User talk:MONGO: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:16, 26 September 2010

Admin?

MONGO - No, indeed I am not an Admin but have no reservations about being nominated as one. I appreciate the gesture and will accept the nomination and address the RFA issues to the best of my ability once the page is set up. Thanks for the confidence.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS. The Birds of YNP article came out nicely, but not in one edit, lots of sandbox work on that one.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...I'll work on your nomination as soon as you're ready...I can send you a link...it's been awhile since I nominated anyone and I imagine they have changed the formatting, etc....--MONGO 00:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick reference for myself....[1]...most edits to: Bibliography of fly fishing

I posted a draft of answers to RFA here. Thanks again for the confidence. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Question re Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

How is this page used by Administrators? It's clear how editors can use this board to bring to light significant user issues requiring Admin attention, but how is that attention divided up by Admins. It is first-come, first-serve or is there some other mechanism that provides a bit more structure to assign specific admins deal with a particular incident. That part is not clear to me from reviewing the page. At your conveinence, Thanks--Mike Cline (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

tb

Hello, MONGO. You have new messages just for you from Smithers7. Go over to his talkpage and check it out!

Once you have read and/or replied to the message, you can take this template down by simply removing the {{user:Smithers7/tb}} from your talkpage.

smithers - talk 02:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

replied to message

Hello, MONGO. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mike Cline.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Check Oppose #7. smithers - talk 22:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your RfA Nomination and Support

MONGO - Thanks for the nomination and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.

So much for the boilerplate thanks. I feel like I just got married (actually that was about 38 years ago in May) and spent the last 90 minutes sending out thank you notes to 94 guests. Now it time to get back to work on Glacier and Yellowstone. I will rely on you for Admin advice when I think I need it and don't hesitate to Mirandize me if needed. Thanks again for the confidence. --Mike Cline (talk) 10:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mountains in Glacier ready for your stubs

I just completed the creation of the initial cut of Mountains and mountain ranges in Glacier National Park (U.S.). It still needs some sorting out to make sure I've got the right peaks associated with the right ranges, but it should give you a good tool to begin systematically building the stubs.--Mike Cline (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glaciers in Glacier ready for your stubs

I just completed the creation of the initial cut of Glaciers in Glacier National Park (U.S.). It still needs some sorting out to make sure we get all the correct names in the Active section, but it should give you a good tool to begin systematically building the stubs.--Mike Cline (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rfa's

Request for comments on user essay

MONGO - I’ve just completed drafting my first WP essay in my user space: Creating A Better List. As of yet it is not linked anywhere except through the {{Essay}} template. My ultimate objective is to move this essay to the project space, but at this point, that is premature without some feedback from fellow editors. As such I would appreciate your opinion on the essay, especially on two points. 1) Have I made any statements contradictory to WP policy or guidelines? 2) Are there additional examples that could be included to demonstrate my points more effectively?

Thanks in advance for your review and feel free to make any editorial changes you think would enhance the essay. Please provide comments here, as I am asking several editors to comment and would like to keep them all in the same place.--Mike Cline (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded as requested.--MONGO 02:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article circumscription

Here's an interesting one -I picked up Illegal logging in Madagascar to review at GAN, but then paused to wonder at the scope. Is it too narrow or is the circumscription a good one? What do you reckon...?Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I read the article last night and it is pretty expansive. It seems to be one sided, though that may very well be the way things are there. It needs to stay away from advocacy, such as the repeated, though probably true, accusations of bribery, forest baron issues and other related things and stick as much as possible with impacts, trends and what lies ahead...unless it can be referenced, it needs to stay away from what needs to be done, but perhaps emphasize what has been done and what is planned to be done to reduce this madness. I dunno if this helps you.--MONGO 01:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No no, all good. Those themes have concerned other editors. Question is, do you think the scope of the article should then be broadened? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's going to do as I suggest, which is to better explain via referenced material what can be done to stop this problem, then the scope would need to be broadened...but that is a slippery slope back towards advocacy that needs to be avoided...I also noticed references 2 and 10 have been used a lot, but that is understandable since those are longish sources...I'll spend a little more time this weekend looking this over.--MONGO 11:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think e've now opened a can of worms with this one....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could donate more time to this issue, but have too little time to do so...briefly reading over the issues, looks like you have some pretty insightful contributors to the discussion...for the record, I believe that deforestation is an issue that would make for a huge article in itself if one examined in detail the mismangagement going on in numerous countries with their forests.--MONGO 15:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no-one is arguing that about the parent article - mainly some of the daughter ones. No easy answers though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where's my mentor?

Out of sight, but not out of mind. Quick question: Are you aware of a source that has some reasonable data on the waterfalls in Glacier? Am working on that list right now and have all the geo data, but can't seem to find anything relative to the heights (except one or two) of the various waterfalls.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found WaterfallsWest.com but would really like to rely on something more official.--Mike Cline (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Mike..work has been tying me up..that happens from time to time...will look over things this evening.--MONGO 01:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From your list of wateralls, the image you have is the lower falls of the Yellowstone, not in Glacier...I figure you knew that and had it there as a placeholder...I'm still googling to see if their is a list..the NPS website for the park has nothing..I found that (maybe) the tallest waterfall is Beaver Chief Falls (also know as Diamond Falls) off Lake Ellen Wilson at 1,291 feet high and 150 feet wide...hum...I never heard of them and I used to work there...found at the World Waterfall Database...[2]...another is Harrison Basin Falls...2320 feet[3] but that is tiered (so is Beaver Chief Falls though)...looks like that database counts the entire fall distance, perhaps not taking into account horizontal distance too well...some of these falls may be intermittent as well, seasonal, especially ones off glaciers.--MONGO 02:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a similar problem with trying to stub articles about every glacier I could find in the Wind River Range...I had to use Google Earth to locate the glaciers and then look at topoquest and other online topo map sources to see if there was any associated names to go along with the glaciers...perhaps searching topos might help generate a list, but unless more data can be found online or in books somewhere, all we'll have is the name and perhaps geocoordinates...little more and perhaps no references even.--MONGO 02:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New List of Glacier National Park (U.S.) related articles

Just moved this one into the article space. Should give us a good outline for expanding the right subject areas.--Mike Cline (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...that looks fine. I kind of feel guilty in that you went and started a major organizational effort on Glacier NP article and I haven't had much spare time to devote to the issue...I shall try and set aside more time to dedicate to this.--MONGO 16:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I was pretty much trained to Lead, Follow or get the hell out of the way. Even, though I've been traveling alot, I've had time to Lead on this and have really enjoyed digging into the Glacier subject. Now I have to find time to get up there this summer.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do that...I worked there for three seasons and visited there many times in my youth. Best time is late summer early fall after the crowds die off, but service are greatly cut back after Labor Day. The rivers southwest of the park offer the best fly fishing in the region, most streams in the park are below Yellowstone region in overall fly fishing (something I never mastered) quality. Whatever you do, make sure to set aside time to get to the far northwestern section of the park...little visited and sublime around Bowman Lake.--MONGO 17:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TUSC token 6a471930dd560c21b7243ccbb2f59da2

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Template:Infobox mountain

Thanks for watching. There have been a lot of changes to the template. Most are not obvious to anyone who does not edit. –droll [chat] 00:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but no thanks :)

Hi, Mongo, I was pleasantly surprised you supported my FPC. Thank you. May I please ask you to take a look here? :) Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was tracking your edits and saw those images...I rarely voice an opinion on images since I am hardly an expert on such things, but I was impressed enough to support a promotion. I am surprised that someone would think that since you gave me a barnstar several years ago that my vote should be questioned...only other thing I can see is that my vote was my first edit in 18 hours plus...[4]...perhaps that made that user think I had been canvassed.--MONGO 03:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I believe, the user thought about canvasing because you review FP images so seldom, practically never. So, you are keeping an eye on me :) I did not know that. Now I really should think twice before getting into troubles as I got today. Today was really something, first I replaced my own image of a spray bow with another my own image of a spray bow in rainbow. The user, who reverted my edit put edit summary "rvv". Oh well... Then of course was that accusation in "canvasing", then I was reminded to stop PA, and in between of all of that an admin told me (and probably rightly so) don't reinstate this, or you will be blocked.". If you add to that that I was advised "to grow up" and got a lesson about Wikipedia policies, you will get the picture :) But from now on everything is going to change. If you are watching my contributions, Mongo, I really should behave. I have so much respect for you that I'll be ashamed of myself, if I do not. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that my history is anything to emulate! I just was curious about what you were up to..I check on others contributions from time to time but rarely track anyone's day in and day out editing history. About all I can say is that the written word is the worse form of communication, and many troubles we have on Wikipedia are due oftentimes ot misunderstandings due to the limitations of effective communication via talk pages. Best wishes!--MONGO 02:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glacier NP as article of the day on May 11?

Hi, the German language article got approved as "exzellent" (~featured) yesterday and will be article of the day at the German Wikipedia on the 100th anniversary of the dedication. About a year ago we talked about plans to have your article in the same spot of the English Wikipedia at the same day. I'm not familiar with the procedures here, but will you move this forward early enough to make it happen? --h-stt !? 09:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did speak with our FA of the day coordinator a month ago and he reminded me that we don't "nominate" anything until one month prior to the date requested...so I intend to nominate the English version on April 11. In preparation for this, a few of us have already started doing a few upgrades on that article and if you read a few of the threads on my talk page above this one, you'll see Mike Cline has created a few pages that help list related articles and I have started stubbing out a number of blank areas...I hope to put this into a higher gear over the next month...thanks again for the info and reminder.--MONGO 04:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for planning ahead. On de-WP we have articles of the day listed years ahead in some cases of big anniversaries. And yes, I noticed the lists by Mike Cline and the amazing work he, you and some others did to cover the park. Glacier is great and worth a lot of efforts. --h-stt !? 12:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Glacier References Article

MONGO - Just put up a new Glacier article: List of Glacier National Park (U.S.) references. If there are any major references missing, let me know an I'll get them added. Am on the road in Canada--on the way to Yellowknife so I'll have to wait till I get home in a couple of weeks to finish up some of the in-line cites to bibliographies. Hope to have the list of Lakes done by the time I finish this trip.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a few articles and please take a look at the talk page, because I suggested an amazing book there, that you should add. Unfortunately I could not fit it into the chapters of the list, so you have to decide. --h-stt !? 15:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowknife...wow. Anyway, sure this is a fine start and already pretty comprehensive...thanks.--MONGO 11:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Video Podcasts on Glacier NP

While I'm here: please take a look at:

File:Glac geology.ogg - Glacier National Park, Montana, USA - NPS podcast on the geology of the park, runtime 2:42 mins
File:Glac GlaciersandClimateChange.ogg - Glacier National Park, Montana, USA - NPS podcast on the glaciers and climate change in the park, runtime 3:13 mins

Do you think one or both of the videos would fit into the article? --h-stt !? 15:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, I think that these sorts of things may be best linked to via a subsection near the end of the article under a Media subheading...however, I think the second one which has Dan Fagre discussing the glaciers may fit well into the section that is already in the article...I'm of the thinking that an entire article can be branched off regarding the glaciers there but still want to not over emphasize this discussion in the main article since the park itself is much more than just the story of the vanishing glaciers. Thanks for linking those...I'll looking into what best to do with them this evening.--MONGO 11:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of useful stuff for a spin-off article on glaciers retreat in Glacier NP if you look through the category on Commons. We have the podcast, the series of images of Grinnell glacier, the animated model of the shift of climate zones, and the like. At de-WP we usually are very careful with spin-off articles but here this would of course fit very well. --h-stt !? 09:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Croissant history

Why was ALL the croissant history reverted out in this edit? Revision as of 00:14, 17 March 2010 (edit)MONGO (talk | contribs) ??69.228.40.2 (talk) 06:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Golly, you must mean my reversion of this vandalism?--MONGO 11:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glacier National Park TFA

Hi Mongo, thanks for the nomination. By my count, the article has eight points at least (two age, six centennial) which under the rules means it can't be nominated until there are 20 days or less left. So you should be good to nominate on April 21. Can I suggest that you clean up the citation needed tags in the article? Those have been objected to at TFA/R before. Good luck!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, that's a really great lead image. Just keep watching the TFA/R and watch for the dates it says articles with 5 or more points can nominate. Shouldn't be any trouble.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey..thanks..I will surely put it back up in 10 days and work, as you pointed out, on making some adjustments to improve the quality. Best wishes.--MONGO 21:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Templating below...others can disregard...

Glacier National Park (U.S.) is located in the U.S. state of Montana, bordering the Canadian provinces of Alberta and British Columbia. The park encompasses over 1,000,000 acres (4,047 km²) and includes parts of two mountain ranges (sub-ranges of the Rocky Mountains), over 130 named lakes, more than 1,000 different species of plants and hundreds of species of animals. This vast pristine ecosystem is the centerpiece of what has been referred to as the "Crown of the Continent Ecosystem", a region of protected land encompassing 16,000 square miles (41,440 km²). The mountains of Glacier National Park began forming 170 million years ago when ancient rocks were forced eastward up and over much younger rock strata. Known as the Lewis Overthrust, these sedimentary rocks are considered to have some of the finest fossilized examples of extremely early life found anywhere on Earth. Of the estimated 150 glaciers which existed in the park in the mid 1800s, only 25 active glaciers remained by 2010. Glacier National Park borders Waterton Lakes National Park in Canada—the two parks are known as the Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park, and were designated as the world's first International Peace Park in 1932. Both parks were designated by the United Nations as Biosphere Reserves in 1976, and in 1995 as World Heritage sites.

(more...)]]

I've put it back. You were right, May 11 was a valid date. I had forgotten Raul has worked ahead about ten days.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the blurb needs to say the park is 100 years old on May 11, 2010. No problem...I'll comment at the page...--MONGO 23:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mongo, you've got my full support when you renominate. Let me know if there is anything I need to do to help. Thanks--Mike Cline (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Glacier related change made to Going To The Sun Mountain

Mongo, I just finished reading The Life and Times of James Willard Schultz, Hanna, 1986. Schultz played a big role in exposing Glacier to the reading public and was responsible for naming a lot of Glacier's features, yet the Glacier article doesn't seem to reference him at all (He was Grinnell's guide for all Grinnell's early trips). I've been working on Schultz's article and added his naming of Going-to-the-Sun Mountain. Just thought I'd let you know what I've been up too.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Odd I had never heard of him...I can't see why he can't get an honorable mention at least. I sure appreciate all you have been doing to add to Montana and Glacier NP related articles. I'm nearing completion of updating the Glacier NP refs and will then hope it is deemed worth to be mainpaged on May 11, 2010.--MONGO 02:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect - exactly the kind of reference to Schultz that was needed.--Mike Cline (talk) 02:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good...I have to still expand and finish the cites needed and double check existing refs and update the dates in the Geology and Glacier sections of the article...everything else has been done already as I started at the top, then went up from the bottom, levaing the most interesting part of the article last..only I am short on time until Saturday..if you wish to assist in those sections feel free to do so...I then have to run the article through a spell checkerto double check the text, etc....but almost done...it is hard to imagine where I would get the time now to bring any article to featured level from scratch..least in this case all I had to do was expand and update refs and do some minor material changes.--MONGO 03:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike...I have the last paragraph in the Geology section as well as the Glacier section and the refs will be done...be back in one to two days...by Friday for sure.--MONGO 03:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wp:npa

According to MarnetteD, he removed the template because a discussion was not started. Can you explain this?174.3.123.220 (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA have traditionally been considered to be different in scope...recommend you start a discussion on the merge at one or both talkpages to gain feedback before templating a policy page.--MONGO 02:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have. It is policy to add these templates on for a prosposed merge. I'll give you the links. [5] [6]174.3.123.220 (talk) 02:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its not gaining much feedback...I imagine that merging these policies will be difficult...I'd "vote" against it.--MONGO 02:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 11 attacks GA review

September 11 attacks has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Laurent (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAR of Mount Rushmore

I have nominated Mount Rushmore for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IN progress...--MONGO 05:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Lakes in Glacier

Actually I started it Here months ago. I'll have to get on it. Been very busy with work travelling all over the place (Costa Mesa, CA, Chicago, Pittsburgh and New York) all last month. Am flying to Pitt today. Take care.--Mike Cline (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks on 14:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making that disambiguation page. Actually, I saw that you had created the Mount Henry (Montana) article and am trying to add more links to it.

—72.91.241.104 (talk)

You may enjoy this exchange

Talk:History of wolves in Yellowstone--Mike Cline (talk) 02:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the big bird

What did I do? I have tried diligently to stay out of trouble (unavoidable for an active admin). Finally finished the Cemeteries lists. Turned out to be more trouble than I planned. Maybe I'll try it with all the lakes.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a to do list a mile long for Montana related stuff so thanks for the encouragment. On the Admin side (thanks to your subtle push into the oblivion of psyopsville), I am now a defender of the wiki and relish the challenge. If I could only identify those landmines before I step on them.--Mike Cline (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being an admin can be thankless...I think the website has become so complex in administrative issues that it would be hard to be an expert on more than a couple major areas related to administrative work...some do better than others if they concentrate mainly on that and that would leave little time to create articles or upgrade them...so perhaps just stick to the areas you feel most comfortable with and that should be all the help that is needed. I did notice that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Montana/Articles page is way out of date...but it is also too long. In addition, I have had to do some major clean up of many articles due to lost redirect pages, messed up disambiguation issues and articles that no longer link directly to each other...in one case, I found a triple redirect issue! I suppose once I have all the mountains done for GNP I may clean up some of my own article starts to try and standardize them...I have been going back to older mountain articles for GNP and adjusting those but that is really tedious!--MONGO 00:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CC/WMC et al

This was an inspired comment. It frames the main issue with the entire climate change topic perfectly. I salute you. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stayed out of this mess...but always intended to chime in at some point...losing Connolley would be a disasterous...his evolution in his main focus parallels mine but the only thing that saved me was I simply had too much work off wiki to stay around long enough to tell the 9/11 conspiracy theorists to all go to hell. I eventually moved back into land management related topics due to time issues...and I was no expert...Connolley is. Thanks for your comment.--MONGO 11:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A really good argument. I've stayed out of that case too, and even now I don't have a clear opinion on what should be done (other than that they must clarify this involvement issue), but your comments begin to sway me toward an opinion.

By the way, since probably no one ever bothered to thank you, thanks for all that you did in the olden days to keep our articles free of certain people's "Truth About 9/11". An important service that was seriously thankless. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of things: I noticed your comment too, Mongo, and thank you -- it was an inspired one. Nail on the proverbial head. (I can't get involved in that stuff -- I'm not an expert, and I don't have the stomach for all the fighting and stress.) Also agree with Heimstern about all your struggle on the 9/11 nonsense a couple years back (just yesterday I heard one of those people interviewed on NPR; I was thinking -- what the hell? hasn't this person ever heard of Occam's Razor? and with our government's miserable record at keeping secrets, anyone who thinks something as giant as that would never have had a single Wikileak or whistleblower is smoking something rather potent indeed -- sometimes you just have to laugh). Thank you for your continued work around this place; there are people who truly appreciate you. All the best, Antandrus (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much thanks to all three of your comments...oddly enough though, I intend to resume work on a couple 9/11 articles in the near term as the landmark 10 year (has it really been that long) anniversary of the event is but a year away.

Though I personally believe that Connolley is far from perfect as am I, I see a comparable tale to be told between myself and him...in the case of climate change, I'm deeply concerned that we may have no possible (meaning economically affordable) way to turn the tide...I doubt that major changes are immediately forthcoming climate wise, but the long term (hundreds of years) feedback from doing little or nothing will be looked at by future generations as a serious blunder on our part. Sound, reasonable benchmarks for reduction of greenhouse gas and other pollutions need to be established. I thank all of you for all your contributions as well!--MONGO 10:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another kudo for your perceptive statement. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your friend Bishzilla pleased also. bishzilla _ROARR!! 18:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Scotty and Bishzilla...I appreciate the feedback...well, I surely hate to see so much going on at arbcom regarding these issues over climate change and the editors there...there have been some errors that need to be addressed, but I can't support banning though that decision isn't mine to make...had I been on arbcom for that case, I would have had to recuse myself as I don't think I could have made an objective decision.--MONGO 03:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great pic

And since I was spying on your page I noticed File:Thunderhead.anvil.jpg which is gorgeous William M. Connolley (talk) 11:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lucky shot...I was west of Omaha, Nebraska looking east (the storm was over Iowa) and the storm was tracking north...I'm just glad I wasn't under it as it did some major hail damage. I also wish I had a better camera with me at the time I took the shot to better absorb the low light conditions at the ground...the pic was edited to restore the actual lighting conditions...Keep the faith WMC.--MONGO 11:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 11 attacks

I see your point about Silverstein not flying the planes. Now, in equally good faith, let's also make the same point about Families of September 11, the documentary Flight 93, List of terrorist incidents, 2001, Post-9/11 legal issues, Survivor registry, United 93 film and World Trade Center (film). Or maybe you have some other reason for not wanting Silverstein's name displayed anywhere in connection with his property which was destroyed that day? Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 06:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those see also links are related to the event...Silverstein isn't.--MONGO 06:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision

Please note that contributors should not be voting here. I'd appreciate it if you'd remove your !vote (and reword if appropriate). What we are looking for is constructive criticism (such as alternate wordings or alternate remedies) . If you aren't around I may remove your !vote myself, and you might want to then modify your comment. Thanks. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--MONGO 15:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Montana Pix

Are there any specific images you'd like for me to get when I'm in Glacier/Waterton Lakes NP in September? I'll be there, Yellowstone, central Idaho, Salt Lake City and points in between, so if there's something that's missing in one of your many Montana-related articles, I'll try to get it. When I get back, maybe I'll be motivated to tackle the summary article on Historic structures of Glacier National Park that I promised back int he spring. Acroterion _(talk) 14:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OOOH....lemme go with you! Well, I'd have to quit my job so can't do that. Are you sticking to the roads or going backcountry? Let me look over what is missing and get back to you in a day or less.--MONGO 11:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It'll have to be near the roads, unless I can arrange for new hips for my wife in the next week and a half. Specifically, starting in SLC, up through Craters of the Moon, Ketchum, the Bitterroot Valley, Missoula, Columbia Falls, a couple of days in Glacier/Waterton Lakes, back down the east side of the mountains around Chouteau, and then four days of undefined activities in Ennis/Yellowstone/Grand Teton, Jackson, down to Park City, and back East. For what it's worth, my Droid will show Google Maps with the Wikipedia overlay, so I can see where the mountain peaks or other subjects with articles are in a topo or satellite context. I figured I could do wide reference shots for context so I could identify things later, then individual shots of peaks. This will depend on weather, schedule, and my wife's patience. Acroterion _(talk) 11:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I'll shoot peaks, lakes, bears (from an appropriately respectful distance), old log buildings, odd roadside structures, weather (preferably not fog or low clouds), vast scenic panoramas, mud pots, fumaroles, places that steam in the middle of the parking lot, bridges, mines, rock formations, as so on. My only problem is keeping track of what I want to shoot and knowing what I've shot once I'm back home. Acroterion _(talk) 21:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds wonderful. Bitteroot Valley is my old region from when I was a kid. I suppose anything along Going to the Sun Road in Glacier NP would be helpful though we have lots of pics of Lake McDonald and St. Mary Lake, not enough of surrounding peaks...also, many historic structures articles use oldish images courtesy of the feds which work fine, but newer ones would be nice too. I can ID most of the mountains from sight and/or using Google Earth to clarify if you get confused. In other regions like the Mission Range and ranges south of Missoula we don't have a lot of images I don't think, least none well linked via Commons it seems. If in the region near Chouteau, you'll be far east of the Rocky Mountain Front but it's hard to access that region around the Bob Marshall Wilderness anyway...it is really remote. We lack defined images of many of the easily seen peaks of the Tetons, especially the northern part of the range north of Mount Moran and also between Moran and Grand Teton itself and points south. I think Yellowstone, least from easily accessed spots if fairly well covered, but I imagine that more images would still be beneficial. I will look through Commons, see what we have and add more to this...if what we might need is on your direct itenerary, then that would be great!--MONGO 03:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to add that Google is slow to add geo-coordinated articles to their overlay...Commons images show up immediately almost, but the articles themselves have a long lag time...many months. I even had an inquiry recently about the W icon for a covered bridge being off by a half mile, so I adjusted it two weeks ago and it still hasn't been adjusted yet on Google Earth. Few of the numerous mountain stubs I have created for articles on mountains in Glacier NP are showing up yet on Google Earth...even ones I stubbed out back in April...so I don't know if these newer articles will be available via Google Maps yet either.--MONGO 03:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd pretty much assumed that Google hadn't picked up on any geo-coordinated links that have changed or been added since, say, April. This gives me a general idea of what to shoot, and while I agree that we have way enough images from the obvious viewpoints, there's probably ample scope for improvement or detail shots of individual features, as opposed to big vistas. Tripod shots of distant peaks with telephoto could be useful if the air's clear. Also, I intend to get as far back as I can into Waterton, which seems poorly represented, and to poke around on roads not taken when we were last there in 1999, like the North Fork Road, time permitting. In Yellowstone we have a bazillion images of the usual things, and surprisingly good coverage of geothermal features, so I'll have to scour Commons for what's missing. The new OF visitor center needs a shot, and the Myriad Basin behind the OF Inn is not represented, although it's really hard to get a useful composition - I've tried. Context shots of the UGB and Geyser Hill seem to be missing.

Along the Rocky Mountain Front, I'll see what can be done with tripod and telephoto; I know somebody who knows somebody with a cabin out west of Choteau, but we're not going there. The Bitterroot Valley and central Idaho seem entirely neglected, so I'll try for general coverage and context - those areas are new to me. For the Tetons, I should look through the archives I already have: while I don't have much north of Moran, I already have a fair number of shots along the length of the Tetons between Jackson and Moran, which might be croppable without much loss of quality - I have both film and digital from 1999 and 2007.

It was supposed to snow above 6500' last night all the way down to Missoula! Maybe there'll be some (not too much) photogenic snow when we're there. Acroterion _(talk) 14:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can and are interested, it would be really awesome if you added some things to OpenStreetMap. Like Wikipedia, changes go into effect immediately. (or might take a minute) Things like making sure mountain peaks are in the right place are useful, to adding points of interest and other things.

Work is being done on the Toolserver [7] to provide better integration between OSM, Wikipedia, making Wikipedia coordinates available, and allowing OSM data to be used for maps on Wikipedia. --Aude (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another free-content project/time sump?! With maps - a personal weakness of mine. Oh hell, I've signed up. Acroterion _(talk) 17:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acroterion, I'm looking over images and that will take a lot of time...I could spend weeks at Commons just categorizing images and creating pages that have related images so they are easier to locate...we have a lot of orphans I see in need of categorizing. In addition, geotagging is sorely needed and that may be an immediate project I might commence this evening even...Some of the images are quite good...In Glacier...we do lack images of the northwest region...that road is unpaved but well graded the border region...FYI..I saw it snow a foot in Kalispell in late August (1993) but it was mostly gone the next day...we have but one image of Kintla Lake..and two of NRHP things you uploaded]....two of the Bitterroot Range...etc...I looked over some of the sawtooth Range images and saw some decent shots...Craters of the Moon NM is either poorly represented or just poorly linked...looking over my stubs just of mountains of Glacier NP, less than 10% have images on Commons or generally free use images available via Flicker I could use. Don't feel that just images of buildings and mountains are needed either...we lack good resolution imagery of much of the native flora to the region you are going to...not trees so much, but flowering plants etc. Have I made it too much of a project yet? Hah...--MONGO 23:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops...This image is tagged as being Triple Divide Peak but I think it is actually Mount Jackson...like I said...lots of work to do at Commons...--MONGO 00:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was also wondering if you plan on going over the Beartooth Highway...if so we have few images from that region I think...--MONGO 00:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flora will be scarce this time of year, but I'll see what appears. While I or my wife can identify flowering stuff, herbaceous plants, not so well, so that will be a low priority. I figured I'd seek out some of the more accessible places for which I uploaded images of buildings. I can probably do better than HABS or the NPS guy who got detailed to go take pictures of everything (although in fairness, I worked for the NPS in graduate school and was detailed to document abandoned buildings in Martin Luther King NHS, so I was once that guy). I doubt we'll go over the Beartooth this time, but might do the Chief Joseph Highway toward Cody. I do have some film shots of the Beartooth from 1999, but they need a lot of work - I shot negatives when I should have stuck to Kodachrome, and they're grainy. The weather wasn't good and there was a lot of smoke in the area. Acroterion _(talk) 01:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some asters and gentians may still be blooming. Also, you may see some seed heads and fruit. Pictures of the leaves and involucral bracts help identify the species; flowers and fruit are often not adequate. For documenting the location of an image, before I had my GPS, I took pictures of road and trail signs, mileposts, altimeter, odometer and pedometer readings, etc. Also, I was careful to set the time of my camera so that it was accurate and could be correlated with any notes that I took. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Craters of the Moon: If you take a look at the Commons:Category:Craters of the Moon National Monument instead of the gallery, you wil find that I uploaded everything I liked from the NPS website. It's another of "my" parks on deWP and regarded as lesenswert (~good) there: de:Craters of the Moon National Monument. --h-stt !? 06:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...I forgot to check the cats...maybe we can transfer those images to the Craters of the Moon page at Commons...--MONGO 01:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent>I'll keep an eye out; I have two forms of GPS, so I should be able to keep reasonable records. I expect I'll need help with identification once I upload: assuming I have useful images, they might start out as File:Glacier seed head 1.jpg until they're identified and I can move them to a more precise filename. If I take the number of images discussed here it will be a multi-month project to refine the images, verify, upload, tag and categorize. Acroterion _(talk) 19:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you go from Yellowstone to Glacier (or the other way), I might be interested in pictures of Grant-Kohrs Ranch NHS at Dear Lodge (they have a lot of living history stuff going on this summer). And the usual request: typical images of small towns. Any small town. Main street with a bank or a post office. A church plus the buildings around it. Not details, but the large frame. We often already have the court houses of county seats, but pretty much anything else is missing in most sparsely populated regions. Same is true for lesser known mountain ranges and smaller rivers. Almost any picture of those places would be the first we have. But please don't overdo it, have fun in the first place. It would be nice though, if you would take a few pictures of the typical places that are not special and you probably would not deem worthy of a picture. Those are the ones we usually don't have. Thanks in advance. --h-stt !? 22:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We might get to Grant-Kohrs - we were there in 1999 and liked it, but there wasn't any such thing as a free online encyclopedia and my shots from that visit aren't of much encyclopedic use. I tend to shoot weird things in small towns, so that's not much of a problem - see my images from Newcastle, Wyoming. I will have to be judicious - I wish to remain married, and there are limits to my wife's patience. Acroterion _(talk) 04:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll watch the Commons cats for new images. Thanks for your offer and have a good trip. --h-stt !? 06:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got about 3200 images in all, of maybe 700-900 subjects, allowing for bracketing, experiments and alternate compositions. Mountain peaks, flowers, seedheads, historic buildings, town streetscapes, thermal features and art for art's sake. It took all of yesterday evening to get them off the cards and into the system, including a scare when one 16GB card claimed it was corrupted. Happily, they make software to deal with that, and everything came through unscathed. I've started uploading images and will go as time permits - only two so far, both of the new part of Dulles Airport. The weather in Glacier was variable, with a stubborn cloud layer between 5000 and 6000 feet, but I've got images of most peaks visible from the Sun road and Many Glacier. I've also got some images from along the Rocky Mountain front through a long lens - I haven't checked how they turned out yet. I think I have images of every Teton peak in morning or midday light. I was thinking of setting up a Flickr account for unidentified subjects, particularly botanical images and mountains, and uploading them there for identification before processing and uploading to Commons. Acroterion _(talk) 19:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great...I'm not surprised that you had low clouds in Glacier this time of year...though it is a 50-50 thing since sometimes late summer early fall there can be dry and balmy too...even into mid October and then winter arrives in 6 hours after that! There are a number of options available to you...you could load as many pics as you feel are decent to a page at Commons in your userspace there...link me to it, and since I see topo maps almost in 3D anyway, I bet I can ID most images of the mountains...I also use google earth to help ID places too..so unless a peak is extremely obscure, we'll ID it. Once identified, I'll geotag it so it shows up at google earth and other places if you like...For biota, I would contact User:Wsiegmund at his talkpage...he is excellent at identifying plants and species in general also has many contacts at Commons and elsewhere that he may be able to direct you to. He has uploaded many thousands of images...all his own work....I'll alert him to this conversation as he may have further advice.--MONGO 13:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers!

Good to see you are busy editing and helping maintain articles :) Regret I don't have much time for editing, but hope to do some more.

Anyway, from this past weekend, here's construction progress of One World Trade Center. [8] Cheers. --Aude (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah...nice shot...I read the other day it was now over 350 feet...only 1,426 feet left! Nice to hear from you...yes, do resume if and when you have time...you are sorely missed.--MONGO 03:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to do another featured article or two... just need to try not to get too distracted on the talk pages and just work on articles with what time I can spare. (and have reviewing help) --Aude (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know..I can add what I can and I promise not to nominate it for FA as I did after you did ALL the work on Banff NP...sorry about that one.--MONGO 00:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Divide Peak

H, thanks for the notice. I exchanged the image and improved the description of both images. Keep on with the good work. --h-stt !? 07:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you do great work..I hope the translation tool I used for the conversation at your usertalk at the German Wikipedia wasn't too crummy...--MONGO 22:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WT:RFAR-CC

Please refactor your comment in the last section of the talk page for the RFAR. "Denialist" is an extremelhy offensive term; it equates skeptics of the AGW theory of global warming with holocaust deniers and AIDS deniers. As someone who is the son-in-law of one of the few Jewish survivors of Bialystok and who is very close to someone who has been HIV+ for 29 years, I have a real problem with that formulation. I have come to your talk page to ask you because I am not one of your detractors; in fact, I supported your second RFA and was one of the more strident opponents of Tango's second RFA, because of his mistreatment of you with that vexing exchange with Thomas Basboll. I'm not asking you to retract your statement (although I disagree with it), but please remove the "denier" from the statement. Horologium (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Horologium (talk) 00:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem...best wishes.--MONGO 01:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CC ArbCom

Please stop treating the CC ArbCom case as if it is simply a disagreement between majority viewpoint editors and minority/fringe view point editors. The reality is far more complex. You've seen enough of my edits that I don't prescribe to minority/fringe view points, so I ask that you reconsider some of your recent posts. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From your perspective, what is the main issue then?--MONGO 02:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you may have noticed in my work on 9/11 conspiracy theories, Moon landing conspiracy theories, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, etc. I seem to have a bizarre interest in conspiracy theories, but not to promote them, but to debunk them. Anyway, when I first heard about Climategate, I found the notion of a global conspiracy of scientists to be ridiculous and went to check out our article on the topic. Much to my surprise, our article didn't actually explain what the conspiracy theorists were claiming. So I tried adding them to the article. For some strange reason, this got me labeled as a skeptic. Apparently, we have editors who don't understand that explaining minority and fringe theories is not the same thing as agreeing with them. So, you have a group of editors who repeatedly remove any mention of these viewpoints in articles about these view points. It would be the equivalent of me removing the section on controlled demolition in our 9/11 conspiracies article because I don't want people to find out about controlled demolition conspiracy theories. Or me nominating the article Loose Change for deletion because I don't want people to know about this movie. Anyway, I can go on further, but hopefully this gives you some insight into what is going on in the CC topic space. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and to clarify, this doesn't mean that we don't have skeptics who are actively trying to push anti-AGW viewpoint in our science articles. We do and that's a problem as well. I'm just trying to explain that there's more than one dispute going on here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the employ of the United States Department of Homeland Security (USDHS)

It has been alleged on Talk:September_11_attacks#Conflict of interest that you were once and perhaps still are an employee of the United States Department of Homeland Security (USDHS). Can you please confirm or deny. As I alluded to that fact in a recent comment on that same page, I would like to give you the opportunity to address that question. Thank you. Oclupak (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the opportunity to address your concerns...where I did work and where I work now are none of your business...but if you start to see black helicopters following you around don't be surprised....

Removal of section " Failure to prevent the attacks" from 9/11 attacks talk page

I noticed that you removed the section " Failure to prevent the attacks" from the 9/11 attacks talk page yesterday and moved it unceremoniously to Talk:September_11_attacks/Archive_53 without a single word of explanation. Please explain why? Oclupak (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No different than removing vandalism (or conspiracy theory stuipidities, same thing) from the article itself...least I archived instead of simply deleting it...if you want to reread the nonsense you wrote, it's in archive 53...the talkpage is for discussing ways to make the article better...it should be obvious we're not going to add a bunch of idiotic conspiracy theory junk to the article...

Conflict of interest notice

I have posted my view of the conflict of interest issue on the Conflict of interest noticeboard. It is not my desire to harrass (quite the contrary); I only wish to maintain maximum article quality with a neutral point of view. Conflicts of interest tend to be counterproductive toward maintaining NPOV. Wildbear (talk) 07:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you do...--MONGO 00:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you are done pushing the DHS agenda

MONGO - just lit up Notable figures in Montana history. If you can think of anyone we are missing (there are dozens, I am sure) let me know. Or just get your DHS buddies to conspire to include some really radical Montana progressives that believe the Mormons were behind 9/11. Any help is apreciated.--Mike Cline (talk) 04:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The conspiracy theory peddlers truly hate my guts...and I'm glad they do...if I make their "editing experience" here unpleasant then so be it. This is an encyclopedia, not some blog...I think it's time to start tracking their edits and see which ones of them I can prove are previously banned editors...their patterns are the same and the MO they use is the same...they have tried repeatedly to get me banned from 9/11 articles and they fail every single time and they always will. Your list looks pretty complete actually...but I'll check out other stuff and see if anything pops up.--MONGO 00:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most conspiracy theories age poorly, so time has a tendency to heal these things, as the peddlers will look more and more ridiculous with each passing year. Our government has a wretched time keeping even the most basic secrets, so the idea they planted explosives in the towers, or whatever the conspiracy theory du jour happens to be, and no one has leaked documentary evidence yet, is so utterly absurd that I still laugh every time I hear it (particularly with a change in administration!) I've met a lot of conspiracy nuts in my life, and they have many things in common it wouldn't be polite to mention here, but I'm sure I could find a psychological study to back me up. Anyway, keep up the good work. William of Ockham had it right more than seven hundred years ago. Antandrus (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are some that have published books on the matter...and a few that have produced some truly silly videos...they have at times registered here and/or used just their IP...they have a COI since they might lose book sales or ad fees if their videos don't get enough hits. I make nary one single dime to keep the silliness at bay, and it is mostly thankless...most of the time, someone either somewhat sympathetic to their efforts of naive of what those talkpages are like try to slap a civility warning on me, or worse, block me for a week(!) and get desysopped partly because of it. I could probably be less combative with the CTer's, but since most of them add basicallly zero to the website, I can't see how they're much more than a drain on server space.--MONGO 01:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the "Restored" section you had created on my talk page

MONGO, I moved the message you had written on my talk page to the "Administrators' noticeboard" section, created by Tarage a few days ago and then, proceeded to delete the redundant "Restored" section you had created. Just so that you will know why it has vanished, should you look or it. Oclupak (talk) 12:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

Thanks. I figured it was dead and gone, but I appreciate it. I've been sick the last few days so my attention to it has been a bit lacking. --Tarage (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next step in dealing with any further CT disruption is to gather links and post them at arbitration enforcement noticeboard. But it's important to ensure all editors understand that there are discretionary sanctions that can be imposed if they persist with their agenda....and we both need to inform them of such potentialities on their talkpages as politely as possible.--MONGO 02:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced content

You have removed sourced content from Collapse of the World Trade Center in this edit. You have justified your removal by stating that it would not be wholly true and that the source would be non-English.

Is your statement that the content would not be wholly true your personal assessment, or do you have any sources for the statement?

Do you agree that non-English sources are acceptable and should be replaced by an English source only if a better English source for the content exists?

Cs32en Talk to me 21:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you persist in promoting conspiracy theories here either via edits, talkpage distractions or via links to conspiracy theory websites, then you risk the chance of having discretionary sanctions imposed as I mentioned at your talkpage.--MONGO 22:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source is ZDF, one of the two large public television stations in Germany. While the text covers conspiracy theories, this is a factual statement from the TV station itself that is not attributed or ascribed to any of the theories. I you need a verbatim quote and a translation, I can provide both. Cs32en Talk to me 22:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already translated it...you're correct that the website is not in and of itself a CT website, it is still not an English language ref and it is pretty obvious you're trying to promote an agenda by linking to it....the translation I have rough is as follows from this ref you provided here:

The long night of the conspiracy theories an other view of 9/11

In exciting documentation, critics do not tell its version of the events of the 11th of September 2001 and why Osama bin Laden nine years after that still grasped is.

The production forms the prelude of the long night "102 minutes" of the American History Channels. Between the impact of the first airplane into the World Trade Center and the collapse of the second tower, exactly 102 minutes passed, of 8.46 clock until 10.28 clock local time. Until now unknown filming and sound recordings reconstruct the events in real time. Videos of resident, records of supervision cameras and with cuts of emergency call headquarters sit down like a Puzzle part for part together to a moving and thrilling documentation.

Hunt on Osama bin Laden he the usually sought man of the world is. Head money 27 million Euro. The best elite units of the world hunt it. Yet always the Saudi al-Kaida-boss seems to be its Häschern a step ahead. Many ask itself: Do the Americans want to catch it generally? Nevertheless it serves them as an establishment for its expeditions against the terrorism. Perhaps is am store already since years dead and will receive only of the CIA with falsified video and Audiobotschaften artificially alive? On the heels of the terror boss the film of Michael Renz and Michael Rudin proceeds on the trace of the most important theories round around the previously unsuccessful hunt after am store. What has it am with the mysterious Audiobotschaften store on itself? Is the man explained on the video actual that saudi, the America already long the 11th September ago 2001 the war? To word, hunter such as hunted come: For example a member of the secret special unit delta Force, that had struggled here itself up to few meters at the terror boss, and former way companions of Osama bin Laden that explain how he creates it evidently again and again to escape its hunters.

The website promoting the show goes on to state: (making serious false claims as WTC suffered the destruction of a major support column...see:World Trade Center 7....

The third tower on the 11th of September 2001 not only the Twin tower collapsed in New York. Buildings 7, that third-highest house of the World Trade Center of complex, was hardly damaged external when it collapsed seven hours after the Twin Towers in itself. The 47 floors collapsed in few seconds, symmetrical, "cleanly" - as would have been burst it by discontinuance pro purposefully. The tenants of the building 7 were among other things the secret service CIA and that authority New York to the defense of terror attacks. The official version of the collapse read: Here refuse end ruins of the Twin Towers set the building on fire, what led last of all to the collapse. For the followers of the numerous conspiracy theories to the 11th of September, the WTC7 plays an important role. Was the building burst in order to destroy proofs? Was the WTC7 "preserve the command headquarters of that culprit" of the 11.September? The Koproduktion of the BBC and the ZDF investigates many traces and lets come numerous experts and witnesses to word. Under that Barry Jennings, that was rescued as more last out of the burning WTC7, as well as that fire department boss former New York Nigro, that gave its men prematurely the command, served to remove itself of the building. --MONGO 22:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The 47 floors collapsed in few seconds, symmetrically" and "The official version of the collapse read: Falling [pieces of] debris from the twin towers have set fire to the building, which ultimately led to the collapse." are statements from the ZDF, they are not quotes from other people. Some parts of the "translation" above are correct, but others are rather obscure or misleading. Cs32en Talk to me 22:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erh? That is a blurb/teaser text to make people watch a show about conspiracy theory... and as such it definitively isn't a reliable source. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ZDF, a reliable source, classifies the broadcast as a documentary, not as a "show". Which are the "serious false claims" in the source, in your view? Cs32en Talk to me 23:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional material is never reliable for anything other than its existence. And this is promotional material - not journalism. It has very little to do with whether the ZDF is generally a reliable source or not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC) [and i have no idea whether it is factually correct or not - i'm not interested in the 9/11 incident, outside of general curiosity --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)][reply]

I've added Collapse of the World Trade Center to my watchlist. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider factual statements from the documentary itself as promotional? Cs32en Talk to me 23:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the context within which it was said, and the general focus of the documentary. Documentaries are not created equal, if the focus in a documentary is about a fringe topic, then very little of it is usable as anything other than a presentation of views within the context of that fringe. On the other hand if the documentary is well-balanced, journalistic, presenting the mainstream viewpoint succinctly, and addressing when views are fringe, then comments/statements/views could be usable. ZDF here makes it clear that this is about a conspiracy theory, and as such it may be a source to such conspiracy theories - but again context matters. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's WP:UNDUE anyway. Why would we mention WP:FRINGE theories in this article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't looked at the page. I only attached myself to this because i read and understand German, as well as watch ZDF often. If it is fringe, and we aren't describing what fringe views there are on a topic (i have no idea, since as i say, i've got no interest in the topic), then it is most certainly undue. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC) [ie. i do not have the background knowledge to determine whether that particular tidbid is fringe or not - all i can say is that the documentary is describing a conspiracy theory, and what caveats are attached to such presentations :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)][reply]

(edit conflict) The content that was deleted did not include any WP:FRINGE theories. Cs32en Talk to me 00:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The documentary is here. It's in German, however. You can see that it includes interviews with various people who offer different viewpoints. While the documentary sometimes refers to "conspiracy theories", the interviewees that offer views that differ from the official explanation are generally not being described as "conspiracy theorists". For example, at 15:14, the documentary refers to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth as "a group of architects and engineers" that have joined "to critically review the official investiagations into September 11. Richard Gage is a member of the American Institute of Architects and has practiced in California for 20 years." It also refers to the group's members as "experts". Some of the factual statements rather support viewpoints from interviewees that agree with the conclusions of the official investigations, while other statements support views from interviewees who disagree with those conclusions. But this is all in German, and it may be quite difficult to sort these things out given the confrontational climate in that topic area. Cs32en Talk to me 00:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can only be seen by IP's within Germany. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NONENG says that non-English sources may be used if "no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material." Other specific requirements must be satisfied as well. In most cases, it is difficult to justify using a non-English source for a topic that is well-covered in English. That is certainly true for World Trade Center collapse and related articles. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But then again, as a completely outsider to this, i have no idea, as to what sources are available :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kim..forgive the rudimentary translation but I use this website to do free translations...my lousy mastery of German dictates I use a third party source that may not be entirely accurate in the translation. But I concur with yours, Wsiegmund and A Quest For Knowledge in that we should use English refs in the English wiki unless we have no alternative...and that this ref is nothing more than an ad for a show about the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11...and as such, is an inadequate ref anyway. Kim, the reports regarding the collapse of the World Trade center are pretty boring to read. One of the problems with the article Collapse of the World Trade Center is that for it to be even a good article, much less a featured one, we need some editors with structural engineering and related disciplines to improve the engineering aspects of that article...much of the engineering reports about how the buildings collapsed is technical jargon not easily translated into more easily readable prose. There have been more than a dozen independent engineering studies conducted on various aspects of the collapse, some dealing with metallurgy, others that have examined fire and others that have investigated design issues. When the U.S. Government first started working on finding out how the buildings collapsed, (aside from the obvious which was high speed impact by wide body jets, extensive fires, and peripheral damage to surrounding structures and infrastructure), they appointed the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to lead the investigation...that agency specializes in disaster response more than engineering in itself...so after preliminary reports came out from FEMA, the questions regarding how the buildings collapsed were not adequately addressed, so the feds had the National Institude of Standards and Technology (NIST) take over since they have that expertise, though had never had to deal with such a massive study..hence, the final reports took years to produce. These reports (and again, they aren't "fun" to read) can be found by following the links from this page I've linked here...these same reports are cited in various articles on this website as well.--MONGO 01:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that i didn't even look at your translation :) As for the rest, probably correct - but i have enough with one area that is overrun with conspiracy theory. If you ever want german or danish translated, then feel free to call upon me.. i won't promise an accurate translation, but a decent one i can do. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good...will keep that in mind.--MONGO 02:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cs32en...that Richard Gage guy is a bit off his rocker it seems...[9]--MONGO 02:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re next moves

I should be finished with all the Montana Lake lists in the next few weeks. I work on them most in airplanes high over the country side. Once they are done, the Flathead and Glacier County lists can be refactored into a Glacier NP list that will give you alot of stubs to work on. I think the Glacier NP trail article would be great. See: Trails of Yellowstone National Park. The Nat Geo Trails Illustrated Maps are really great sources here, plus I am sure there is a lot of historical bits and pieces about the exploration and creation of trails in the park.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan...--MONGO 21:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag

Hi, I've just come across an NPOV tag you added in March, and it's not clear what your concern is. If you still have concerns, please elaborate on the talk page such that somebody might one day fix them. cheers, Rd232 ^talk 18:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it...reread the article and though it seems more like an opinion piece than a NPOV article, I don't have time at present to detail it's various problems.--MONGO 12:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on 9/11 Article

Hi, I noticed you reverted my addition to the 9/11 article. I've posted a very brief argument on the talk page on why it should be kept there, which is pretty much the same thing I'm posting now (actually, this is longer). So it's really up to you to read it or not.

Let me stress that this is not a matter of POV, rather a matter of policy. Weasel words are discouraged. I noticed weasel words, and I tagged them as so. I felt that perhaps some people might want to know who such critics are, which is why I had inserted the tag (I didn't have the time to look anyone up).

Even if it were written as something like, "Proponents... such as (name)", I'd be fine with it, even though it is kind of weasel-y. But at least a person is being specified.

Thank you for your time.

Atomforyou (talk) 02:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to name otherwise nonnotable adherents to such issues and risk BLP violations or give them more credibility than they deserve.--MONGO 12:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy MONGO's Day!

User:MONGO has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as MONGO's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear MONGO!

Peace,
Rlevse
01:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well-deserved. Keep up the good work! Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 01:10, 26 September 2010 edit Rlevse (talk \| contribs) 93,195 edits happy your day ← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:16, 26 September 2010 edit undo Antandrus (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 111,003 edits →‎Happy MONGO's Day!: yep Next edit →
Line 417:		Line 417:

	For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see [[User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day!]] and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse\|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse\|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 01:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)		For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see [[User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day!]] and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse\|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse\|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 01:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

			:Well-deserved. Keep up the good work! Cheers, [[User:Antandrus\|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus\|(talk)]] 01:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)