User talk:Babalooo

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! King Lopez Contribs 06:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

>Thanks Babalooo 07:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you to adhere to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy for editors. CalebNoble 09:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to say your new edit to Ann Wright looks good. If this one gets reverted without explanation, you're probably dealing with a problem editor (or three). If that happens, try bringing it up on the article's talk page; that usually gets things settled one way or the other. Let me know if I can help with anything. CalebNoble 02:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

>Thanks. How do I make the links show up at the bottom with names? Babalooo 08:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey man, could you send me the e-mail? Thanks!

9/11
Hi Babalooo, If you're serious about the contribution you want to make to the 9/11 article, please tone down the confrontational style a bit. I can understand why you might find it hard to take Morton's response to your question seriously, but I don't think the information you are proposing to introduce will be added any more easily by arguing with him. I'm here if you want to talk about how to proceed. But there is no point in discussing the facts directly on the talk page. Just write a short, well-sourced account of the facts you are interested in. Then we can take it from there. That said, and like I said on the talk page, I don't think this will go nearly as smoothly as it should in any case.--Thomas Basboll 07:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits made during April 28 2007 (UTC)
Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Haemo 04:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? I add no nonsense. I see above is supposed to have links to be genuine. Put the links above or remove your nonsense. Please dont be an insulting person to me again. Babalooo 05:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The MONGO RfC
Hi again, Babalooo. Thanks for taking the time to comment on Mongo's behavior. Do please note that the main project page is not for discussion. You are welcome to add an outside view, but (as Tbeatty has pointed out, in his playful way) you have inadvertently endorsed some positions you don't seem to agree with. I would suggest simply removing those endorsements (and shortening your lengthier comments) and moving your substantial comments to the talk page. As I mentioned, your run-in with Morton Devonshire is precisely the sort of thing this RfC is trying to reduce the frequency of.--Thomas Basboll 12:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Where do I learn all these laws? There are too many. I know it is a law on no insults. That is what the page is about yes? Mr. Mongos insults? Other people are writing all about 9/11. Why am I not allowed to do the same? Is my 'post count' too small? On another forum they treat 'newbies' very mean. It is the same here because I don't have a big post count. Also my English is not too good. Is this correct? I think many here are protecting President Bush and don't like the truth to be told about him! Yes? President Bush has made the whole world hate the USA after President Clinton made the world love the USA some more. You should have never let him be President in 2000 by the court. More people voted for Mr. Gore. What a theft. Thank you for your helps. Please tell me where to learn all the laws of Wikipedia. Babalooo 20:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

On the bahviour of top US officials, etc.
I thought you might find this article encouraging. The timeline links to it (at 9:05) and it seems to provide almost a full acount of at least one of the incidents you are interested in. Andrew Card's remarks may not pass undue weight or WP:OR (by synthesis) -- it depends on whether a mainstream source has pointed out the contradiction or not (I haven't looked at it at all yet). There is no obvious way to link to it directly from the 9/11 article because of the consensus I have already mentioned. A section on the events related to the actions of top officials is, to my mind, in order, but often gets rejected as violating either WP:NPOV or the (predetermined) focus of the article. Like I say, if you are serious, you will need to tone down your rhetoric and start drafting some suggestions. Even then, it will be a long road. Again, I would like to help.--Thomas Basboll 12:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That is wrong. President Bush knew of the first crash of a commerical plane into a tower before he went entered the schoolroom. The other part is wrong too. This is what Mr. Andrew Card told President Bush  "Chief of Staff Andrew Card was in a nearby room when he heard the news. He waited until there was a pause in the reading drill to walk in and tell Bush. [Washington Times, 10/7/02, Washington Times, 10/8/02] The children were getting their books from under their seats to read a story together when Card came in. [Daily Mail, 9/8/02] Card whispered to Bush: "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack." [San Francisco Chronicle, 9/11/02] Another account has Card saying: "A second plane has hit the World Trade Center. America is under attack." [Telegraph, 12/16/01] One year later he said that President Bush left right away as he told him. The teacher said so too. That is a lie and a conspiracy theory and a coverup. Where is the article on all the lies of the Bush top USA officials? It should be 100 pages long. Babalooo 20:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat
I have temporarily blocked you indefinitely for a legal threat:

I direct you to read our legal threat policy - at no time are you to threaten legal action against someone else on Wikipedia. This is non-negotiable, and worthy of an immediate and indefinite block.

I will undo the block if and when you tell me that you have no intention to bring this dispute to a court of law. However, keep in mind that further actions of incivility will not be tolerated.

You are blocked but have the ability to respond on this page. --Golbez 21:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Having read this user's other Talk Page postings, and considering that he is not a native English speaker, I think that this reaction is too harsh. He has consistently used the word "law" to mean "rule" or "guideline". It is not unreasonable to interpret "file charges" to mean "appeal to the proper authorities". Perhaps a literal interpretation of the cited diff is correct, but my opinion is that the "no legal threats" line has not been crossed (intentionally) by this user. MKoltnow 22:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, when he explains this, and makes it clear that he understands it, then he will be unblocked. This is a preventative method to ensure that future threats do not occur. It is not merely sufficient that he did not "mean" to make a legal threat; other editors (like myself) will obviously see his words as such. So I want to make it clear that he has no intention to bring this to a court, and simply does mean "rules" rather than laws. Long story short: It's not just if he meant to make a threat, it's what others perceive as a threat. If it's a language barrier, then now is the opportunity to learn the correct words. --Golbez 22:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. MKoltnow. This is pefectly what I mean to 'file charges' only on Wikipedia like the 'RFC' charges against Mr. Mongo, or the 'NPA' charges I have seen. To mean the word laws and rules are the same. They are not? I am sorry for my weak English. How could I take him to a real courtroom over him saying I am stupid? That is not real thinking. Thank you for not making nonsense to me again Mr. Golbez. You took away my words with a proof too, yes? Mr. MKoltnow knows soon away what I am meaning.Babalooo 22:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm unblocking. But please be more careful in your choice of words in the future. --Golbez 23:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I will try. 'Rules' not 'laws'. 'Make a complain' not 'file charges' yes? Babalooo 01:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC) I have blocked still! I was to make clear to Mr. Devonshire and I was prohibited with many big warnings. I thank you to fix this Mr. Golbez.  Babalooo 01:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What's the notice you get when you try to make an edit? According to the software, you're unblocked, but there might be a bug somewhere in the system. --Golbez 02:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Now I made it all badder. I log out for a new cookie. I forgot to know my log in password and had no email on the order. I had to make a new name, but I want my name as Babalooo and my post count and links. Please set it back the Babalooo password to abcdef and I will make it new. I thank you to do this. Babalooobabalooo 07:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Only developers can reset passwords. I'm not sure that they regularly do it.  I think that you will have to keep editing with your new account, Babalooobabalooo.  --Iamunknown 08:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. I apologize for all of the inconvenience this has caused. --Golbez 22:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Banned
Rootology, you are banned. If you stay away from the areas that you were banned for disrupting, you might be ignored. This kind of nonsense behavior, however, is over the line. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 13:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Babalooo 2nd user
Babalooo second user now my name  is Qué Chévere! Qué Chévere! 00:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)