User talk:Mononomic

Ragdoll Productions
Did you check what Connorsworld2011 was removing from Ragdoll Productions? As far as I can see his removals were correct (no mentioning of Ragdoll Productions) and yours were incorrect. That makes it quite unfair to block him indefinitely as vandalism-only account. A temporary block for editwarring is more fair. The Banner talk 02:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe the opposite was true. Checking through a few of the article pages—I've just looked through Tronji, Rolie Polie Olie, and Peep and the Big Wide World as examples—shows that they are all the work of Ragdoll Productions, in whole or in part. It seemed to me that this user was removing legitimate information from the article. Did you found something constructive about the user's edits? Could you give me an example of something they were correct to have deleted? (As to your second point, I wasn't the one who banned the user, so I cannot comment on the length of the ban.) —Mono·nomic 03:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Germany–Israel relations
Just an update... 3 days after the incident was reported to WP:AN/I, and with no further edits or participation in discussion seen from 91.60.163.227, I have reverted the article to its previous, properly sourced version. Thank you for your assistance in the matter. Wikipedia is a team effort! — Josh3580 talk/hist 17:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Space exploration is a waste of money
Hello, I recently added athe following statement :

" However, it is considered to be Humanity's history biggest waste of money due to the fact that doesn't give any profit. "

in the Space exploration wikipedia page beacause I think it is a valid argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.138.20.92 (talk) 11:50, 1 January 2014‎ (UTC)


 * Note: similar edits to the Space exploration page were made by both User:85.138.20.92 and User:Rvpt, so I placed talkbacks on the pages of both users, assuming one is a registered account of the other.
 * Your edits to Space exploration violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. You should avoid stating opinions as facts and assume a impartial tone in articles. Though you may believe your argument to be valid, saying "it is considered to be..." is unhelpful. If you read the Rationales section of the article, you will find a sentence which already explains this point of view fairly. This quote cites a source (the AP report listed at the bottom) and makes a clearer statement about the respondents' views than "it is considered to be Humanity's history biggest waste of money.""Overall, the public remains largely supportive of both manned and unmanned space exploration. According to an Associated Press Poll conducted in July 2003, 71% of U.S. citizens agreed with the statement that the space program is 'a good investment', compared to 21% who did not."
 * I hope this explanation makes sense. Thank you for your concern. —Mono·nomic 18:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I am sorry that I broke the rules then and sorry if I caused any trouble. I also thank for the poll information, but I stand by what I said and this is not just some opinion but also a general opinion. If you check stats around the world, you would know that 47% of the world's population agree's with my point of view.
 * But yet again I am sorry for violiting rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvpt (talk • contribs) 20:51, 1 January 2014

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Project CURE.gif
Thanks for uploading File:Project CURE.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)