User talk:Mundilfari

The recent edit you made to Klondike bar constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content from articles without explanation. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 02:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While you may have some basis in removing this material, you would be well-served by discussing these removals on article talk pages and providing rather clear justifications in edit summaries for your actions. Alansohn (talk) 02:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, please make use of talk pages before mass removing data.

talk) 00:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

When you add a tag to an article, like the {{unencyclopedic}} tag you added to Pizza Hut, please provide and explanation regarding your concerns. Just tagging an article without a proper summary does not allow others to correct the issue. The tag has been removed. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 03:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to use the correct templates and coding to nominated Tantive IV for deletion. Clean them up promptly to follow appropriate procedure, otherwise the (attempted) AfD will be speedy-closed (largely because it was never opened). --EEMIV (talk) 04:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed the AFD on a procedural basis; as noted, there was never a completed AFD per

WP:AFD, so no debate could take place. On point, you might want to bring your concerns to the article's talk page, as this particular article seems to be well-sourced, and an AFD would not be likely to succeed as a result. Always simpler to discuss issues first. Best to you, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Myself and others feel that adding Simpsons, Family Guy and other TV Trivia to every single Wikipedia page is counterproductive and silly. This isn't encyclopedic. This is why Wikipedia is not taken seriously as a medium. Call it what you like. I think it should be removed.Mundilfari (talk) 05:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have reverted your edits in this article, which were unexplained deletions. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a redirect. If you want to nominate it for deletion please use the right process. Fiddle Faddle (talk)

It is considered polite to

Do note that using any other mechanism may be considered to be canvassing and questions may be asked. it is permitted to ask editors to comment provided that no hint of bias appears in the request and provided even handedness is demonstrable when notifying other editors.

If using aids such as Twinkle please be aware that they sometimes (often?) fail to complete their tasks, and it is incumbent on the editor using them to check that all has been completed correctly. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've received praise for removing what many people find to be a hugely embarrassing part of Wikipedia. Every article is now loosely associated with prime time television and adult cartoons. This is unacceptable. Many other people have concurred with this sentiment and thanked me for removing this fluff from Wikipedia. I will continue to do so, regardless of your wishes. I don't believe this constitutes vandalism and will take this up with administration if you continue this line of debate.Mundilfari (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to you on my talk page. You mistake praise for consensus. Your edits appear to me to be part of a

WP:POINT campaign. So carry out your promise and do that now, today. Raise the matter with whichever administration forum you see fit. You appear to be threatening me. Carry that threat out. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

You are at it again, it seems, with

WP:POINT campaign. Either build consensus for your acts whcih I perceive as vandalism, or give it up. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Mundilfari, I noticed some of your constructive edits to Ottawa-related articles. In particular, I noticed your reworking of Rick Chiarelli. That page was extensively rewritten a few days ago by an IP editor, who added the advertisement-like section that you removed. Note that I reverted the page to a version before the IP's revision and your edit. Feel free to take another look at that page and improve it if you can.

Furthermore, if you are interested in Ottawa-related articles, I invite you to take a look at WikiProject Ottawa. That project provides good organisation of all Ottawa-related articles, and its talk page is a good place to get the attention of other interested editors. Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article

Please, do not remove such sections as you have done at Wrangel Island. I appreciate, and in the main agree with, your statement that WP does not need every family guy reference remarked upon, however, your deletion of the popular culture section on the Wrangel Island is completely different, and there is no reason why reference should not be made that Wrangel Island is feature in a notable work of literature written by a very notable author.

Please, as you have been asked above review

Wikipedia, as I am sure you are aware is governed by consensus. Simply because you feel a pop culture section is inappropriate does not make it so (despite your comments above re Removal of Trivia). Please discuss any future deletions of such sections on the talk page of the article, you never, consensus might be that it is appropriate.

Furthermore, your edit summary is massively unhelpful. Simply putting "no" as your edit summary is utterly inappropriate. Even if you do feel yourself to be a self appointed arbiter of WP:TRIVIA, who has no need for consensus, you still need to state your reasons. What you have done is in my opinion, is only one level above a vandal blanking a page, in the sense that you have removed potentially perfectly valid information with no clue as to why. Personally I would undo any edit like this with such a flippant edit summary by you or any other editor as a matter of principle, for the very reasons discussed above. I note you have also been requested to provide more detailed edit summaries on several occasions as well. Please re-read what others have written above and consider whether your actions are in keeping with what is expected from a courteous WP editor. Fenix down (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You removed a pop culture section from Queen's University. Your explanation "not needed" does not justify its removal. These types of removals should be discussed in the article's talk page and consensus obtained. Even though, personally, I am not a fan of such inclusions, pop culture sections are not prohibited. BC  _{talk to me} 04:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently reverted a number of deletions you have made to articles involving the removal of their pop culture sections. Again I remind you that you are required to discuss this on the relevant articles talk page as per

You once again removed the pop culture section from

You will see above that I warned this editor for vandalism and received a veiled threat in response. There is, I think, sufficient independent evidence now to make a case for some form of administrative intervention. I think we should consider this to be a final warning and consider a request for administrators to monitor this editor's long term behaviour with a view to making a decision. The behaviour is very much

WP:POINT

based, is outside consensus, and is highly aggravating and not a little disruptive.

I consider every removal by this editor of similar material without consensus to be an act of vandalism. Others may disagree. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. It seems that there are a number of editors who disagree with your deletions and have reverted them on numerous occasions. As you are completely unwilling even to acknowledge that people wish to discuss the matter, I have felt it necessary to bring it to the attention of the admins. You can find the discussion here. Fenix down (talk) 10:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I have been reviewing some of your recent trivia removals. Namely [1] [2] [3] [4]. I have a couple of comments to make. Firstly, I feel that some of the content of the trivia sections at

If you continue to delete sections which contain at least some valid information wholesale and without discussion, I will have to raise the issue at the admin noticeboard again. Fenix down (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You did this on May 20, I told you not to do it without discussing it with people. A couple of weeks later you did it again, and you have been edit warring. Yet you have not made a user talk edit since March 2, no talk edit since June 18 and that was about a source. You can't build consensus or discuss changes with edit summaries, because that requires you to have already made an edit! Yes, many of the popular culture content you removed failed

And now you are adding unreferenced trivia, like at Wonder Bread? What's your game? I urge you to start replying at the ANI thread or users are going to decide you are being disruptive and may block you. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm guilty before being proven innocent?Mundilfari (talk) 01:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you are doing amounts to wikistalking (wikihounding). Stop. It is against the rules to arbitrarily follow someone's edits such as you have done. I will be notifying the wikipedia administration shortly.Mundilfari (talk) 01:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carry out that threat. Do it now. I will continue to follow your edits, will continue to revert what I perceive as your vandalism, and will continue to warn you and to report you and to discuss your behaviour in relevant places in order to bring your disruptive edits to a close. Making your report is likely to hasten administrative actions against you, so I encourage you to do that at once. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on guys, let's try to keep this civil, it might be in everybodies interest if all comments relating to this discussion were carried out in the ANI thread, so everyone can see with ease! Fenix down (talk) 10:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly civil. This user has threatened me in this peculiar way before. He needs to be called on his bluff and bluster. I have called him pn it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a proposal for a topic ban at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Since this affects you I suggest that you register what I assume will be your opposition to it there. The proposal is simply that, a proposal. You have as much right as any editor to make representations there. I hope that you take this opportunity do do so. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are obviously seeking a lengthy block. A report has been made and I very much hope that will be the end of it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't you be, you know counting toothpicks, watching Wapner or spotting trains?Mundilfari (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because of vandalism, such as such as this and this I blocked you from editing. I then discovered a discussion about you at

Furthermore, you violated

WP:3RR. I would take this block time to reevaluate your editing practices, if you want some friendly advice. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Des[pite a block being technically justified, I am glad that you (

JamesBWatson) first blocked and then lifted the block. I very much hope that this user participates in the discussion. However I feel that any further disruption should result in an immediate block to curtail the huge quantity of vandalism that can be performed in a remarkably short time. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't really care to engage in the

dutch oven (practical joke). This apparently set him off and he reverted anything I did from this point forward. My edit, right or wrong, still led to wikihounding even when I compromised and didn't remove full sections of 'in popular culture' but trimmed them nicely into one or two sentences which basically explained that there were many references to X in pop culture and then listed a few of these. This was still not good enough for Fiddle Faddle.Mundilfari (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I will let my contributions record speak for itself. I view your behaviour as increasingly disruptive. Your failure to consider reaching consensus is deplorable, and you are proving, at least to me, that, unless you curb your tendency to fail to interact with other editors and to build and work within consensus, your many talents would be better deployed elsewhere. Your flurry of vandalism, conducted in what appeared to me to be a fit of pique, shows me that you do not have the good of the community at heart. It has rules that it has created by consensus. By editing here you accept those rules implicitly. Changing the rules if you disagree with them is a process, not a one man stand.

You keep calling my ethics into question. I challenge you to make a formal allegation and back it with facts. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of a discussion on the AN/I noticeboard -- see [5] for details -- you are banned from editing areas of articles that contain what may be reasonably classified as

As you have already realized, violation of the above topic ban/editing restriction makes you subject to being blocked from editing. The week's block imposed above will increase in duration with subsequent infringements and, at the discretion of any administrator, can result in your being banned from any future contribution to Wikipedia under any circumstances. I have just amended the editing restrictions to make this explicit. If you have any questions about this, feel free to contact me or another administrator at your convenience. Accounting4Taste:talk 12:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am pleased to see you back. You have so much passion it would have been a dreadful shame if it had gone to waste. I'm glad you have not let the immediately past episode discourage you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right. I don't believe you.Mundilfari (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a

I mentioned this particular article in an IRC chat room. I by no means encouraged anyone to edit the article but pointed out the ridiculousness of the article and that it was a case for wikigroaning. If other users took it into their hands to edit this article as I did, I will not take responsibility.Mundilfari (talk) 04:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would officially like this case to be re-opened and appeal the decision of a one year block. Simply talking about a case in a public chat room should not be reason to be blocked. Others obviously feel as strongly as I do about the ridiculousness of that article. Fiddle Faddle is obviously as strongly opposed to the article being edited. Yes, there are other people who think you're wrong.Mundilfari (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a