This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
... is to add a false deprecation notice to Template:Ref and Template:Note. LotLE× talk 21:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Nice block. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 04:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I thought you might want to review this. -- Cat out 04:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Staxringold talk contribs 21:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The circle of life, or something like that. Tom Harrison Talk 13:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
How does that get done -- this one looks finished [ [3]] Morton devonshire 22:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you...I think I have seen this spot from a different angle.-- MONGO 02:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
This is a personal attack.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
MONGO what is it with wikipedia and goethan? First I made an edit that is an outright FACT about plotinus and goethan reverts it out trying to start a revert war AGAIN. Second goethan is reverting other people's work and engaging in person attacks read his talk and the new poster universaltruth's comments. Personal attacks (hell last week on the plotinus talk page he compared me to nazis) and deletion requests-all of these tactics DISRUPTIVE. All patterns of abuse. LoveMonkey 16:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
Definitely not suggesting anything... just thought you'd want to know about your namesake :-). LotLE× talk 00:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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) |
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. |
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)
This just opened, in case you're interested. -- Tony Sidaway 06:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I just changed the text to "monument area", if that is accurate. -- tomf688 ( talk - email) 03:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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, JDoorj a m Talk 05:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
LOL, I love the link. Haizum 08:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
That's pretty good. I recall seeing the footage of those winged trains hitting the buildings. One controversial issue: Would they be classified as "express" or "local"? Wahkeenah 09:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
You keep deleting pages listed for speedy deletion right from under my nose! Kudos! skorpion 07:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Right now there's a free-for-all at the above, your input is highly appreciated. -- kizzle 22:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
Thanks very much for the barnstar. God bless. -- Huysman talk| contribs File:Poisoned Icon.jpg 22:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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, JDoorj a m Talk 13:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
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:
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)
Thank you very much for the most beautiful of all the birthday piccies, MONGO. :-) Bishonen | talk 01:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC).
Hi MONGO - Thanks for supporting me in my RFA. My Request was successful with 41 supports, 12 opposes and 5 neutrals, and I'll do my best to live up to your expectations. If in any point in the future you get the feeling I'm doing something wrong, do not hesitate to drop me a line. -- mtz206 ( talk) 02:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC) |
They do give an impression of height, yes? :) Wahkeenah 03:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Ryan. I can see the symbolicness of why the WTC towers would have been prime candidates, based on that commentary, to folks like Bin laden. The attacks were not just a design to terrorize...they were also Bin laden's rejection of the western world and a sort of David vs. Goliath issue, in that the U.S. is percieved by many in the third world as the oppressor. Governments act in what form that will best serve their own perpetuation, and in this, the people of the third world may especially see the U.S. as the oppressors. There are many examples where this train of thought is indeed fact, as the U.S. does not oftentimes get involved, unless it's vital interests are at stake.-- MONGO 19:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Based on the comments of Mr. Billion, I have completed another rewrite of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Taking the advice of CSTAR, I am putting the new rewrite on the Talk page first and asking you to put in any comments using the footnote facility ( [1] ) to note each one of the comments you have some issue with. Also, if there is some comment you think needs a citation, make a note of that as well. I truly do want this article to be accurate and face reality. RonCram 19:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I like it! I was going to respond to them and tell them to go away but I think I prefer your way. Nice work :-) -- Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 09:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Apart from the fact that if WP:NPOV applied to User space, the photos would be clearly be of London, "World's" should have an apostrophe. Stephen B Streater 09:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
New York, New York, a wonderful town; the Mets are up and the Yanks are down. Wahkeenah 09:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC) (That could change, though).
I'm reminded of this saying from many years ago: "Eat a beaver and save a tree." Wahkeenah 09:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
MONGO, given your ongoing content disputes with SkeenaR and CB Brooklyn you should not have been the one to block them. While these users HAVE in my opinion made 'personal attacks' against you... you have also done so against them. The line of where 'personal attacks' become disruptive enough to warrant a block is subjective, but in this case I largely agree with you that they had crossed it. HOWEVER, under no circumstances should you be the one making that decision. Which is why it is one of the VERY few things admins are specifically prohibitted from doing. -- CBD 15:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Given that you are employed by the U.S. Gov't, and actively engaged in combatting conspiracy theorists in various WTC-related articles, the suspicion that Uncle Sam might be rewarding you for this in some form or fashion is, in my opinion, a rather natural suspicion, and not a personal attack in and of itself. I would suggest that you refrain from blocking editors of these articles for reasons other than blatant vandalism (such as penis imagery), otherwise the "conflict of interest" suspicion is inevitable. Maybe the folks you're dealing with are crackpots and trolls, but that's neither here nor there. — Jun. 25, '06 [16:52] < freak| talk>
You yourself posted personal info at one time or another. Whether or not you believe that it's being "misused", it has a great deal of bearing in the conversation at hand. Especially if you are blocking users for doing just that. Please take it up at your RFC. Bastique▼ parler voir 17:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I have blocked you for 15 minutes for perpetuating a forest fire on User talk:Gmaxwell. If you must engage in flame wars, have the courtesy not to conduct them on someone else's talk page. Kelly Martin ( talk) 19:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey, remember when I blocked Lulu for 3RR and you unblocked him, citing how I had been involved in a prior dispute with him? I'm wondering why you aren't applying these same guidelines to yourself. You were in a present conflict with these recent people you blocked, much worse than my involvement with Lulu ... and I can't help but think that you've being hypocritical. -- Cyde14:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
MONGO, you've been going well past bounds of civility into personal attacks for a while now, but calling your opponents "morons" is not acceptable. Please desist from doing so and/or remove such uneccessarily disruptive comments. -- CBD 17:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Cyde, you do what you think is best. You smell blood so you're going to act accordingly. Is there anything more we have to discuss?-- MONGO 18:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for barnstar, but next time, avoid flack from process wonks and go to another adminstrator! Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you know if RIPE NCC IP's are open proxies? I've confirmed one IP listed on WP:OP to be of RIPE per WHOIS. Thanks. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
MONGO, I'd like to ask you to reverse the removal of the unblock request and protection you placed on User talk:TruthSeeker1234. While there were valid reasons ( 'sneaky vandalism' and WP:POINT) for blocking this user it should not have been done by someone he was in conflict with (Tom Harrison in this case), I have never seen an indefinite 'community block' for a single instance of vandalism before, and as an involved party / editor of the page you should not be placing protection... especially not with the specific purpose of preventing the user from requesting unblock or discussing the issue. We aren't supposed to be using admin powers to forcibly silence dissent... while this may be temporarily satisfying it inevitably leads to greater conflict. -- CBD 02:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I encourage that...You're not alone, as I and others intend to start blocking POV pushers of nonsense in earnest.--MONGO 18:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC) Threats, personal attacks, and a splendid proof that you are a participant in a pov pushing cabal. Prometheuspan 02:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes I remember that. The conspiracy theorists working the 9/11 articles are single purpose editors that have no intention of adding anything but nonsense to the articles.
Now thats sheer poetry. You have reduced a groups quest for truth and to allow facts to make a factual case into pov pushing, used predjudical terms equal to an attack, and violated AGF, all in one single sentence! I like you, your easy. Prometheuspan 02:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes I remember that. The conspiracy theorists working the 9/11 articles are single purpose editors that have no intention of adding anything but nonsense to the articles.
Now thats sheer poetry. You have reduced a groups quest for truth and to allow facts to make a factual case into pov pushing, used predjudical terms equal to an attack, and violated AGF, all in one single sentence! I like you, your easy. Prometheuspan 02:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a PoV pushing cabal, please stop and leave MONGO alone. Thanks
Jaranda
wat's sup 02:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
wow, i just can't leave it alone... its like shooting fish in a barrel. This is the kind of thing non-admins get banned for.
I got blocked for a whole day once, and the best anybody could claim
was a personal attack based on personal observation. You on the other hand are using trollese.
Prometheuspan 02:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
...Wikipedia only looks moronic if we post stuff that not a single reputable newspaper will touch with a 50 foot pole. The crap they litter those articles with isn't based on any factual record, it's just conspiracy theory cruft and is about as close to vandalism as it gets....but just a hairline over adding erect penises. Your failure to see the difference between Lulu and a bunch of nitwits is your problem.--MONGO 14:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Lets see, thats "moron",1 "crap", 2, "litter articles", 3, ignorant claim versus factual reality, "conspiracy cruft",4, "just a hairliine"...5, lulu nitwits...thats 6 attacks and the best you have for anything left for pseudo content is "those articles with isn't based on any factual record, it's just conspiracy theory cruft " Which simply is factually wrong. Prometheuspan 02:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Maybe you should take a wikibreak.
There is no such thing as a PoV pushing cabal, please stop and leave MONGO alone. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 02:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Sure, no such thing. So whos going to carry out Mongos Threats? Prometheuspan 02:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the conflict. I'm done with it; at least well enough to be stable, and ready for any improvements you have. LotLE× talk
Hi, you have participated in Ann Coulter discussions in the past, please see here to cast your thoughts about whether Ann Coulter should be described as a "civil rights advocate" in the intro. -- kizzle 07:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi. There are many different attempts. [21] I would just like to point out the diversity and not only state the Marxist definition, which also uses " commodity" differently from how most people use the term. Ultramarine 08:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey, MONGO. The whole project seems to be overrun with acrimony all of a sudden. All kinds of people, including ones I hold in high regard, fighting it out on the Talk and Project pages. I can't explain it. Just zis Guy you know? 11:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I hope this applies to the other involved parties also. Ultramarine 12:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I happened upon the bathtub last year by accident - I took the PATH train and inadvertently emerged from below. It was awesome and terrifying and I wasn't ready for the impact. The last time I was there was on that fateful, and fatal day. I'll consider a trip back... and it sounds like a great idea to help Wikipedia and perhaps my own psyche. Just please know it's a very very difficult thing for me. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
(continuing the thread on my page)
No, 'chicken salad' is not a code word. I promise! :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Good one. I wish I could do that kind of work:-) Tom Harrison Talk 23:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I need a bit of assistance with some template redirects. Could I ask you move the history of {{ Mega Man X}} to {{ megamanx}} and delete the redundant redirects of {{ Mega Man X}} and {{ Mega Man X Series}}....? Thanks. - Zero Talk 00:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks like someone beat me to it.-- MONGO 05:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Mongo, I wonder if you can help. There are some antics occurring on the Fidel Castro talk page. No it's not a content dispute surprisingly, it's a user named User:Teemu Ruskeepää attempting a radical experiment in talk page restructuring. He's trying to have all comments pinned to his "discussion tree", rather than in the traditional chronological manner. He tried this on the blocked Cuba page which had some merit - but subsequently attempted it on the busy Castro page. Users gave it a go but universally became bamboozled by the lack of clarity and the apparent loss of comments.
Teemu took this badly. He tried to move everyone's comments to various points of the page - unilaterally rejected the concept of archiving and insisted that he had the answer to wikipedias problems. Of course, a consensus poll proved otherwise. This has not deterred young Teemu, and he is now adding lengthy polls to each discussion! With some rather uncivil comebacks to users calling for him to come down from his "discussion tree". I've laid out a programme of response if he continues causing talk page chaos [22], but need an administrator to enforce the will of the people if he continues. Do you know of any such admin?-- Zleitzen 12:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks MONGO, have replied on my page.-- Zleitzen 15:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
You might be interested in using this site. It is a compilation site that monitors how many articles are published in newspapers about specific topics to show the most widely covered stories in the media.-- Jersey Devil 22:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Any way to retrieve the history back from Template:Mega Man X so it can go into Template:megamanx? I originally tried to avoid a plain copy-and-paste when the nice move function is already there. Kevin_b_er 22:34, June 29, 2006 (UTC)
hey mongo, can you unblock User:Tlizzle? he's my friend and was just drunk last night and vandalized my userpage while i was there, he'll make constructive edits I promise :) -- kizzle 04:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
It is explained Talk:Capitalism#Large_scale_deletions_and_violations_of_npov -- Vision Thing -- 09:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters archived the discussion before it was finished. Discussions on neutral intro [23], [24] and Marxist POV were still [25] ongoing. Can you put the tag back? -- Vision Thing -- 09:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
You might want to block again the individual responsible for this vandalism. Netscott 21:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The two endorsements you pointed out are not necessarily incompatible. The situation does need to be controlled to an extent, but when you're front and center in the situation you cannot be considered neutral in enforcement regardless of what stance you take. This is why I admonish my staff at TWL to avoid conflicts of interest like the plague.
I also agree that some policy changes to NPOV enforcement for contentious articles could benefit Wikipedia. As an example, a citation requirement prior to significant topic changes with the citation placed in the Talk page for comment and perhaps a 24 hour comment phase prior to edit to allow both sides a chance to support, dispute, modify and/or clarify. It doesn't need to be a monumental shift, just something to "leave a paper trail" for both sides, cover backsides, get (hopeuflly) useful feedback and try to head off or minimize edit wars.
Cheers,
Torinir 05:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I just created 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium, could you take a look? Peace. -- Striver 13:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
MONGO what is it with wikipedia and goethan? First I made an edit that is an outright FACT about plotinus and goethan reverts it out trying to start a revert war AGAIN. Second goethan is reverting other people's work and engaging in person attacks read his talk and the new poster universaltruth's comments. Personal attacks (hell last week on the plotinus talk page he compared me to nazis) and deletion requests-all of these tactics DISRUPTIVE. All patterns of abuse. LoveMonkey 16:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
... is to add a false deprecation notice to Template:Ref and Template:Note. LotLE× talk 21:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Nice block. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 04:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I thought you might want to review this. -- Cat out 04:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Staxringold talk contribs 21:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The circle of life, or something like that. Tom Harrison Talk 13:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
How does that get done -- this one looks finished [ [3]] Morton devonshire 22:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you...I think I have seen this spot from a different angle.-- MONGO 02:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
This is a personal attack.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
MONGO what is it with wikipedia and goethan? First I made an edit that is an outright FACT about plotinus and goethan reverts it out trying to start a revert war AGAIN. Second goethan is reverting other people's work and engaging in person attacks read his talk and the new poster universaltruth's comments. Personal attacks (hell last week on the plotinus talk page he compared me to nazis) and deletion requests-all of these tactics DISRUPTIVE. All patterns of abuse. LoveMonkey 16:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
Definitely not suggesting anything... just thought you'd want to know about your namesake :-). LotLE× talk 00:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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) |
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. |
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)
This just opened, in case you're interested. -- Tony Sidaway 06:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I just changed the text to "monument area", if that is accurate. -- tomf688 ( talk - email) 03:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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, JDoorj a m Talk 05:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
LOL, I love the link. Haizum 08:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
That's pretty good. I recall seeing the footage of those winged trains hitting the buildings. One controversial issue: Would they be classified as "express" or "local"? Wahkeenah 09:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
You keep deleting pages listed for speedy deletion right from under my nose! Kudos! skorpion 07:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Right now there's a free-for-all at the above, your input is highly appreciated. -- kizzle 22:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
Thanks very much for the barnstar. God bless. -- Huysman talk| contribs File:Poisoned Icon.jpg 22:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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, JDoorj a m Talk 13:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
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:
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)
Thank you very much for the most beautiful of all the birthday piccies, MONGO. :-) Bishonen | talk 01:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC).
Hi MONGO - Thanks for supporting me in my RFA. My Request was successful with 41 supports, 12 opposes and 5 neutrals, and I'll do my best to live up to your expectations. If in any point in the future you get the feeling I'm doing something wrong, do not hesitate to drop me a line. -- mtz206 ( talk) 02:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC) |
They do give an impression of height, yes? :) Wahkeenah 03:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Ryan. I can see the symbolicness of why the WTC towers would have been prime candidates, based on that commentary, to folks like Bin laden. The attacks were not just a design to terrorize...they were also Bin laden's rejection of the western world and a sort of David vs. Goliath issue, in that the U.S. is percieved by many in the third world as the oppressor. Governments act in what form that will best serve their own perpetuation, and in this, the people of the third world may especially see the U.S. as the oppressors. There are many examples where this train of thought is indeed fact, as the U.S. does not oftentimes get involved, unless it's vital interests are at stake.-- MONGO 19:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Based on the comments of Mr. Billion, I have completed another rewrite of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Taking the advice of CSTAR, I am putting the new rewrite on the Talk page first and asking you to put in any comments using the footnote facility ( [1] ) to note each one of the comments you have some issue with. Also, if there is some comment you think needs a citation, make a note of that as well. I truly do want this article to be accurate and face reality. RonCram 19:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I like it! I was going to respond to them and tell them to go away but I think I prefer your way. Nice work :-) -- Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 09:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Apart from the fact that if WP:NPOV applied to User space, the photos would be clearly be of London, "World's" should have an apostrophe. Stephen B Streater 09:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
New York, New York, a wonderful town; the Mets are up and the Yanks are down. Wahkeenah 09:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC) (That could change, though).
I'm reminded of this saying from many years ago: "Eat a beaver and save a tree." Wahkeenah 09:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
MONGO, given your ongoing content disputes with SkeenaR and CB Brooklyn you should not have been the one to block them. While these users HAVE in my opinion made 'personal attacks' against you... you have also done so against them. The line of where 'personal attacks' become disruptive enough to warrant a block is subjective, but in this case I largely agree with you that they had crossed it. HOWEVER, under no circumstances should you be the one making that decision. Which is why it is one of the VERY few things admins are specifically prohibitted from doing. -- CBD 15:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Given that you are employed by the U.S. Gov't, and actively engaged in combatting conspiracy theorists in various WTC-related articles, the suspicion that Uncle Sam might be rewarding you for this in some form or fashion is, in my opinion, a rather natural suspicion, and not a personal attack in and of itself. I would suggest that you refrain from blocking editors of these articles for reasons other than blatant vandalism (such as penis imagery), otherwise the "conflict of interest" suspicion is inevitable. Maybe the folks you're dealing with are crackpots and trolls, but that's neither here nor there. — Jun. 25, '06 [16:52] < freak| talk>
You yourself posted personal info at one time or another. Whether or not you believe that it's being "misused", it has a great deal of bearing in the conversation at hand. Especially if you are blocking users for doing just that. Please take it up at your RFC. Bastique▼ parler voir 17:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I have blocked you for 15 minutes for perpetuating a forest fire on User talk:Gmaxwell. If you must engage in flame wars, have the courtesy not to conduct them on someone else's talk page. Kelly Martin ( talk) 19:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey, remember when I blocked Lulu for 3RR and you unblocked him, citing how I had been involved in a prior dispute with him? I'm wondering why you aren't applying these same guidelines to yourself. You were in a present conflict with these recent people you blocked, much worse than my involvement with Lulu ... and I can't help but think that you've being hypocritical. -- Cyde14:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
MONGO, you've been going well past bounds of civility into personal attacks for a while now, but calling your opponents "morons" is not acceptable. Please desist from doing so and/or remove such uneccessarily disruptive comments. -- CBD 17:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Cyde, you do what you think is best. You smell blood so you're going to act accordingly. Is there anything more we have to discuss?-- MONGO 18:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for barnstar, but next time, avoid flack from process wonks and go to another adminstrator! Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you know if RIPE NCC IP's are open proxies? I've confirmed one IP listed on WP:OP to be of RIPE per WHOIS. Thanks. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
MONGO, I'd like to ask you to reverse the removal of the unblock request and protection you placed on User talk:TruthSeeker1234. While there were valid reasons ( 'sneaky vandalism' and WP:POINT) for blocking this user it should not have been done by someone he was in conflict with (Tom Harrison in this case), I have never seen an indefinite 'community block' for a single instance of vandalism before, and as an involved party / editor of the page you should not be placing protection... especially not with the specific purpose of preventing the user from requesting unblock or discussing the issue. We aren't supposed to be using admin powers to forcibly silence dissent... while this may be temporarily satisfying it inevitably leads to greater conflict. -- CBD 02:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I encourage that...You're not alone, as I and others intend to start blocking POV pushers of nonsense in earnest.--MONGO 18:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC) Threats, personal attacks, and a splendid proof that you are a participant in a pov pushing cabal. Prometheuspan 02:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes I remember that. The conspiracy theorists working the 9/11 articles are single purpose editors that have no intention of adding anything but nonsense to the articles.
Now thats sheer poetry. You have reduced a groups quest for truth and to allow facts to make a factual case into pov pushing, used predjudical terms equal to an attack, and violated AGF, all in one single sentence! I like you, your easy. Prometheuspan 02:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes I remember that. The conspiracy theorists working the 9/11 articles are single purpose editors that have no intention of adding anything but nonsense to the articles.
Now thats sheer poetry. You have reduced a groups quest for truth and to allow facts to make a factual case into pov pushing, used predjudical terms equal to an attack, and violated AGF, all in one single sentence! I like you, your easy. Prometheuspan 02:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a PoV pushing cabal, please stop and leave MONGO alone. Thanks
Jaranda
wat's sup 02:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
wow, i just can't leave it alone... its like shooting fish in a barrel. This is the kind of thing non-admins get banned for.
I got blocked for a whole day once, and the best anybody could claim
was a personal attack based on personal observation. You on the other hand are using trollese.
Prometheuspan 02:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
...Wikipedia only looks moronic if we post stuff that not a single reputable newspaper will touch with a 50 foot pole. The crap they litter those articles with isn't based on any factual record, it's just conspiracy theory cruft and is about as close to vandalism as it gets....but just a hairline over adding erect penises. Your failure to see the difference between Lulu and a bunch of nitwits is your problem.--MONGO 14:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Lets see, thats "moron",1 "crap", 2, "litter articles", 3, ignorant claim versus factual reality, "conspiracy cruft",4, "just a hairliine"...5, lulu nitwits...thats 6 attacks and the best you have for anything left for pseudo content is "those articles with isn't based on any factual record, it's just conspiracy theory cruft " Which simply is factually wrong. Prometheuspan 02:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Maybe you should take a wikibreak.
There is no such thing as a PoV pushing cabal, please stop and leave MONGO alone. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 02:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Sure, no such thing. So whos going to carry out Mongos Threats? Prometheuspan 02:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the conflict. I'm done with it; at least well enough to be stable, and ready for any improvements you have. LotLE× talk
Hi, you have participated in Ann Coulter discussions in the past, please see here to cast your thoughts about whether Ann Coulter should be described as a "civil rights advocate" in the intro. -- kizzle 07:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi. There are many different attempts. [21] I would just like to point out the diversity and not only state the Marxist definition, which also uses " commodity" differently from how most people use the term. Ultramarine 08:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey, MONGO. The whole project seems to be overrun with acrimony all of a sudden. All kinds of people, including ones I hold in high regard, fighting it out on the Talk and Project pages. I can't explain it. Just zis Guy you know? 11:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I hope this applies to the other involved parties also. Ultramarine 12:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I happened upon the bathtub last year by accident - I took the PATH train and inadvertently emerged from below. It was awesome and terrifying and I wasn't ready for the impact. The last time I was there was on that fateful, and fatal day. I'll consider a trip back... and it sounds like a great idea to help Wikipedia and perhaps my own psyche. Just please know it's a very very difficult thing for me. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
(continuing the thread on my page)
No, 'chicken salad' is not a code word. I promise! :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Good one. I wish I could do that kind of work:-) Tom Harrison Talk 23:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I need a bit of assistance with some template redirects. Could I ask you move the history of {{ Mega Man X}} to {{ megamanx}} and delete the redundant redirects of {{ Mega Man X}} and {{ Mega Man X Series}}....? Thanks. - Zero Talk 00:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks like someone beat me to it.-- MONGO 05:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Mongo, I wonder if you can help. There are some antics occurring on the Fidel Castro talk page. No it's not a content dispute surprisingly, it's a user named User:Teemu Ruskeepää attempting a radical experiment in talk page restructuring. He's trying to have all comments pinned to his "discussion tree", rather than in the traditional chronological manner. He tried this on the blocked Cuba page which had some merit - but subsequently attempted it on the busy Castro page. Users gave it a go but universally became bamboozled by the lack of clarity and the apparent loss of comments.
Teemu took this badly. He tried to move everyone's comments to various points of the page - unilaterally rejected the concept of archiving and insisted that he had the answer to wikipedias problems. Of course, a consensus poll proved otherwise. This has not deterred young Teemu, and he is now adding lengthy polls to each discussion! With some rather uncivil comebacks to users calling for him to come down from his "discussion tree". I've laid out a programme of response if he continues causing talk page chaos [22], but need an administrator to enforce the will of the people if he continues. Do you know of any such admin?-- Zleitzen 12:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks MONGO, have replied on my page.-- Zleitzen 15:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
You might be interested in using this site. It is a compilation site that monitors how many articles are published in newspapers about specific topics to show the most widely covered stories in the media.-- Jersey Devil 22:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Any way to retrieve the history back from Template:Mega Man X so it can go into Template:megamanx? I originally tried to avoid a plain copy-and-paste when the nice move function is already there. Kevin_b_er 22:34, June 29, 2006 (UTC)
hey mongo, can you unblock User:Tlizzle? he's my friend and was just drunk last night and vandalized my userpage while i was there, he'll make constructive edits I promise :) -- kizzle 04:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
It is explained Talk:Capitalism#Large_scale_deletions_and_violations_of_npov -- Vision Thing -- 09:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters archived the discussion before it was finished. Discussions on neutral intro [23], [24] and Marxist POV were still [25] ongoing. Can you put the tag back? -- Vision Thing -- 09:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
You might want to block again the individual responsible for this vandalism. Netscott 21:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The two endorsements you pointed out are not necessarily incompatible. The situation does need to be controlled to an extent, but when you're front and center in the situation you cannot be considered neutral in enforcement regardless of what stance you take. This is why I admonish my staff at TWL to avoid conflicts of interest like the plague.
I also agree that some policy changes to NPOV enforcement for contentious articles could benefit Wikipedia. As an example, a citation requirement prior to significant topic changes with the citation placed in the Talk page for comment and perhaps a 24 hour comment phase prior to edit to allow both sides a chance to support, dispute, modify and/or clarify. It doesn't need to be a monumental shift, just something to "leave a paper trail" for both sides, cover backsides, get (hopeuflly) useful feedback and try to head off or minimize edit wars.
Cheers,
Torinir 05:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I just created 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium, could you take a look? Peace. -- Striver 13:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
MONGO what is it with wikipedia and goethan? First I made an edit that is an outright FACT about plotinus and goethan reverts it out trying to start a revert war AGAIN. Second goethan is reverting other people's work and engaging in person attacks read his talk and the new poster universaltruth's comments. Personal attacks (hell last week on the plotinus talk page he compared me to nazis) and deletion requests-all of these tactics DISRUPTIVE. All patterns of abuse. LoveMonkey 16:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)