User talk:Sloth monkey/Archive 1

 ░▒▓█│Below is an ARCHIVE of a bunch of old crap from user talk:sloth_monkey│█▓▒░

(See How to archive a talk page)



Wikipedia's welcome
Welcome !

User Comments
Append new comments to the bottom of the list, with a "===" header.

Excellent job on Robert Kiyosaki
Brilliant - keep up the good work. It's a rarity to see one article done literally all by one person with such quality and attention to NPOV and sources. Beware of the haters who may delete your content, and thanks for what you're doing to boost this reference for a wonderful man. --81.220.86.225 15:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Media Codec
Hello, on Media Codec you included lengthy quotes from Symantec's press releases; please don't do that, as it is a copyright violation. Cheers, AxelBoldt 22:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. When you move an article to a new name, please don't do a "cut-and-paste" move, but use the move button instead. The reason is that, without using the move function, the history of the new article won't contain information about the contributors to the old article; our copyright license requires us to keep this information around. See Merging and moving pages. Furthermore, when you create a redirect as you did with Media Codec, you need to make sure that no double redirects are created (a double redirect is a page redirecting to another page which redirects to a third one). See Double redirects. I have fixed it all now. AxelBoldt 16:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Flower of Life
Unfortunately, the promo material included by manufacturers of a board game (Da Vinci's Challenge) is not much of a source; furthermore, the ten consecutive one-line subsections should be replaced by a list. AnonMoos 01:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Dude, your edits to "Flower of Life" had many negative features, but you were refusing to ameliorate or discuss them, so I reverted. Furthermore, your rather vainglorious and arrogant boasting on your User page about how you rescued the pitiful "stub" at Flower of Life is not calculated to get people to work cooperatively with you in improving things.  Further discussion should take place at Talk:Flower of Life (where you should have announced your intentions in the first place). AnonMoos 00:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You included some useful information in your latest edits, but unfortunately, you wrapped everything in a thick layer of New Age jargon which did not leave the article in a satisfactory condition. It would be nice if you could actually discuss things in the area Talk:Flower of Life and work collaboratively to improve the article, instead of springing sudden "article attacks" -- which radically rewrite the article in a way which introduces good information and arrant nonsense in equal measure (thoroughly intermixed and intertwined in a manner which makes it difficult to separate out the good features of your edits from the bad features).  I don't think that your "article attacks" are a constructive or productive way to improve the article -- how about discussing a series of cooperative step-by-step improvements on Talk:Flower of Life?  It's an unfortunate truth that the amount of effort one puts into one's edits does not necessarily directly correspond to the amount of valid results achieved. AnonMoos 14:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * To anyone reading this, I should point out that User:AnonMoos was entirely in the wrong here. I think this may have been established now, but if you'd like to agree and support my position feel free to go to the Flower of Life article and tell him to stop deleting all of my work.  He's violated many policies in doing so.  And to give you an idea of what's been going on here, take a look at this history snapshot of before I arrived at the article and after, with essentially all of the difference between the two done by myself.  He keeps reverting it to the first version you see there on the basis that he dislikes the "New Age gobbledegook" presented in explaining what people's beliefs are (not my beliefs but others) in relation to this symbol.  I should note that this symbol is considered to be "sacred geometry" and without explaining the religious meaning behind it, it's simply a worthless design with little to be said about it.  --sloth_monkey 06:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Stubs category
Hello,

Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply, if you can.

Thanks! -Ohms law 14:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Language
Since I did read the third paragraph under Flower of Life, might I suggest there are more polite ways of communicating. And on a related topic, please also note that most editors who see another user posting on your user page, will revert the edit as unwanted vandalism. They are tring to help you. -- Armadillo From Hell 01:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay sure. I'll change it.  Obviously I was very aggrivated.  sloth_monkey 05:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Table Layout
We meet again my nemesis, and even here you use a table layout... Clearly I have the upper hand. --Wentwj 02:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

User:wentwj
Could you put something somewhere which shows that you have given him permission? User:Zoe|(talk) 18:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hear ye, hear ye! Announcement to all!  User:wentwj has formally been granted permission to edit my profile.  sloth_monkey 21:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

In particular, I'm concerned these edits:.

I'm also concerned (based on the contribution history) that Neutral2006 is a sockpuppet of yours. Please bear in mind that WP frowns upon using sockpuppets. Gzkn 12:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutral2006 is not a sockpuppet of mine. Perhaps you are a sockpuppet of AnonMoos's.  How am I to tell?  Do whatever you would like to investigate further, but he is definitely not me, nor a friend of mine, nor anyone that I know at all.  I should mention that I did however edit his profile/discussion after he left comments and I became aware of his exsistance.


 * As for the supposed "personal attacks", I think I held my tongue a good deal, considering how out of line AnonMoos has been. His actions should not be tolerated in the least.  I sincerely believe that he should be banned from Wikipedia, as there have been numerous instances in which he has clearly violated policy, not just with me and the Flower of Life, but with other articles as well, such as the Tetragrammaton.  He seems to often revert the work of others, in instances which violate policy.  A user such as AnonMoos, who consistantly violates policy, arbitrarily deletes large amounts of information, and generally has a negative impact on Wikipedia's community, should be banned.  sloth_monkey 12:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh. lol.  As for this edit in which I clearly did badmouth AnonMoos, it was on my own little personal archived sub-user page (User:sloth_monkey/l).  This page is not meant to be viewed by anyone other than myself.  It is simply a page consisting of links for myself to bookmark as reference and quick access to various pages.  It is meant to be private.  sloth_monkey 12:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You are free to disagree with an editor's actions, but resorting to personal attacks/incivility is not the way to go about doing it. Please refrain from doing so. Also, just letting you know, there's no such thing as a "private" page on Wikipedia. Pages are viewable by anyone (I stumbled across yours because the tool I was using to revert vandalism flagged your edit due to the language you were using). Gzkn 01:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove current warnings from your talk page, note that your talk page does not belong to you, it is a property of the Wikimedia Foundation. Please also note that commenting against other users on their editor review is still not an excuse for personal attacks.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   18:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

 mark of the monkey  mark of the monkey