User talk:Mongobongohongo


 * The above statement is a lie following the block release the user made the same POV/Vandalism edits for which he was blocked and he received a warning from the bot which he removed. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 17:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I maintain that edit is relevant to the article, I have tried talking to other editors about it, but they are merely deleting my comments on their talk pages and reporting me for "vandalism" (which it isn't). As far as I was aware, it is up to the entire community to keep Wikipedia articles accurate, so why this "DUCKISJAMMY" person feels it OK just to keep his/her edits and nobody else's is beyond me. I deleted the "warning" from the bot as I felt it was given incorrectly, so I reported the bot as it suggested. I feel I can help Wikipedia, especially in football sections. I would appreciate another chance and an adult discussion over the Hull City A.F.C. article with other editors. Mongobongohongo (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You have now further lied, your post on the Hull City A.F.C. talk page was about the third Kit, you never made any attempt to discuss the edit in the Top flight football (2008–2010) section about the inclusion of the word "inexplicably". You were informed the edit was in violation of WP:POV so it wasn't relevant (as you suggested above) but you continued to re-add it which is considered vandalism. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 17:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I never said the post on the talk page was regarding this, I attempted to contact the editor through their talk page, which was ignored. I'm happy to concede to not going about things the accepted way, but please do not accuse me of lying on this, as this is not the case. With regards to the contentious edit, I now realise I was wrong to add it the way I did, but I do feel the "Unexpectedness" of the event should be included if I can manage to source it. Mongobongohongo (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggest this new unblocked request also be rejected the user still hasn't grasped WP:POV as he indicated above he now wants to include "Unexpectedness". Mongobongohongo has stated that he tried to discuss it with User:Mattythewhite, who is the editor who initially reverted him but that is also untrue see here & here. He just demanded that Matty stop reverting him, that is not an attempt to discuss. He has now lied multiple times what's to say he is not lying in his promises in this unblock request. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 18:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My response was borne out of frustration from not being given a reason for the revert initially. Please stop using the term "Lying" as it is strong and not in the slightest bit accurate. The sacking of Phil Brown was unexpected at the time, that's not a POV issue, just stating that it was "unexpected". As I said, I'm willing to discuss it though. I do not mind that you are disagreeing with me, but please stop constantly accusing me of "lying" as I don't believe that is fair. Mongobongohongo (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Offer
Here's my offer based on the unblock request above: I will reduce the block to a week, if you can provide me with an idea of what you plan to do when unblocked. If you end up in a similar conflict where you ignore consensus or add OR to articles for the coming months it goes without saying that you will be indef blocked again. If you're serious about contributing to Wikipedia, I also suggest that you try to find a mentor who can help you. Bjelleklang -  talk 20:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How and what do you plan to contribute?
 * How will you avoid content disputes?
 * If you are unable to avoid a dispute, how will you resolve it?
 * Hello! Thank you for taking the time to respond. Though I am interested in football, my main interest is professional wrestling, and I would love to "flesh out" older PPV articles. I will avoid content disputes by sticking to the "Be bold. Revert. Discuss" protocol, and will try to stick to the general consensus when necessary, even if it is not what I agree with. Again, thank you. Mongobongohongo (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This seems a reasonable request, and evidence that the user has some idea about consensus. I'm willing to unblock, on a last chance basis, if the blocking admin has no objections. I'll drop a note on their talk page. In the meantime, please be patient. Thanks.  An  optimist on the  run!  08:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've reduced the block to a week from the original blocking date. Please keep in mind what User:Optimist on the run says above, this is likely to be your last chance so avoid being bold for a while and ask for help if you're stuck. You can also try getting a mentor at Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area. Bjelleklang -  talk 09:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, much appreciated. Mongobongohongo (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)