Posting
Just for your information, consensus and majority doesn't rule on Wiki. -Signaleer 19:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- It depends on the circumstances. I don't disagree with you at all about majority or consensus as they aren't the only things that decide content, but the important thing for you is do what you can to work with others as well as possible. Three seperate complaints on the noticeboard on your editing patterns doesn't indicate you are trying to work well with others. I know you can do better than that and encourage you to do so.--MONGO 21:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The niggle
MONGO, you endorsed the indefblock of Cindery with reference to the four recent blocks. I'm the first to admit I haven't researched the case—no time—but I have a niggle of doubt. This is a little unusual, isn't it? I have an e-mail from the user also. If you have information which puts this indefblock out of doubt, would you mind sharing it? Best, Bishonen | talk 01:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
Amusing...
[1] (scroll to bottom, see "Look This Is Our Viewpoint") and [2] Sounds like a Cplot strawman. --Aude (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- A very bored individual is all that person is. At least there are enough sane folks on Wiki to recognize nonsense when they see it...so he seems to be quickly reverted now whenever he posts his stuff.--MONGO 20:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
FYI
Talk:FrontPageMag.com#I_strongly_object_to_this_deletion up for deletion. Travb (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like its now unprodded.--MONGO 06:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
... for the userpage revert. Appreciated! :) riana_dzasta 04:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Certainly. Best wishes.--MONGO 04:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Note of apology
I know this is probably going to do squat for my reputation now (Not that I ever really had one), but I thought I'd leave a note of apology to everyone involved in my recent actions. An explaination is in order too. First off, I had a bad real life situation, that I really don't want to talk about, on the day this all started. I shouldn't have edited on Wikipedia afterwards, but I did. When I saw the situation with Riana's RfA, it kind of set off a build up of unvented anger at my situation & it was un needed. My whole tyraid had very little to do with the RfA, but I guess I took it out on that angle anyway. The way I was handled could have been better, but I wont go there in threat of making this sound like a back handed apology. My apologies go to Riana, who was also having a real life crisis at the time too. Basically the whole thing was a misunderstanding & venting process which I involved you all in. In regard to the whole sock puppetry thing, I had told my brother about my problems in due trust & he went & did something stupid on here. I don't really know what else to say but sorry. If that & a little bit of hard work repairing relationships on here doesn't change your current view point of me, then I don't think anything will. So again, sorry if I've inconvenienced you guys in any way & I hope that over time you'll think better of me. I'd love if you guys could forgive & hopefully forget & I wasn't really in control of myself these past few days. Hopefully things can get back to normal. :) Spawn Man 06:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC) P.S. Although I didn't feel happy with the way others treated me at this time, I thought that despite my behaviour, were very civil & I respect you excessively...
- Like I said, I would simply move on. Doug and everyone here knows you have done good work and can do more, and none that I have seen are interested in seeing you leave Wikipedia. Try to not take things personally and since we already know you can write great articles, make that your emphasis for now...I look forward to reading them. You don't have to apologize to me at al...I'm just trying to keep the peace and reminding you that your article writing is your forte.--MONGO 06:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Citations
Thank you for adding them to the 9/11 article --NuclearZer0 00:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- No problem...you've been around long enough that surely if you think something needs fact tags you can always work on finding some yourself too. Not to be rude, but simply tossing in a bunch of fact tags repeatedly looks a bit disruptive. Some of the other items that are still tagged can should either be sourced if there is still a problem, or they should be removed.--MONGO 04:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I do not always have time to find sources, but items that require them should be labeled as such. Its also actually bad form to remove fact tags without providing the source. I do not think anyone would have prefered me removing the items instead of putting the tags, that would have appeared to be vandalism. --Nuclear
Zer011:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I do not always have time to find sources, but items that require them should be labeled as such. Its also actually bad form to remove fact tags without providing the source. I do not think anyone would have prefered me removing the items instead of putting the tags, that would have appeared to be vandalism. --Nuclear
Federal Clowns Editing?
Cplot would go wild with this one: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-02-12/More government editing. MortonDevonshire Yo · 22:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I always make sure my Q clearance badge is in my pocket at photo sessions for just this very reason. --Tbeatty 23:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I think that editor was more interested in disrution than in actually believing any of the nonsense he was posting. If I had a dollar for every corporatation that had an employee or former employee post good or bad news about their employer, I could retire. I'm not sure if the signpost article is even news worthy as it's not like this should be a surprise.--MONGO 06:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
BLP
You enacted a policy in your reversion, please explain what you feel is a BLP violation. This way I can ask some other non involved admins to weigh in. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 13:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Selective Quotes?
Since there is no quote I am not sure what this is reffering to, but since you reverted me I would also like an explanation for this one [3]. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 13:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)