| Revision as of 05:34, 12 July 2008 editViridae (talk | contribs)13,898 edits →RFC, Noticeboard or other forum?: cm← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:48, 12 July 2008 edit undoMONGO (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers76,644 edits →RFC, Noticeboard or other forum?: cNext edit → | ||
| Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
| ::::::::::::What is your deal, man?--] 05:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC) | ::::::::::::What is your deal, man?--] 05:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::::::::You are full of hollow threats. I really urge you to try and carry one of them out - I have refuted almost every single piece of evidence you and Filll provided at the current RfArb and acknowledged the rest. The majority of that evidence was taken so far out of context as to be uncrecognisable (just like your most recent addition, where you failed to mention that there was significant support for those blocks, just not the length) - you have no evidence whatsoever but continue to trumpet my "involvement in a long standing dispute" with whatever editor you think I have wronged this time. MONGO this is my final request/warning: Either stay well away from me and my actions unless you are DIRECTLY involved or make sure you have a buttload of evidence you are willing to provide to support your claims. Your well poisoning has been noticed. ]] 05:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC) | :::::::::::::You are full of hollow threats. I really urge you to try and carry one of them out - I have refuted almost every single piece of evidence you and Filll provided at the current RfArb and acknowledged the rest. The majority of that evidence was taken so far out of context as to be uncrecognisable (just like your most recent addition, where you failed to mention that there was significant support for those blocks, just not the length) - you have no evidence whatsoever but continue to trumpet my "involvement in a long standing dispute" with whatever editor you think I have wronged this time. MONGO this is my final request/warning: Either stay well away from me and my actions unless you are DIRECTLY involved or make sure you have a buttload of evidence you are willing to provide to support your claims. Your well poisoning has been noticed. ]] 05:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::::::::There was no consensus for this most recent fiasco of yours and indeed to believe there was is simply ridiculous. I have had enough of your threats and warnings and indeed, your behavior on my talkpage, where you followed DHeyward here and first argued with him in regards to an article I have never once edited (and I was offline for a few days to boot)and now presenting this "request/warning" to me is completely out of line for any administrator of this website. If you post your admin actions for review...I will review them. Now I really do think you best move on.--] 05:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == "Ludicrous" == | == "Ludicrous" == | ||
Revision as of 05:48, 12 July 2008
| No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful) |
We have consensus at Barack Obama
... for certain details regarding William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko. See Talk:Barack Obama. However, a small but extremely active and dedicated Obama fanboys are trying to WP:OWN and sanitize the article. Anyone who tries to aupport WP:NPOV and revert to the consensus version is threatened, called a sockpuppeteer, etc.
First, this has been an ugly situation for some time and more attention from admins is needed. Second, the Obama fanboys need to be brought under control. They do not own the article. WP:NPOV means proportionate representation of all significant POVs. The POV that is questioning Obama about his relationships with Wright, Rezko and Ayers is not a fringe POV. Editors who seek to include that POV in a balanced manner are not "Obama haters," and when they agree with one another, they are not sockpuppets. Please help. Kossack4Truth (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- NPOV in the bio of a political candidate for President sounds like an almost impossible task...and I really can't be of much service. I can monitor the article for vandalism as well as the one on McCain, but that would be the full extent of my ability to contribute to either page.--MONGO 06:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- What is there now appears to be balanced. If that is the consensus version he refers to, I can't see why anybody would want to "sanitize" it. --BenBurch (talk) 22:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Mammoth Cave National Park/1
As one of the people who has over 10 edits at Mammoth Cave National Park and has edited it this year, your attention is needed at Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Mammoth Cave National Park/1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Fanmail 'Zilla
'Zilla huge fan little MONGO way with words! All best dunghills fester, make pleasing cloud hang close over Tokyo! Endangered snacks flavorsome! bishzilla ROARR!! 08:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC).
- Heh..if only more editors were as understanding of my wordplay as the ever wise prehistoric dinosaurs and pallid sturgeons are...but surely the gallows have been erected already and I expect to see a hanging before high noon.--MONGO 16:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Typo
Hey, how's it going? re ... might want to change forment to foment. Cheers! •Jim62sch• 18:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Done...I am notoriously a wowzie speller.--MONGO 20:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
LOL. :) •Jim62sch• 22:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Mongo, stop attacking me
Mongo, stop attacking me with your comment on Poupon's page (and please withdraw the comment). Let Lar do his mentoring and if he and the community accepts then I will prove that I am Poupon's socks. (The truth is that I am not Poupon himself but I am related to Poupon's socks). I am trying to come out clean but others are throwing roadblocks. GoodWikian (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ya, I think that one speaks for itself. This isn't PoT. PoT said no other sock will be used when he needs to speak for himself. Near as I can tell (and as you know from reading the pages yourself) PoT is not seeking mentorship, either. Just peaceful editing far away from policy pages. ++Lar: t/c 21:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
RFC, Noticeboard or other forum?
For the second time in a short period, User:Viridae has decided to follow me to an article and protect it, ostensibly for edit warring but in reality he's supporting trolls whose only interest is harassing me. Here's the relevant talk page discussion. I think the two IP's have a total of 3 edits to Misplaced Pages all of them reverts of me and all of them after Giovanni was banned. I just want him to stop involving himself with me. I guess I could go to the other extreme but I'd prefer he just went his separate way. I asked him to just take my talk page off his watchlist but he refused. I don't really know what his obsession is but supporting trolls and unable to spot them makes him somewhat unsuitable for using the tools the way he has. I figure I can go either noticeboard or RFC. What do you think? --DHeyward (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Go to the noticeboard and explain why exactly you think that nmy protecting the article in response to a edit war is a bad idea? Viridae 04:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Are you really just following me around? --DHeyward (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Nope, this page is also watchlisted. Really I haven't followed you to any page, I have simply noticed edit warring and dealt with it. You have a problem with an article you are working on being protected - don't edit war on it. If that is Giovanni (I havent seen any strong evidence to that effect) take it to RFCU and get him blocked, of course if that was the case the protection on the most recent article would of course be lifted. I really do invite you to take it to WP:ANI for review though. Viridae 07:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- If that were the case, why didn't you follow policy and inform the new users about edit warring and discussing their reverts on the talk page? Do you think that the 2 edit wonder is going to be to resolve any edit war through talk? Or maybe the more plausible answer is that you saw the 3RR warning on my talk page (the warning was for 3 edits over 2 weeks, and the mistaken editor apologized) and you were looking for a reason to block. Failing a legitimate reason you decided to protect the article in a manner that was neither constructive nor likely to result in a resolution since the 3 edit anons goal is only to revert me. The issue isn't this one incident, the issue is that this isn't the first time. I asked you politely to simply stop watching my talk page. There is nothing there for you. I would prefer that instead of you injecting yourself into any editing disputes that you put it on AN/I and let someone else review it. Certainly 3 edits in two weeks is not the kind of hot, urgent edit war that needs immediate article protection. --DHeyward (talk) 07:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Please study the following: WP:AGF, Occam's razor and . Viridae 11:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- And as you can see, there is nothing to block for and no reason for you to follow me around looking for stuff. Your unblock had more to do with your desire to wheel war with WMC rather than anything to do with me. Please study and simply leave me alone. It's not hard. Don't read my talk page. If you really want to help with 3RR or edit warring, patrol the noticeboards. --DHeyward (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Of course! I have a massive desire to wheel war with WMC. I follow him around too! Viridae 21:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Why are you here arguing with a DHeyward on my talkpage? I haven't even been involved in this matter.--MONGO 00:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- To annoy the living shit out of you of course MONGO - I stalk you too, didnt you know? Viridae 03:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Your admin tools should have taken away long ago.--MONGO 05:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- WP:RFARB MONGO go for it! Viridae 05:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- What is your deal, man?--MONGO 05:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- You are full of hollow threats. I really urge you to try and carry one of them out - I have refuted almost every single piece of evidence you and Filll provided at the current RfArb and acknowledged the rest. The majority of that evidence was taken so far out of context as to be uncrecognisable (just like your most recent addition, where you failed to mention that there was significant support for those blocks, just not the length) - you have no evidence whatsoever but continue to trumpet my "involvement in a long standing dispute" with whatever editor you think I have wronged this time. MONGO this is my final request/warning: Either stay well away from me and my actions unless you are DIRECTLY involved or make sure you have a buttload of evidence you are willing to provide to support your claims. Your well poisoning has been noticed. Viridae 05:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- There was no consensus for this most recent fiasco of yours and indeed to believe there was is simply ridiculous. I have had enough of your threats and warnings and indeed, your behavior on my talkpage, where you followed DHeyward here and first argued with him in regards to an article I have never once edited (and I was offline for a few days to boot)and now presenting this "request/warning" to me is completely out of line for any administrator of this website. If you post your admin actions for review...I will review them. Now I really do think you best move on.--MONGO 05:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- You are full of hollow threats. I really urge you to try and carry one of them out - I have refuted almost every single piece of evidence you and Filll provided at the current RfArb and acknowledged the rest. The majority of that evidence was taken so far out of context as to be uncrecognisable (just like your most recent addition, where you failed to mention that there was significant support for those blocks, just not the length) - you have no evidence whatsoever but continue to trumpet my "involvement in a long standing dispute" with whatever editor you think I have wronged this time. MONGO this is my final request/warning: Either stay well away from me and my actions unless you are DIRECTLY involved or make sure you have a buttload of evidence you are willing to provide to support your claims. Your well poisoning has been noticed. Viridae 05:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- What is your deal, man?--MONGO 05:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- WP:RFARB MONGO go for it! Viridae 05:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Your admin tools should have taken away long ago.--MONGO 05:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- To annoy the living shit out of you of course MONGO - I stalk you too, didnt you know? Viridae 03:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Why are you here arguing with a DHeyward on my talkpage? I haven't even been involved in this matter.--MONGO 00:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Of course! I have a massive desire to wheel war with WMC. I follow him around too! Viridae 21:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- And as you can see, there is nothing to block for and no reason for you to follow me around looking for stuff. Your unblock had more to do with your desire to wheel war with WMC rather than anything to do with me. Please study and simply leave me alone. It's not hard. Don't read my talk page. If you really want to help with 3RR or edit warring, patrol the noticeboards. --DHeyward (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Please study the following: WP:AGF, Occam's razor and . Viridae 11:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- If that were the case, why didn't you follow policy and inform the new users about edit warring and discussing their reverts on the talk page? Do you think that the 2 edit wonder is going to be to resolve any edit war through talk? Or maybe the more plausible answer is that you saw the 3RR warning on my talk page (the warning was for 3 edits over 2 weeks, and the mistaken editor apologized) and you were looking for a reason to block. Failing a legitimate reason you decided to protect the article in a manner that was neither constructive nor likely to result in a resolution since the 3 edit anons goal is only to revert me. The issue isn't this one incident, the issue is that this isn't the first time. I asked you politely to simply stop watching my talk page. There is nothing there for you. I would prefer that instead of you injecting yourself into any editing disputes that you put it on AN/I and let someone else review it. Certainly 3 edits in two weeks is not the kind of hot, urgent edit war that needs immediate article protection. --DHeyward (talk) 07:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Nope, this page is also watchlisted. Really I haven't followed you to any page, I have simply noticed edit warring and dealt with it. You have a problem with an article you are working on being protected - don't edit war on it. If that is Giovanni (I havent seen any strong evidence to that effect) take it to RFCU and get him blocked, of course if that was the case the protection on the most recent article would of course be lifted. I really do invite you to take it to WP:ANI for review though. Viridae 07:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Are you really just following me around? --DHeyward (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
"Ludicrous"
Will do - thanks for bringing this to me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not offended and I am not "holding" it against you...just wanted to make sure you knew that those less used to be vilified might see show responses as being hostile. But, I recognize why you would think I am being ludicrous. You're not the only person that thinks that of course!--MONGO 03:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, attacking somebody's argument as "ludicrous" is well within my personal conception of civility, but sometimes we can all use a reminder that not everybody shares our personal value systems. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)