussion related to the new public domain image of RSS and UAH global temperature anomaly data here: Satellite Temperature Measurements -- Update the Graphic. Thank you. SunSw0rd (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hum...thanks for the invite, but seems that the conversation is above my pay grade...seriously, I am most definitely not an expert on graph production or understanding the various inconsistancies associated with various satellite temperature measurements. However, for the record, the earth has been warming since about 15,000 years ago, the guesstimated end of the last ice age, so any line graph will naturally show a slope.--MONGO 23:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, it was a complete surprise to me to find out that had happened. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 00:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure...it was overdue..hopefully it'll entice you to stick around more. My time is still so limited..I am often logged in, but spend a lot of time reading and not editing.--MONGO 00:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful and supportive comments! Jayjg ^(talk) 06:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure...--MONGO 02:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the things I love about Wikipedia is being able to read arguments I made years ago. I clicked on your link about being one of the users who helped make semi-protection a reality... brought back memories :) I don't even remember making those posts now. --kizzle (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey...been awhile! Well truthfully, I should mention you really about those semi-protection efforts since you did a lot more than I did in the long run. I doubt more recent vandal fighters remember how crazy the page vandalism was on high profile articles way way back then. That was so long ago, I think I still had a car with wheels made out of stone and no floorboard either so I could peddle myself around!--MONGO 01:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ha, nah we all chipped in, I remember us nagging for so long trying to get semi-protection going. Ya seriously, I was living in a totally different city with a totally different life than I do now. --kizzle (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That Bush article would get like 100 vandalisms a day...it was nuts...sure is a different place now. Nice to hear from you...--MONGO 01:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

...[9] It would be fun to know whose talk page has the highest proportion of banned users watching (say, of those with more than 50 watchers). Now that would be proof of doing something right ... lol ... Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I can think off hand of maybe 7 banned or at least topic banned editors that might watchlist my pages...all the userpages I watchlist are of those folks I think highly of, like yours.--MONGO 05:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I wondered if you would take a look at the current page on the subject and tell me what you think.--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yo yo yo my brotha. I've been around WP a bit recently, after a long needed sabbatical. Thought I'd drop in and poke you with a stick. - Crockspot (talk) 00:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Been real busy in real life...editing way off..hope you're doing great.--MONGO 01:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

A new environmental disaster here - this getting any press in the US at all? A new user, Aareo, has been buffing this one and asked me for feedback...the more the merrier - be nice to help him get it to GA or better....Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the firProxy-Connection: keep-alive

Cache-Control: max-age=0

I have Proxy-Connection: keep-alive

Cache-Control: max-age=0

ard about it...the article is a great start and has potential...I wonder how it compares to other similar oil platform disasters in terms of amount of oil leaked...might be worth doing some comparative studies on that...here's a few links...--MONGO 00:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

flickr images

Bloomberg news

Anchorage Daily News: compares leak to Exxon Valdez

Upstream Online

Thanks for that. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that community has a lengthy record of your tenacious editing when it comes to articles concerning the September 11, 2001 attacks. I would kindly ask you to exercise restraint as you follow principles defined by the Committee. InnerParty (talk) 02:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Odd that you would know anything about, as you say, my lengthy record of tenacious editing, since you are a new editor.--MONGO 03:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

As you participated in the recent

I am a new contributor, but I have some very interesting and valuable information that I think should be added to the Mount Cleveland (Montana) page that contains your signature. I am very impressed with the volume of information you have contributed to wikipedia.

In 2001 I found a mountain register some 200 yards or so below the summit in a boulder field. In May 2009 I completed a doctoral dissertation for the University of Montana on Dr. Frank B. Wynn who climbed Mount Cleveland on August 12, 1920 ( four years previous to the current information on the Cleveland Wikipedia page). I have a scanned image of the summit register I found and have published it here on this page for your consideration. This is my personal scan and I have placed in the public domain in Wikipedia Commons. What I would like to know is if you would like to add this new information to the Cleveland page, or if you would like me to do the editing. I have started an article on Dr. Wynn, who has many other interesting accomplishments in Glacier Park (some on mountains covered in your other articles.) My Wynn article is currently in userspace draft form so you may not be able to find it,

User:Davidclydewalters/Frank_B._Wynn but when I have it fleshed out, I plan to move it to the public and would like to link it to the Cleveland page and others also. Let me know what you would suggest for editing the Mount Cleveland page. Thank you I look forward to hearing from you. Dr. Wynn also conceived the idea of creating the Lincoln Boyhood Memorial Park in Indiana, but his contribution has been overlooked mainly because he died climbing Mount Siyeh shortly after proposing the memorial park.

--Davidclydewalters (talk

Just need a ref from reputable website or published material...summitpost is not peer reviewed...do you ahve anything other than the scan of the registered climb? I'm not doubting you, just that we need a reliable source to adjust things. The current ref that lists the first ascent as being from members of the Sierra Club in 1924 is from a well regarded book titled A Climber's Guide to Glacier National Park, but that was published in 1995 and your info may very well be more updated and accurate. The climbers guide can be read online here.--MONGO 23:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Mongo, Thanks for the link to Edwards 1995 edition of "A Climbers Guide to Glacier National Park. I can offer two references to substantiate the claim that Frank Wynn climbed Mount Cleveland in 1920. The first is from the same Edwards (1995) publication. On pages 40-41 he indicates that Frank B. Wynn and the Nature Study Club of Indiana left thin metal register boxes on the summit of several of the major peaks in the Park. He goes on to recite the mountain dedication prayer found in each register and also in the one I found. He then indicates that these thin metal registers gradually "have all disappeared but a few are preserved in the historic archives at park headquarters." I found another one of these registers - one that Edwards did not realize was also placed on Mount Cleveland.

My doctoral dissertation would be another reference that would substantiate the discovery of the missing register and the 1920 ascent of Mount Cleveland. At my oral defense I showed the thin metal box containing the summit register to the following members of my dissertation committee: Dr. Merle Farrier, Chair, Dr. John Matt, and Dr. Frances L. O’Reilly all of the University of Montana, and also to Dr. Cheryl Gilmore, Superintendent, Horizon School Division, and Dr. Charles A. Bonsett Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis. Below is the reference to the pages in my dissertation that deal with the discovery of the register placed on Mount Cleveland by Dr. Wynns party in 1920.

Walters, D. C. (2009) Exploring a Definition of Leadership and the Biography of Dr. Frank B. Wynn 1860-1922. University of Montana, pp. 214-220.

I would hope that with this recent discovery and these two references you will consider updating the Mount Cleveland page. Thanks--Davidclydewalters (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Is the University of Montana considered the publisher? I assume so...I have updated the article but you'll see a redlined link for Frank B. Wynn...I see you've started a stub on Dr. Wynn in your userspace, so when you're ready you can copy and move that to the redlined link and create the article....--MONGO 02:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much Mongo, for updating the Cleveland page. My dissertation was actually printed by ProQuest in Ann Arbor, Michigan. So they are probably more accurately the publisher rather than the University of Montana, as I originally suggested in my reference. If someone was trying to find my dissertation they would find it in the ProQuest digital dissertation database. I just did a search for Proquest in Wikipedia and found a good article on its services and history. Thanks again. --Davidclydewalters (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mongo. If you have the time and inclination, could you point me to what you find to be a few of the more troublesome edits of Thomas B, past or present? I would like to make sure I'm not missing anything here, for obvious reasons. henrik•talk 21:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Henrik...I pretty much delineated the issues with Basboll at the arbcom page...the bottom line is that I could link you to numerous arbcom pages and other issues that explain in deatil why Basboll was topic banned...but more to the point..the issue isn't just that he has been found to be repeatedly trying to violate NPOV but specifically the clauses governing "equal time" etc...we simply don't give equal time to unproven notions on pages that are supposedly dedicated to following the known scientific evidence. Basboll has mislead you and others into thinking that his topic ban was done unilaterally or was without merit...an arbcom review in April of this year as explained in my postings at arbcom denied him to be able to return to his favorite topic..he has shown zero interest in any other subjects...his sole intent is to try and wiggle innuendo and non-science into 9/11 related articles...make no mistake about it...his account serves no other purpose here.--MONGO 01:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ping!  Roger Davies ^talk 05:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have been toying with the idea of creating a series of Yellowstone specific navigation templates to be used on the now almost 200 articles directly or indirectly related to Yellowstone National Park. My first attempt is at: User talk:Mike Cline/Articles Under Contemplation/Template:Upper Geyser Basin. My vision is that there would be a series of templates that would organize all Yellowstone articles either by broad subject matter (Wildlife, etc.) or by locale (Upper Geyser Basin) as appropriate. Eventually, every Yellowstone article would include an appropriate NAVBOX template. Let me know your thoughts, as this is my first navbox template, any suggestions or advice. Thanks.--Mike Cline (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Responded here--MONGO 02:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent vandalism from IP 201.240.25.35 orginated from Lima Peru...cool...I even have S. Americans mad at me...so does User:Hipocrite it seems.--MONGO 01:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)