User talk:MONGO

Archives Archive 1 (January 2005 to June 2005) Archive 2 (July 2005 to October 2005) Archive 3 (November 2005) Archive 4 (December 2005) Archive 5 (January 2006) Archive 6 (February 2006) Archive 7 (March 2006) Archive 8 (April 2006) Archive 9 (May 2006)

---

Hello

Bhadani has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

--Bhadani 14:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Latest Cyde vandalism

... is to add a false deprecation notice to Template:Ref and Template:Note. LotLE×talk 21:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

User:O I C U R M T

Nice block. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 04:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for the trust that you had in me when you supported my Request for Adminship. The nomination ended successfully and I am actually overwhelmed by the support that I received. Thanks again! -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for investigation

Wakipudeo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a similar editing style to BIG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I'm not positive if the users are similar, but my reasoning to his unsourced content isn't getting through and the introduction of personal attacks is abundant. Could you look into this..? -Zero^Talk 09:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Its his general disruption and unfounded personal attacks that concerned me, and his status as a revatively new editor gave me great cause for suspision. If he starts anew, we'll look into it as appropriate.

As for my user and subpages, I'll leave that to you and cummunity. If they feel I'm a suitible editor and contributor to the site, then, yes they can be restored. If not, notify me and I'll depart in full. The common perception is that I launch personal attacks and engage in incivilty, which I feel is a grossly mislead view and something I find to be very vexing. -Zero^Talk 11:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My User/Talk pages

Given that the reason I indefinitely left wikipedia was recently perminently banned from editing here, I am interested in returning. Could you please unlock my user and usertalk pages? Thanks! Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Redwoods

Thanks again for your work on the Redwoods, and hopefully we'll see it at FA soon. I'd have done it myself, but copyediting and cleanup are more my specialty than adding gobs of content. However, I thought I'd let you know that I have joined project protected areas and will work on NPS articles as much as I can. Thanks. PDXblazers 02:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#.7B.7BUser.7CMoby_Dick.7D.7D

I thought you might want to review this. --Cat out 04:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Hpuppet User:Hipocrite User:Whomp User:64.95.38.193

These are all the same person, some months ago this person agreed to stop editing at Wikipedia and no further action was taken. Hipocrite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is posting again and vandalised the Monkey-baiting and other baiting articles. Would you please "Block" all four of these accounts to stop this nonsense. Thank you 70.51.198.36 18:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I am NOT a sockpupped of User:Hipocrite, nor have I ever come into contact with him. This is a mere content dispute. -Whomp 18:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

While not wishing to become involved in what appears to be a personal vendetta, I feel that User:Hipocrite needs to provide rather more in the way of justification for his deletion of the content of the various "Baiting" pages. I've reverted his last change to the Monkey-baiting page, but will bow out of this issue henceforward. I trust that appropriate admin action, if admin action is indeed appropriate, will be taken. Tevildo 18:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect to Chill

All right, I'll not add pov descriptions of even those who deserve it; but there is nothing unfair about reporting that the Presbyterian church has been accused of anti semitism, and then sourcing that assertion. That is a statement of fact, backed up by many articles, some of which I posted. It is of interest, and of significance - and to delete it I think constitues vandalism, and to indicate that I intend to keep it in the article is not against any rule that I know of - at no point was I disrespectful of the reversion editors (thought I did call them vandals, which I think they are under the rules of Wiki).

As to the talk addition on Palestinians (and note it was in the talk section), it was a response to a long rambling pov tirade - I did not call anyone anything, I merely pointed out that the reason for the Wiki policy against or was that no one could know the real identity/validity of a poster, and while my examples are extreme, they were for the purpose of making that important point, again if you look at the posting a whole, it was in no way disrespectful of the person to whom it was address.Incorrect 19:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You called the user a possible "raving terrorist out to kill Americans" based on the fact that he was Palestinian. We have your exact edit right here. This is the kind of stuff that could get you indefinately blocked from Wikipedia.--Jersey Devil 21:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

JD, context is everything: I also said I could be a Christian Palestinian (which I said I am not), and I also said the user could be a 4 legged greendskined alien from Mars, no one has anyway of determining who/what a poster is when they post, therefor such postings from a personal point of view are totally irrevelant, even in the talk page - the whole point of my post (which you have neglected to mention) was that anyone who posts could be anyone/anything, therefor personal discussions are totally irrelevant and should not be engaged in - or perhaps you think that is not true and editors here should post their life story (which is impossible to verify)to validate a point?Incorrect 23:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I need some advice

I see very little logic, and little fairness in the process currently underway. I am feeling extremely disspirited, as if when push comes to shove, important issues about content are being dealt with behind closed doors - by favoritism instead of fact. I'm really feeling down. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I shall. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

And thanks for the help with archiving. All done! And when I get a few moments to rub together I'll be sending you a quick sumup of my concerns regarding the RfAr case for your edification and mullery. :) Thanks MONGO. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 11:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hehe... What was this? How would you even find such a page? I was just kind of chuckling to myself about it. Thanks for the support!!! ;-) --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It was just a little funny since I hadn't seen that page on my watchlist for so long, to suddenly see some action there. Welcome back. See you around. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 13:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

latest edits

MONGO, at first, i thought that ill go to ANI and complain about your eroding civility. Then i though that its better to let you keep going, until you get get so far that it gets inexcusable by any standard, and you'll get reprimanded. Then i thought that it would be mean of me, so its better for your own sake to take it to ANI before it gets out of hand. Then i thought that its better for you to just give you a personal message: Bro, you are escalating in incivility, you won't be able to continue with your mission of blocking the 9/11 truth movement if you keep on as you are doing, your current method is self-destructive. I'm not going to give you any advice regarding how to solve your issue, since you view me as you... enemy? I don't know, but now you know how i belive your latest edits are being perceived. I don't expect you to answer to this. --Striver 10:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Brett Kavanaugh

There is a slow action edit war going on at Brett Kavanaugh, can you help? 64.12.117.14 11:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Goethean

I see you're having some trouble with our friend. You are right - he has a history of using his user space to launch personal attacks. His User:Goethean/Examples serves no other purpose, and his posts like the one in question [1] serve only to attempt to discredit those he considers his opposition to his POV. The more you rail against it and him though, the more it serves his ends. At some point though the community will move to take down the personal attack page he maintains. FeloniousMonk 19:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks

MONGO, thank you for participating in my RfA. It passed with an amazingly unopposed 77/0/1. Thanks for the support everybody! If you see me doing anything wrong, want to ask me something, or just want to yell in my general direction, leave me a note on my talk page. I promise to try and knock out Wikipedia's problems wherever I may find them!

Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh

The circle of life, or something like that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Picture question

Hi MONGO. Great job with Redwood National and State Parks. Just a quick question concerning a picture I had placed in the article -- Redwoods in fog. I'm just curious as to why it was removed.[2] The current picture with fog doesn't quite convey how thick the fog can get, which is rather important to the trees. Thanks. — Zaui (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding it back. — Zaui (talk) 04:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to help the prose also. — Zaui (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Closing out a re-direct deletion request

How does that get done -- this one looks finished [[3]] Morton devonshire 22:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

A shout out from NYC

Hi there. Email sent. Here's a snapshot from the 'hood. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you...I think I have seen this spot from a different angle.--MONGO 02:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know we could do that

Thanks.

I use The Gimp for image editing but try not to tinker too much. Sometimes images seem to get darker when set against the white page background. --Duk 02:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

flight 77 videos

MONGO, regarding my edit concerning the accuracy of what lead to the release of the recent Flight 77 videos, you wrote:

>>we don't have to email anyone, this project doesn't allow self promotion

In response, the edit was not self promotion. The edit was made to correct the inaccuracy written that the Department of Defense released the videos to Judicial Watch in response to their lawsuit. This is not accurate. I don't know how to correct the inaccuracy without linking to the related documentation that is on the site, flight77.info. Perhaps the documentation files could be moved to a different source.

I've worked for this site and its efforts, but I sincerely don't wish to promote it in correcting the inaccuracy on Wikipedia.

It was the Department of Justice, not the Department of Defense that released the videos. Here is the letter from the Department of Justice concerning the release. As stated in the letter, the release was a CD ROM which represented "...the responsive record described in the Declaration of David Hardy dated August 1, 2005 in the above-captioned case."

The case mentioned was the case filed by the webmaster of flight77.info, Scott Bingham. I don't know how to avoid 'promoting' Scott Bingham in describing why the videos were released. It was simply through his lawsuit that they were released. That lawsuit had been active for over a year when Judicial Watch filed their lawsuit. Their lawsuit was a junior lawsuit. All junior lawsuits were issued the same release as the senior lawsuit. The release was forced by the senior lawsuit. You can refer to the final court order in the case. It is this information that explains why these particular videos were released and about the timing, and why the other videos referenced in the documentation have not been released.

If you can suggest a way and a reason to omit Scott Bingham's effort in the release of the videos, it can be arranged. The supporting documentation can either be moved to a different server and/or Scott Bingham's name can be removed from the documentation.

The important thing is to convey accuracy in why the videos were released and when. The inaccuracy that Judicial Watch forced this release has fueled conspiracy theories due to speculation.

In asking to be emailed, I was hoping to avoid this drawn out explanation and possible debate. The documentation is just the case. You may or may not agree with the views or integrity of Scott Bingham, but that shouldn't stand in the way of providing an accurate article.

Your comments are appreciated.

Cordially, Jimwilson 22:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Your personal Attack against User:Striver

This is a personal attack.

Your nonsense is never going to go in the 9/11 articles. Never. If you continue to misuse wikipedia resources, you'll end up at arbcom and there will be dozens of people that will contribute to seeing you blocked from editing those types of articles. In all liklihood, there may also be an end to the fighting you also engage in on the Moslem related articles as well. You create POV forks constantly, spam other POV pushers with similar nonsense POV pushing agendas and have been incivil more times than I can count. There really isn't much more to say, aside from the fact that we can ignore you some, but in the end, if you continue, we will do what we have to do.--MONGO 18:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No way someone can be so rude to any user as You are MONGO is in your above post. Please do not try to be bossy. If someone does not think on your line of thinking then it does not means that he is a POV pusher. --- Faisal 22:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Favorite Songs

My survey has changed. I am now continuing my mission for the best songs, but now I am accepting all genres. I'm giving you a chance to revote for your top ten favorite songs of any genres (not just classic rock which is still the best). I've made a executive decision to keep the existing survey results and just add on to that with the new entries. My feeling for doing this is because classic rock is the most influential genre in music currently so it should be expressed more in the survey. Thank you for contributing in the past, and hopefully in the future. ROCK ON. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 03:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

They're Baaaack!

9/11 Jewish conspiracy and 9/11 Jewish conspiracy theory. Please speedy delete both, as they're re-creations of 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Jews And Israel. Thanks. Morton devonshire 07:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

ZAP!--MONGO 07:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't take it personal (OK, so I did, but I'm over it) about the page, but, what else could work. The main page of 9/11 conspiracy theories is said to be too long, so I thought that the Jewish section was an appropriate lift, as it was somewhat self-sufficent. Something's gotta go, but what can we do to help the page? Scoutersig 14:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC) --P.S. How can I check to see if a page was made (and deleted) before I make it (again?)?

Another fork! 9/11 conspiracy theories foreknowledge Morton devonshire 20:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Plotinus talk page

Hello MONGO please review if you could the statements made by Goethan on the talk page of my account and Plotinus as well as his attempt to have some of my contributions deleted and my account banned. This has drastically affected my desire to contribute. Since I have to now prove to Goethan any contributions I might make to Plotinus. If you read through the notes in the talk page you will see how abusive and disruptive his tacts have been. Goethan was supporting an individual who was trying to change some very important tenets of Plotinus via original research. I fought to get their attention about how incredibly incorrect this research was and they ignored me. So I engaged in actions I have since apologized for. I have showed that modern research on the subject of Plotinus on the Neoplatonists and Gnosticism article from John Turner shows without a doubt that Plotinus not only knew who specifically he was addressing but addressed them in a way unique only to them. I have also been reprimanded by a fellow admin slimvirgin on Wiki because of this. This is very dishearting to say the least. LoveMonkey 16:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand that the subject is alittle obscure but he caused a revert war and got my additions remove from plotinus. He the put my article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neoplatonism_and_Gnosticism

for an afd. This is a pattern of abuse. LoveMonkey 23:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand that the subject is obscure I was pointing out that he did 3rrs on plotinus to remove my additions to plotinus and also cause a LoveMonkey 23:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey Goethan is at it again on the Plotinus talk page. There is a poster who keeps putting up their email address in the article and people have delete the addition. I am addressing comments made by that poster and goethan has decided to be disruptive. LoveMonkey 16:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. I am trying to work on some of the old articles i created and i though i could ask you for a opinion: How do you think i could improve this article? Thanks. --Striver 20:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, ill see if i can work on the reference, or at least explain them.--Striver 09:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, you think this site has high enough Alexa rating to warant it a article? I was surprised of its high rating, 11k, its quite unusual for beeing a Shi'a site. Strangly, its not even included in Yahoo!'s list of Shia sites by popularity [4]. Is it notable enough in you eyes? --Striver 09:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

critique

Hi, are you referring to my comment to Sheep? Well, on the other side, reviewers might not think much of contributors who blithely write hyperpositive comments without reading FACs properly.

Having said that, I'm sorry if I was a little hard, but the standards are high. I think it's risky to nominate a FAC without input from anyone else. II wouldn't do that myself, because I don't trust my sole judgement, either in prose or otherwise. You clearly want to prepare and nominate a series of articles on national parks: why haven't you networked on WP to find some collaborators? IMV, that's an essential aspect of your work. Have you tried AndyZ? And what about researching the members of Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team with a view to identifying collaborators, or at least WPians who might copy-edit the text?

I'd be pleased to critique one of your nominations that is better written.

In view of your comments, I'll strike out my quip about Sheep. Tony 01:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You "completely disagree"? That's a little harsh, isn't it? Your endeavours in this field are admirable, but I think I've pointed out many aspects of your prose that aren't yet up to FA standard. What more evidence do you want than what I've provided in the FAC room?

I don't know whether the article fails other criteria: I usually concentrate on 2a, which is the bane of FACs and alone is enough to sink a nomination. WP will have no authority on the net if it's not well written, no matter how much useful information it contains; your articles are way below the "compelling, even brilliant" prose that is required. By putting your work up for scrutiny in that process, you surely must accept uncompromising criticism and nit-picking. That's what will improve the overall standards of writing on WP, which is my agenda.

My problem is that I'll go back to your article and find that every section requires the same type of critiqueing as I've done for the existing ones on the FAC page. What I want is for you to establish a small network of like-minded WPians who can work together to improve the prose of their products. At least one of these people should be a good editor, at least until your prose improves (which it should with focused experience). See my work in progress for a better idea of the issues.

I don't mean anything personal in these comments. That's quite separable from the process here: I'd provide the same criticism of the work of friends as strangers.

Tony 02:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

So, now that you've turned strident, I must ask what particular comment you've taken offence at.

What has money got to do with this process?

Utterly disagree, and similar phrases, are all a little uncompromising, don't you think?

I have no idea why you're pushing this "factoid" line; all articles contain facts, and those facts should be presented as well as possible.

Many FACs have been good enough to pass, especially after they've been worked on during the FAC process. You appear to be digging your heels in and claiming that your articles, for some reason, shouldn't have to be written in "compelling" prose (the lower limit). Tony 09:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Some FAs are not as good as yours, which is why we have an active FAR process to either improve them or weed them out. That is inevitable given that the standards have been raised over the past 12 months.

You'll improve more by focused work than by general perusal of good examples—as I suggested, try my "work in progress", linked above. Although rather short, Hurricane Claudette (2003) is not badly written; Sanssouci is good (both promoted last month). Tony 15:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Pentagon tapes

His version of events is actually up at 9/11 Truth Movement. I haven't gotten to rewriting it yet to match the news reports. In the right context we could observe that 'flight77.info says that...' but I don't know how notable it is. Lots of people say lots of things. We have no business trying to evaluate scans of selected legal documents to reach an original conclusion. I really think he should take it to the press and correct the record. I haven't used Wikinews, but maybe that's a venue as well. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking at Wikinews, I think that might be just the place for him to go. They do original reporting, and he can even request an interview with someone there. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Information request

There are zero mentioning of biodiversity or national parks in the United States article. Since you seem to have an expertise in those areas, I wonder if you could provide a short paragraph (3-4 sentences) on biodiversity and national parks in the U.S. Thank you.--Ryz05 _t 22:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That old mole

Aaaghh... every time I think I find a temporary quiet, the anti-Churchill vandals come back. The latest is User:Verklempt inserting this POV rant into the lead of Ward Churchill misconduct allegations. What the hell is wrong with these people?! I had almost convinced myself that Verklempt wasn't quite as bad as that semi-anon (71-whatever; IP as username). But the latest changes are pretty obnoxious, and to the lead, which makes it worse. LotLE×talk 23:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Just for fun

Sometime in between when I last wrote a note and just now, I was reading my local alterna-weekly. Y'know, one of those thing printed on actual paper. It carries a syndicated column called News of the weird, which is mildly amusing. But this one caught my eye:

Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied

• An Illinois Appellate Court in April upheld a lower court ruling reversing Mongo the steer’s disqualification for steroids after he had been chosen junior grand champion at the 2003 Illinois State Fair. Mongo had tested positive for the anti-inflammatory Banamine, for his sore foot, but the court declared the test improperly administered. It was a victory for Mongo’s owner, Whitney Gray, but of utterly no benefit to Mongo, who shortly after the fair was slaughtered for steak.

Definitely not suggesting anything... just thought you'd want to know about your namesake :-). LotLE×talk 00:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool...but I wouldn't be very tasty I don't think...too many doritos in my diet! I'll look over th latest POV additons as well...nothing beats it when our biographies become a hive of slanderous innuendo.--MONGO 04:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding MedCab case: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-09 source documents

You have received this message due to your name being attached to the above case brought by User:Jimwilson.

We regret to inform you that this case regards a policy change and not an inter-editor dispute. MedCab has no authority over Wikipedia policy, and we suggest that changes to policy be made at Wikipedia:Village pump.

Thank you. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem

I'll be taking a good look again when I get a chance; someday, I'll have it make it and see a few Redwoods. Sam 02:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks MONGO!

Dear MONGO: dude, thanks so much for your support during my recent successful request for adminship. I really appreciate it, especially from an experienced editor and admin like yourself. Hey, be sure to let me know if I'm doing something as an admin that I shouldn't be doing! Take care -- Samir धर्म 07:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

DVD+R/W's RfA

Thank you for your support in my RfA, which ended with the result of (74/0/0). If there is anything I can help with feel free to ask. Also, if there is anything I am doing wrong, please point that out as well. I look forward to working with you in the future. Highest regards, DVD+ R/W 02:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda

172 suggested your name as a knowledgable person who may be interested in reviewing the rewrite I did on Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda and helping to moderate the controversy. This is a controversial article that has been the subject of many edit wars. Recently translated Operation Iraqi Freedom documents have made the non-official view that Saddam and Osama did have a cooperative relationship much more persuasive. In fact, former Democrat Senator and 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey now believes they did cooperate, showing this is a tenable position. The older version of the article is clearly not NPOV as it treated the non-official version as if its adherents were members of the flat earth society. I believe the rewrite is much more readable now and the narrative is more connected. I'm certain it has it faults but it seems to be a better foundation to work from than the older version. Please take a look and make any comments you like on the Talk page. Thanks! RonCram 05:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick

This just opened, in case you're interested. --Tony Sidaway 06:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Hey

I just changed the text to "monument area", if that is accurate. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

AfD on List of Nintendo series

I see you speedied the article. I have no problems with that, but since you flushed the article down the toilet, would you care to put down the toilet seat cover... er, close the AfD as well, then? =) -- Captain Disdain 14:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. In all liklihood, based on your comment here now, not.--MONGO 17:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The truth about 9/11 FINALLY REVEALED

I stumbled across this "conspiracy theory" while going through that site I posted a link to earlier. (Clearly it must be true, because I used all-caps for part of my message title -- if you need more convincing, I can use even more capitalization in my next post.) I feel like this theory really ought to be the lead section in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. Cheers, JDoorjam Talk 05:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

My God you are quick

You keep deleting pages listed for speedy deletion right from under my nose! Kudos! skorpion 07:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for intervention

Hi. 4.243.62.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been very persistent in the course of editting pages whilst calling me a vandal. I don't condone personal attacks, but I don't know I can reason with this editor. Perhaps you could explain this...? -Zero^Talk 11:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You are vandalising, "Mega Man Zero"- you've gone to at least thirty game pages so far and unilaterally ripped out the spoiler tags from the storyline sections, despite said storylines all containing multiple spoilers. Not only that, but you've done it when others have politely asked you to STOP. And you're STILL DOING IT. What you're doing is referred to as "blanking", and yes, it's vandalism. 4.243.62.28 11:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well RPH, I've stopped reverting on this for now. If there's a appropriate reason to refer to my edits as vandalism, I would be grateful to hear of it. -Zero^Talk 11:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Insanephantom

If I am not mistaken, Insanephantom was blocked yesterday (?) Please unblock him, I know him personally and because he is new, he was playing around with the sandbox like newbies do. He has apologised now, please unblock him. Typhoonchaser 12:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:Wow, you're quick

I just happened to check the news at the right time. It's my first Main-Page Current Event, actually. We should both read through it again after the link to it is removed from the main page. — Eoghanacht ^talk 12:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Domkatar

Under what jurisdiction you deleted the article Domkatar,Do you know they were rulers of Magahar,follow this link.[5].Should I help you use CTRL F of your computer and type domkatar , if you don't have time to go thru entire article.Link was already there in the article.I think good sense will prevail upon you and you will recreate the article by yourself.Thanks.Holywarrior 15:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC).
.The article was nominated for deletion bay a vandal see Talk:Bhumihar who is notorious for putting misleading tags on articles.Holywarrior 05:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks I will recreate it with more proofs.but if you have deleted it because of tag in the article,this will only encourage vandalism.Do you want to contest that Domkatar existed or do you want to say wikipedia is going to be google based.Holywarrior 05:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WOT

Right now there's a free-for-all at the above, your input is highly appreciated. --kizzle 22:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Today's Star shines upon...

File:Blue-star.gif

...my dear Dave,
both an awesome Wikipedian
and a human being of extraordinary quality,
a model of kindness and thoughtfulness,
whose kind support and friendship
I can never fully repay.
My warmest wishes and my
prayers are with you today,
my dearest friend.
Phaedriel

Request for investigation

I've filed a a request for investigation [6] and Checkuser request in light of this [7]-Zero^Talk 07:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, please do keep track of MM Zero, Mongo. His vandalism is keeping the articles he's damaging from coming forward, and it's getting aggravating. He's so far ripped out the spoiler tags from over a hundred articles, tags that rightfully belong there, and he hasn't given any legitimate explanation for it. His vandalism shouldn't be tolerated here on Wikipedia. 24.19.96.143 19:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Replied on my talkpage, MONGO. -Zero^Talk 00:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

And so have I. -- Daniel Davis 03:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh I get it. This has been a consistent editting habbit since the earlier editting days. You've previously been warned about this falsely callling edits "vandalism", what the definition of vandalism is [8], trolling [9] and general misconception and blanking [10]. I had respect for this editor and generally believed his edits to be in good faith. That respect was misplaced. -Zero^Talk 11:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering that archives of my own page are irrelevant to this present discussion, as well as the fact that you're taking those discussions out of context (as well as the fact that the majority of all of my prior conflicts were with a previous editor who was using my personal information), which is peppered by uncalled for personal attacks, your comments on this matter are becoming less and less important to me. If you're trying to dredge up the past, YOU have a history of this kind of behavior- reverting others good faith contributions with only the vague edit summary of "rv", so accusing me of such a thing (I've had maybe five conflict total over an edit history that spans over a year- I've noticed you've completely ignored any positive comments that were ever given to me) stinks of hypocrisy. I've also noticed that you've put this on Mongo's page instead of your own- which of course means you're attempting to influence him into "joining" you in attacking me. Personal attacks like "Although I appreciated your flawed reasoning" "I'm not amused by your abuse of random IP addresses" are most certainly rude to say the least and completely inaccurate. -- Daniel Davis 18:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

There are no personal attacks. In your previous summary [11] , you noted this was in response to harassment and threats. If this is the case, I deeply apologize and you have my support in this. The only problem depicted is that of false accusations. Vandalism is a purposeful attempt to degrade the quality of the encyclopedia. This statement made in various edit summeries was purposely made in knowledge of this. Yes, I'm sorry this fellow's actions has harmed you and your family. This does not excuse that of your comments. If you feel offended by my request for a third opinion on this then I apologize and I'll keep this in mind. But my edits certianly are not vandalism and this is not the first accusation of yours to an editor when this has been falsely made. If my edits on this dispute were vandalism and as destructive as composed, I would have been blocked long ago and wouldn't have such a highly regarded and successful editting history [12]. Just a thought. -Zero^Talk 19:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks very much for the barnstar. God bless. -- Huysman^{talk| contribs}File:Poisoned Icon.jpg 22:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Norm Coleman

Hi, I am sending this message to serious contributors who may be interested in articles related to U.S. politics. I believe I am receiving an unreasonable response-- and at times insulting and rude-- from the editors of Norm Coleman article, who refuse to remove a section that may offer some interesting trivia for Wikipeidia users, but is irrelevant to people interested in reading an encyclopedia article on a member of U.S. Senate. If you have time, please take a look at the article. Regards. 172 | Talk 03:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Badsy

Hey MONGO, I was hoping you could keep an eye on this guy today. He was dumping commercial links to t-shirts at Cafe Press into articles earlier. I warned him to stop, but am now running out the door to catch a flight and can't blockslap him if it comes to that. Could you take a glance at his (post-13:08-o'clock) contribs a couple times today and make sure he's heeded my warning? Thanks a bunch, JDoorjam Talk 13:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ward Churchill

Dear MONGO: I noticed that you have given me a warning on my Talk Page. You did NOT point out specific things that I did that violate Wikipedia policy, probably because I have NOT violated any policy. I also noticed that made a VALID sourced and referenced edit to the Ward Churchill article. Lulu, your friend, deleted. You then protected the Ward Churchill page and will the claim that the sourced and referenced material is potentially libelous, which of course it is not. However, I understand that you believe that it should be discussed, but protecting the page without you discussing the underlining issue seems to me a bullying tactic. Also, the warning to me on my Talk Page seems to me to be another bullying tactic. In neither of the these situations are you discussing WHY you believe that sourced and referenced material is potentially libelous you are just attacking me personally. You have been attacking me personally since I started work on the Ward Churchill article. Those personal attacks are in the edit history. I know that you are an administrator, but you are NOT acting toward me in a civil tone and you constantly engaging in bullying tactics towward me, simply because you do not agree with the edits in which I have been engaging. Now, you may disagree with my edits, but they do NOT violated Wikipedia policy, so I would suggest that you engage in civil behavior toward me. Either you or Lulu reverse each and every edit that I make, even though my edits do not violate any Wikipedia policies. You are constantly stating that I violating Wikipedia policy, but you never give specific examples of it, just warnings and threats. Please stop the uncivil behavior. Now, you have used your power as an adminstrator to protect the page, even though you have NOT provided any evidence whatsoever that the sourced and referenced material that I put in the Ward Churchill article is potentially libelous. Just stating that it is libelous do not make it so. Please provide evidence for this conclusion of yours and stop using the protection power as your personal bullwhip. You have stated that since I once stated that I believe that you and Lulu are POV pushers that you believe that I violated Wikipedia policy. However, you and Lulu call me a POV pusher all the time and I don't see warnings from you to Lulu. Why is this? Could it be that since both you and Lulu have made a agreement to back each other up on any edits in the Ward Churchill article, you overlook Lulu's behavior??? I believe the answer to be yes. Stop being an abusive adminstrator. -- --70114205215 21:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC) I believe the first step in settling disputes is:

== First step: talk to the other parties involved ==

The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page. Either contact the other party on that user's talk page, or use the talk page associated with the article in question. Never carry on a dispute on the article page itself. When discussing an issue, stay cool and don't mount personal attacks. Take the other person's perspective into account and try to reach a compromise. Assume that the other person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary.

Both at this stage and throughout the dispute resolution process, talking to other parties is not simply a formality to be satisfied before moving on to the next forum. Failure to pursue discussion in good faith shows that you are trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it. This will make people less sympathetic to your position and may prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution. In contrast, sustained discussion and serious negotiation between the parties, even if not immediately successful, shows that you are interested in finding a solution that fits within Wikipedia policies.

This is my attempt to start down the road of stopping your abuse toward me. Thank you. -- --70114205215 21:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The following what you stated to me on my Talk Page: There has been no abuse...I can cite plenty of evidence that you have been condescending, insulting and just plain rude. Constantly harping about editors instead of the content they support, is a violation, and that is policy.--MONGO 22:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear MONGO: I can cite plenty of evidence that where Lulu has been condescending, insulting and just plain rude to me (those incidents are in the edit history) and you have not once attempted to make Lulu stop his condescending, insulting and just plain rude behavior toward me. As a matter of fact, you have been supportive of, by ignoring, Lulu's condescending, insulting and just plain rude behavior. Lulu has called me a troll and you did nothing. You have been supportive of Lulu's behavior which violates Wikipedia policy and you have actually joined it. Please review it here: [13]. You can review where you state that I should not call Lulu's behavior POV pushing here: [14] Please stop the abusive behavior. Please explain where you have attempted to stop Lulu in his behavior toward me. -- --70114205215 22:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, Dear MONGO: You have made a claim that I have attempted to put "potentially libellous" (your spelling) into the Ward Churchill article. Please explain when and where I did that. I would like to have your explanation added to the edit history. As far as I can tell you have made a grave claim against my editing, but you have not provided any evidence to back up your claim. It seems to me to be another example of bullying behavior on your part. Please go into detail when and where I did this, you made the claim, please back it up. -- --70114205215 22:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a biography...it is important to gain concensus (something you do not have) before you post information that may be highly inflammatory, no matter how well it is cited,. As I mentioned on your talk page, if you don't stop with this "Dear" crap, I am going to block you and end your condescending tone.--MONGO 22:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The following was posted on my Talk Page: How's this for bullying...you refer to me as "dear" one more time, I'm going to block you...got it?--MONGO 22:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC) This comment and one above it is an example of how Wikipedia administrators believe that it is ok for them and people like Lulu who agree with them to bully and push around those that do not agree with them. And there is nothing that anyone can do about it. Simply amazing. --- --70114205215 22:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is a biography. And the FACT that Churchill has been recommended for firing by a committee at the University of Colorado is a FACT that should be in the introduction of Churchill's biography. Even if he is not ultimately fired from the only real job that Churchill has had in his life then it has to be in the top two or three things worth mentioning about him--regardless of how you want to bully around anyone that does not agree with you. -- --70114205215 22:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not "bullying" you...I am telling you what policy states. If you make one more accusation about me and not about the content of the argument...see WP:CIVIL. Read the policy.--MONGO 23:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to stop you from unfairly blocking me. I trying to make the argument that you are asking me to do things that you are not asking Lulu to do. Now, you are stating that if I point out this unfair treatment then you will block me just for pointing it out! Why don't you suggest that we simply agree to focus on the issues of the article and Lulu will stop calling me a POV pusher and you will stop stating that I am engaing in hate mail and I will only talk about issues in the article and then can take it from there. Why don't we put all of this former stuff behind us and just work on the article. I will stop calling Lulu a POV pusher if he stops calling me one. Its just that simple and you should try to solve the dispute in the most simple way possible because as far as I can tell from reading the Wikipedia policies on dispute resolution then we should attempt to solve these issues in the simplest way possible. We should not try to push the dispute to mediation or arbitration, etc. Also, as far as I can tell from the Wikipedia policy on civility you should try to work with me and not simply reverse anything that I do. The underling issue is edits to the Ward Chuchill article. Go ahead and block me. I have been trying to resolve this in a most reasonable manner. But you blocking me does not agree with my understanding of the Wikipedia policy. How can someone be blocked just for attempting to stop you from blocking me??? How is that fair? Why aren't you attempting as a Wikipedian administrator to follow the Wikipedia guidelines as to dispute resolution, where we attempt to talk this out. I quoted the alternative of talking to the person before resorting to mediation and arbitration, but I now learn that if I try to talk to you concerning a dispute I have with you, then you will block me. Let's just agree to stop calling each other POV pushers, and stop telling everyone new that comes to the Ward Churchill page that I am a POV pusher (as Lulu did here: [15]) ----70114205215 23:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

User:70114205215

Please block this user as he is violating to Wikipedia Username Policy, his name is a random sequence of numbers.--GorillazFan Adam 23:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You obviously have not read the Wikipedia policy concerning dispute resolution. You should attempt to talk to me first on my Talk Page. That is what the Wikipedia policy on Dispute Resolution asks for. You went to my talk page and posted and you waited FOUR minutes before you ran to MONGO's page. How about the Wikipedia policy of good faith. Four minutes is not good faith. --- --70114205215 00:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)