User talk:MONGO/Archive18

Wikipedia_talk:Attribution#Examples_from_arbcoms

Hey MONGO,

what is that page were past Arbcom rulings are all listed? Thanks in advance. I was thinking that the wikipedia communitee (maybe myself) could list specific arbcom examples on Wikipedia:Attribution, to help newbies (and myself) know exactly what is and what is not WP:NOR WP:V, etc. Thanks in advance. I will watch your page.Travb (talk) 04:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Completed requests goes back to early 2004...prior to that, I don't think we had an arbcom, but not sure as that is before my time.--MONGO 05:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey thanks a lot. I appreciate it.

Forest for the trees statment (which in my experience, probably will be disregarded, out of hand):

It appears like the wikipedia communitee are creating a virtual social system here:

1. A legal system. With laws, judicial [the Arbcom] and statues [official policy].
2. Maybe we are slowly creating an oligarchy too (we already have a benevolent dictator).

...I don't like it much, but I can't fight millions of years of human sociology and hardwiring. WP:CREEP Travb (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Bush daughter articles

Just to be clear, I was only making the point that it was ridiculous to want a "criticism of Al Gore" article deleted while at the same time there existed a large number of articles and sections of articles criticizing Bush. Personally, I think if a person is arrogant enough to think they deserve to be the leader of a country then they and their supporters should be a bit more thick-skinned regarding criticism. My 2 cents. Regards, --Jayzel 13:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup.--MONGO 13:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Two Usernames

I use two usernames by accident. I must have created MachSeventy and then Mach Seventy after having forgotten I used the first. I probably use the same pw for both. What are you concerned with? Am I using valuable web space? Is an accidental duplication somehow worthy of your attention, or mine? MachSeventy 22:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure.--MONGO 23:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Montana

I would be happy to welcome you to WikiProject Montana. But telling me what I need to do is not a good way of introducing yourself. Especially, when I didn't place it where it is now--and to be honest don't know how to move it. If policy for wikiprojects dictates where it should be, then by all means please move it there. Or, tell me how to do it, since it appears you're a veteran here. Thanks.--Ltvine 07:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you moving the page. I wasn't aware as to what the practice was for moving WikiProjects from temporary locations to more permanent homes in Wikispace. So, I proceeded on my merry way, figuring a permanent home would happen in time. And now it has.

I see that you've signed up. Great! I look forward to productive collaboration.--Ltvine 17:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I set a goal to tag the talk pages of all the relevant articles in Category:Montana with a {{WikiProject Montana}} tag. While being quite a chore, it does allow me to survey what's been done. (Though there's probably some way to automate the process.) So far I've only seen one current GA and two current FA articles that relate to the project. But I believe that there are quite a few candidates that could be or should be developed and improved. Its only very recently that I've become aware of the assessment process through the current WikiProject:Biography Assessment Drive. So I'll be learning more about the basics for that, but do what ever you'd like. Thanks.---Ltvine 06:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that...good work. I have a lot of those pages watchlisted, as you probably guessed. I'll be adding some comments to the project talk page here shortly.--MONGO 07:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your support in my recent RfA which passed unanimously - thus proving that you can indeed fool some of the people some of the time. I'm still coming to terms with the new functionality I have, but so far nothing bad has happened. As always, if there's anything you need to let me know, just drop me a line on my Talk page. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for unprotection

Hi. Just drawing your attention to this, which is a request for your talk page to be unprotected (purportedly so the user can leave an AGF warning). What are your thoughts on the matter? Thanks. Trebor 18:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to guess that this is banned editor User:Frogsprog, judging by the fact that Frogsrog recently sent me an email, and they are editing North Korean related articles with the exact same POV. I can't imagine why this editor would have any need to leave me an AGF "warning"...especially since not once have I ever edited any articles he has.--MONGO 18:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, he seemed unlikely to be genuine. Regards. Trebor 19:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If he means something like this, isn't it considered rude to leave a template warning to an established user? At least, that's what I've seen administrators saying, and it makes sense. ElinorD (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It is generally rather sily to leave templated warnings on the talk pages of established contributors, and most find it condescending. That doesn't mean that editors shouldn't be reminded to follow our policies no matter how long they have been around. I have never edited anything that User:RuleBrittania has, so I can't imagine why he has any reason to leave me a "warning" at all. But the contributions history of RuleBrittania and Frogsprong are strong indicators they are the same editor...Frogsprong is indefinitely blocked and I added a suspected sockpuppet tag to RuleBrittania's userpage.--MONGO 19:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Compare the edits for yourselves....

• RuleBrittania (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Frogsprog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NoJoyInMudville (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As regards 82.43.244.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), if you should notice any more Frogsprog edits from that address, drop me a note and I'll reblock it. Sandstein 07:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...I'll keep a lookout...the thing is, I usually just go about my business and someone like Frogsprog decides he wants to do his thing...namely, interfere with our efforts to write an encyclopedia. Thanks for your efforts!--MONGO 07:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on my talk page. It looks like the issue has been resolved for now. It's possible that the user will come back again with a new account, but it will probably not take long to sort out given the characteristic edits. --Reuben 22:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem...we all deserve the right to edit harassment free.--MONGO 22:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Frogsprog AGF-6 Warning

On behalf of Frogsprog, I leave this blanket AGF warning. You're an established user so I figure you are already familiar with level 1-3. I went with level 6. Please feel free to point out that you have been warned to level 6 to anyone who thinks you need your user page unprotected for template warnings.  ;) --Tbeatty 23:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You are not being Civil to Your Fellow Editors as evidenced by your blocking the disruptive editor Frogsprog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Further violations may result in Nuclear Attack or other severe actions. The consequent maiming may inhibit your ability to edit Wikipedia and may occur without further warning.

Wow. Beyond NPA into NNA. Georgewilliamherbert 02:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes...it's likely I'll be before arbcom once again for my actions...my doom is near.--MONGO 06:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your support on my RfA. It passed with 55/0/0. I'll try my best to be worthy of the trust the community has put in me. If there are any of my actions you have a problem with or a question about, please feel free to discuss this with me and if needed to revert me. If there is anything else I can help you with (backlogs, comments, ...), you can always contact me on my talk page. Fram 15:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Good...best wishes to you.--MONGO 20:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You're confused

In regards to your comment about Citizendium that "everyone" has to provide their credentials, I must say you are thoroughly confused. The only people that have to provide their credentials are editors, which is the "highest" level of verification on Citizendium. Further, this level is only intended for tenure-track professors at universities; this is very different from "everyone". Indeed, only the vast minority of users of any such site would ever be tenure-track professors. Finally, even tenure-track professors who wish to edit aren't required to become editors -- they can edit just like everyone else.

The purpose of the Citizendium system is to allow the most-respected and trusted among academia to oversee articles, and review them to publish trusted versions. It is not required, nor intended, for everyone. Xiphoris 01:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification...I suppose I'll still be happier with Wikipedia. Thanks.--MONGO 05:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

New NRHP Collaboration Division

Hey, saw you were a participant in the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject. I thought I would let you know that there is a new Collaboration Division up for the project. The goal of the division is to select an article or articles for improvement to Good article standard or higher. There is a simple nomination process, which you can check out on the division subpage, to make sure each candidate for collaboration has enough interested editors. This is a good way to get a lot of articles to a quality status quickly. Please consider participating. More details can be seen at the division subpage. IvoShandor 11:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Overzealous Moderation

Dear MONGO, I would like to express my frustration with your actions regarding a comment made by a user on the Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center‎ page. A user made the claim that perhaps your moderator status should be reviewed. You then deleted his comment citing it as a personal attack and then warned the user on their talk page. I feel this is abusive and I hope that this comment is sufficient in avoiding further abusive action. Thanks. DerwinUMD 19:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, if he wants to threaten my editing privilidges, he can do so here on my talk page as you have done. I don't like POV pushers...especially ones who are too lazy to register an account and or post anything about them on their userpages. I also don't like single purpose accounts that are here solely to add their bias to particlular articles. Maybe if I have a checkuser done, we'll find that some people are using multiple accounts to POV push...it happens all the time.--MONGO 19:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

While that may be the case, it does not negate the fact that you have overstepped your bounds in removing that comment. If you had read the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RPA, you would see that especially if it is not a purely abusive personal attack, but a comment about your ability to serve as a moderator, it really ought not to be deleted. The main complaint I have however is not that you removed the comment, but the fact that you are close to threatening people for their actions. You told me that (paraphrased) "users have been banned for such actions." You did not threaten to do so yourself, but as a moderator, you still hold the threat of doing so yourself. I feel there is little distinction between him saying you should be considered for removal from moderation status and you saying to me "Continued efforts to do so and or support such actions have led to blocks in the past." Notably, you said this to me right after saying, "this talk page is for discussing how to make the article better, not for engaging in ongoing efforts to "out" other ediotrs." As I have said, I personally feel the events require no more action than your own, however, here on your talk page, allow me to state that if you continue this borderline abusive use of your moderator status, I will go to whatever extent is required to have your status reviewed and considered based on your actions.

The crux of my argument is the double standard to which you seem to hold yourself. That others cannot suggest an adminstrative action against you, while you suggest to others often that an administrative action may be taken against them. You use a more passive voice ("this may happen" rather than "I will make this happen") but the end result is the same, regardless of how you try to disguise it in the passive.

Thank you for your consideration, and I hope you will take the action required so that this issue will be resolved. DerwinUMD 22:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not a "moderator"...what on earth does that mean? Looks like you and the IP have a lot in common? Comments made about editors should always be made on the editors talkpages...always so if some anonymous IP POV pusher is threatening to have an editor removed from editing...that is a far cry more than my information that someone can be blocked for making idle threats for which there is no purpose. I'll see you on the associated talkpages of the articles in question. It is a never ending battle to make sure those articles never embrace 9/11 conspiracy theory nonsense.--MONGO 06:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

help

Hey uh I can't get the html to stack the cat' bars correctly on Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. Please help. Thanks LoveMonkey 02:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you want them to be side by side or stacked on top of each other...if so, which one goes on top?--MONGO 04:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Stacked please Platonism on top... LoveMonkey 13:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give it a try...might have to ask someone to help me on that one as I tried it already and wasn't able to get it to work.--MONGO 13:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to fix this using a terrible hack. Templates and tables are often problematic, messing up layouts. --Aude (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Your's look fine on my browser...so that should fix it...thanks a bunch...now I will take ALL THE CREDIT!:)--MONGO 14:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad it looks okay. Maybe this hack will work on other pages that we have problems. --Aude (talk) 14:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

See, I still have a few uses around here...I'm useful for finding editors who know how to clean up the mess I make! My confusion allowed you to make a new discovery which wouldn't have been made had I not been confused. Just for the record, I must have hit the preview button 30 times before I finally gave up. I better stick to being obnoxious.--MONGO 14:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's the {{sep11}} template that I've had lots of problems with and couldn't figure out what to do. On American Airlines Flight 77, the images would never line up properly on the left side of the page, in line with the templates, and I had just given up. In trying again to deal with the problem, we now have something that fixes that too. It should work anywhere else that template is. :) --Aude (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You guys ROCK! Absolutely awesome! Thanks LoveMonkey 14:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem...if you ever need anymore assistance with complicated template issues, just bring them here so someone else can fix it right after I make a mess!--MONGO 14:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

red deer range map incorrect

Hey Mongo, Sorry, I lost your email. It appears that the range map added to the Red Deer page is incorrect because it is based on the previous belief that Red Deer and Wapiti are the same species, Cervus Canadensis. I have Whitehead's Encyclopedia of Deer that has a list of subspecies, and I can identify separate out those subspecies that are Central Asian Red Deer (Cervus Affinis) and Wapiti (Cervus Canadensis). Anyhow, the map should only show the European Red Deer's habitat in Europe, North Africa (Algeria/Tunisia Border), and Turkey/Caucasus Region between the Black Sea and Caspian Sea.

-User:dlc_73 21:50, 11 March 2007

I'll see if I can find a blank map and color the locations of the species...or maybe we can make further adjustments for the other species by making them different colors? My email can be accessed by clicking the link on the left of the screen "E-mail this user", but it is best to try and add comments either here or on the article talkpages.--MONGO 05:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

glacier guy

Jens Esmark is the glacier guy. He probably did more that what is reported her. Regards, --Mattisse 14:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that...interesting that he was an early person to suggest that glaciers were once much larger. He will be worth mentioning in an article I am considering writing.--MONGO 14:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Greetings from the vast right wing conspiracy

(Cross posting to Kizzle, Derex, and MONGO) I joke, actually they kicked me out because I wasn't on board with all of the spending increases and because I couldn't spell "Schiavo" correctly. Any chance you could look at McCarthyism, Joseph McCarthy, and my discussion with User:KarlBunker? I'm thinking about inviting mediation, but before that I thought I would grab one or two of you principled liberals and have you take a look, in case I am totally and completely wrong or am blinded by the pure white light of ideology (my preciousssssss). An RFC has to date brought exactly two comments/one new contributor. I will be asking Derex also, and maybe MONGO just for kicks/to even the odds. If you have two seconds to hear my pain, here's the question: should the fact that there were actual Soviet agents exposed within the US get mentioned in the intro to McCarthyism? Currently, the article IMO goes on and on about all of the hype and blacklisting and ad hominem BS related to the distinguished Senator himself (and I am not rising to his defense, from what I have read it was extremely nasty stuff and apparently truly unsubstantiated), but gives short shrift to the underlying reality of subversive communist activity. User:KarlBunker wants the McCarthyism article to be used as the descriptor for the period of anti-Communism from the 1940s on, but keeps reverting my addition of info in the last intro para pertaining to VENONA. To me it seems that if the article covers thirty years of American history, it should provide this important part of the basic context- that the shrill, hyped, insulting, defamatory anti-Communism of McCarthy and HUAC was in part a reaction to an actual Soviet menace- maybe even that McCarthy's BS obscured the real problem more than it did anything else. If you could get to this sometime before November 2008 when Hillary is due to impose the new national speech codes (Morality is Relative! Diversity is Strength! Multilateralism is Unity!), that would be super kewl.  ;) Kaisershatner 15:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I can check it out...probably be a bit busy for about a day yet though.--MONGO 21:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks MONGO. Maybe I just need to let it lie for awhile. I appreciate your looking into it though. Kaisershatner 13:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. I'm going to let it sit for now; overall I'm not sure that I'm 100% right and I'd rather wait than push hard a POV that isn't justified by NPOV balance. Working on the biography article now, maybe less controversial. Yeah, right. Kaisershatner 15:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A Good Red Deer Range Map from Whitehead's Encyclopedia of Deer

Hello Mongo,

I found a good range map for Red Deer and Wapiti from Whitehead's Encyclopedia of Deer. This book is based on the classifications of Red Deer (Cervus elaphus) and Wapiti (Cervus canadensis) as two distinct species with all Central Asian Red Deer subspecies classified as Cervus elaphus except for MacNeill's Deer (macneilli) and Kansu Red Deer (kansuensis), which is included as a subspecies of Cervus canadensis. However, this book does show the range for all subspecies of Red Deer and Wapiti. These ranges are consistent with National Geographic's October 1986 Magazine's article on "Red Deer and Man".

Can you please email me at dlc_73@hotmail.com? I will email you the two pages that I found with the ranges for Red Deer and Wapiti in Europe, Asia, and North America, and will include the title page and the page that has publisher/copyright information as well. I believe the two pages are pages 226 (Europe and Asia ranges) and 228 (Asia and North America ranges).

The top of page 226 of Whitehead's book (which I will send you) has a good range map of European Red Deer which includes North Africa and Turkey/Caucasus Area between the Black Sea and Caspian Sea. I think this will be a good map to show on the Red Deer (European Red Deer) page.

-User:dlc_73 21:50, 13 March 2007

I sent you an email...you can also send me one if you need...just click tjhe link at the left that says "email this user". I think you have already given me the info I need right here on my usertalk, but I don't have access to those books. Can you email me a scanned image of those range maps? if so, we can make an adapted map for the articles.--MONGO 21:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hipocrite's block

I decided to address this here, rather than on hipocrite's talk page, since I don't think he really wants me saying anything on his talk page.
He called one user a 'dooshbag'. Then, when I said it was inexcusable to be so insulting, he called me a retard. He then called me a 'busybody' (which, granted, isn't terribly insulting). This was all in the edit summaries. The actual content of his corresponding comments were just generic profanity. Swearing to people and insulting them was considered somewhat uncivil. And some could consider calling a person a douchebag to be a personal attack.
As for the block being "over the top", well, you're certainly entitled to your own opinion, but I somehow have to doubt that you would ever call someone a douchebag or retard and then expect absolutely no consequences. Bladestorm 22:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see the diffs as the blocking admin failed to provide them. It appears he is now planning on no longer attacking anyone, so hopefully that will be the case as he has generally been one of the best nonsense detectors on wiki.--MONGO 04:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 14 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rogers Pass (Montana), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

I appreciate your support during my recent RfA. Thank you. Shimeru 16:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Smile!

Here's some Penguins for you! Penguins somehow in their own strange way promote WikiLove and hopefully these Penguins have made your day seem even better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Crested Penguin 06:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...much appreciated.--MONGO 06:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

---

World Heritage template

Hi! I created a template for World Heritage Sites: {{Infobox World Heritage Site}}. Since many protected areas tend to overlap with World Heritage-designated places, will it be possible to re-format the template in the same way as the Level 1, 2, 3... style? In that way, we can prevent too many infoboxes showing repetitive infos. In terms of its relationship with the IUCN protected areas, I found a link: http://whc.unesco.org/cairns/iucn-priorities.pdf (refer to page 15 of this publication/page 17 of the pdf file). Hope you can help in improving the template and making it more relevant to readers. Thanks. Joey80 13:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

We maybe can combine a few template parameters in the existing protected areas infobox template to accomdate the UN designation, but I am not interested in removing the protected areas infobox and replacing it with the World Heritage Site one.--MONGO 16:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, maybe include a line of two for "International status/designations" or an entry similar to that. Then we just place "World Heritage Site", "Biosphere Reserve" or citations under it. Because we might deal with a slippery slope if we make a protected area infobox for World Heritage Site. Joey80 04:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Helpful RfC

This is in response to this. I admit that there might have been some helpful RfC but since I have never seen such, and I have seen many, I would still think that a "helpful RfC" would be an exception. But I would be interested to see some examples if you have any. Thanks, --Irpen 06:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Samuel Blanning...seems to have worked itself out...there are others. Not all result in not going to arbcom, but some have.--MONGO 06:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Worked out? The subject of RfC did not even bother to leave a response. I would not consider it reasonable. Any other examples? --Irpen 19:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • He did the best thing in that case...no response was needed...that is often the best thing to do...have others make comments and assess the situation from that.--MONGO 19:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, if one needs an RfC as a space to rant his grievances and be told by others that they are worthless, such RfC's may be useful, as some grievances are indeed worthless. This, however, is not the case here. And I have never seen an RfC that changed the user with truly problematic behavior. It is usually a time-wasting exercise needed to show to ArbCom that "other means have been tried". --Irpen 20:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

In the situation regarding what might shape up as a potential desyopping, even a ban, I think it was rather overly expedient to have the Rfc open for only a few hours and then almost immediately take it to arbcom. I have left a comment on the workshop discussion page and that is the best place to continue this conversation, though I am heading out now.--MONGO 20:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Hardvice

Weighed in on the arbcom case. --Tbeatty 05:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Saw that...he has been wikistalking me off and on for some time...one would think he could get a life.--MONGO 13:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for your Support on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 89/1/1. If there's anything I can help with, then you know where to find me. Cheers. - Michael Billington (talk) 12:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Rosie Odonnel, conspiracy theory

Hi, I reverted you here due to BLP concerns. You can't put anything negative into an article without sourcing it properly in the article. Also raised the concern on the article talk page. Thanks! - Denny 21:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

She said it...it will be more readily available in day or two. Fox news was all over this latest moronic comment last night. I'm looking for asource now, and when I find it, the category will stay until she recants.--MONGO 21:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. Just as long as the source calls her a conspiracy theorist. - Denny 21:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Go check out the O'donnel talk page, it's sourced now. All good. - Denny 21:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:AumakuaSatori

Hi MONGO. I removed your vandal warning template as I thought it was inappropriate. If you disagree with the user's edits, I'd like to see you use discussion and references to reliable sources rather than labelling them a vandal. I don't see any vandalism in the user's edits but an attempt to improve the article. Best wishes, --Guinnog 14:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see him use the discussion pages...he simply changed collapse to "demolition"[1], did the same thing here, [2], added "in an obvious, controlled demolition, ordered by owner Larry Silverstein." to the WTC 7 article, among other things [3] and is now POV pushing this...so yes, it is vandalism. How dare you!--MONGO 15:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that as vandalism though. Policy states "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated." (WP:VAND) --Guinnog 15:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact this edit you made is much closer to vandalism than the one you sent the warning about. It restores a spelling error. I won't edit war with you, but I guarantee that I will take this further if you do not correct your well-meaning error. --Guinnog 15:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You'll take this further?...I see, so now that I am no longer an administrator, you have the right to threaten me? That makes me seriously question why I supported your adminship...appears I made a serious error in judgement. That you think that my edit was vandalism and his wasn't is quite laughable.--MONGO 15:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe you can explain why you reverted me then? The edit summary you left made no sense to me, and as I say the edit restored at least one out-and-out error to the article. --Guinnog 15:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought I was reverting the vandalism by the anon.--MONGO 15:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it was an honest mistake I apologise. It was actually my attempt to edit the article. I suggest discussing this further at Talk:7_World_Trade_Center#Refresh. --Guinnog 15:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

What else would it be?--MONGO 15:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It looked bad to me, when you used such a (to me) odd edit summary to revert what seemed to me like an honest improvement to the article, right after labelling AumakuaSatori (who is not an anon) as a vandal. If it was an honest mistake, let's move on from it and discuss how we can improve the article. --Guinnog 15:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Apples and oranges...I fixed the typo...maybe not an anon, but nothing on his pages, aside from your reverting my accurate warning template regarding his vandalism.--MONGO 15:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Guinnog...you did see the BLP violation he made regarding Larry Silverstein...[4]...?--MONGO 15:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, and I support Tbeattie's more accurate warning about BLP there. See you in article talk. --Guinnog 15:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

If he vandalizes again, he'll get another do not vandalize articles template message again...it's that simple. Maybe you need a vacation or something?--MONGO 15:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Just got back from one actually! Thanks for your concern. As to your conduct with AumakuaSatori, WP:BITE should be taken into consideration when dealing with new users. Best wishes, --Guinnog 16:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Haha! Thanks for link to Bite, condescending one! I don't generally welcome vandals or their vandalism...when I see it I revert it and issue them warnings....but you I see, must support vandalism since you revert warnings posted by editors who are warning people not to vandalize, and instead give them welcomes! Maybe in some cases that is a better way to go...AGF and all that...and thanks again for extending that courtesy to me.--MONGO 16:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You are very welcome; I try to apply AGF to every editor. As I explained above, according to our policies, this edit was not vandalism, hence the warning you gave was as mistaken as your reversion of my edit was. We all make mistakes from time to time, and I am glad we can still remember that. --Guinnog 16:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Guinnog, my do not vandalize article warning template was accurate...he was vandalizing articles...that you don't think so is your opinion...and indeed, removing my template and replacing it with a welcome one indicates to me that you must support his vandalism. If you are supporting the libel he posted, then you need to be deadminned. Read WP:BLP and get educated quick. My point was, you have not applied AGF to me in the least...in fact, your commentary here is going to end up getting you in hot water.--MONGO 16:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Ha, that came true, as I just had an excellent hot bath! Your comment "You could have very well have place the "productive" BLP info template as well" is quite right and fair. I'm sorry we disagreed, and that you were offended by my removal of the template. I still think you were wrong to place it, but perhaps I was wrong to remove it. --Guinnog 19:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I know you were wrong to remove it...don't support trolling or those who post libel again.--MONGO 04:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Don't misapply vandalism warnings again and we need never have this argument again. --Guinnog 07:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Enough of this badgering...I took it to AN/I [5].--MONGO 09:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you there?

AMA -- please help me calm down over this. Sincerely, Mattisse 15:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't let it stress you...the entire AMA thing simply left a bad taste in my mouth since the only advocate I ever dealt with is someone who has some editing which indicates he might actually be a troll himself.--MONGO 15:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact, one editor who was hounded off wiki by outside forces (Gator1) was an advocate and he tried to do a good job there, but that was over a year ago...these days that operation simply seems to serve no purpose.--MONGO 15:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

An advcate troll, wow! Why are these advocates not interested in editing and just seem to want to hang around a clubhouse like that Esparanza thing? AMA does damage. Apparently it aided and abetted in your bad situation. They are very superficial and do not investigate situations for themselves before they step in. How can they advocate and AGF and not be helping sockpuppets? I personally have not seen one good outcome from their advocacy. I hope the consensus is to shut it down. Sincerely, Mattisse 16:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there might be a few folks that joined to really try and help...but without wishing to insult them, I have to agree with your assessment. Yes, collusion between one AMA'er and Cplot didn't help the last arbcom I dealt with, but I doubt the decision made by the arbitrators was based much on their input...I think even that early in the game, it should have been obvious to everyone that Cplot was a troll...what fascinates me is that the AMAer who was pressing that "case" failed to see the light of this...then again, I never believed he was any better...his support of the trolling, harassment and agitation of the situation makes it pretty clear that he wasn't being an advocate...he was supporting the efforts of Cplot...I think they might very well buddies.--MONGO 16:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)