User talk:213.237.21.242

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. I would like to inform you that it is inappropriate to add essays promoting a particular point of view to articles. (Not to mention that the essay is likely copyrighted and to post it on Wikipedia would violate the copyright laws and Wikipedia policies.) See also: Wikipedia:Manual of style.

Thank you. Regards, Mike Rosoft 12:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Proper referencing

On WIKI we do not accept original research from editors. If you are going to quote a reputable scholar, cite/reference the quote. You may want to review your sources, being a student of religion for many years, I can state, without any reservation, that your demonstrated knowledge of Mormonism is highly limited and not based on factual data. I would encourage further research and I look forward to your future edits. Storm Rider (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Being graduated from a mormon university in Utah I do not think that your education in any religion is of any of value but your own brain wash as it is well known all over the world. You are thereby very bad placed to judge of my knowledge and work, and your comments are laughable to say the least. I will call your intervention for a chicane of the very bad type as you are trying to agress me and discredit me by using vey law tools, those sophists use when they are short for arguments,as you are here. I do note citate any scholars, and I do not make research, I tell facts about that church as they are teach there every sunday morning. So if you as a mormon disagree with that, you will have to contact the president of that church or the prophete and ask him to stop teaching this, or to agree with me, officialy, on wikipedia, that it is true, unless of course you do not know of those, which will not surprised me as teachings in mormons church are like the winds, it blows differently, depending on your geographical situation. As a storm rider, you should enjoy the drive!... On contrary original research is accepted in wikipedia and can be read everywhere in this encyclopedia. If your knowledge of the church is not your personal opinion nor your personal research and that you only accept facts from known scholars, what scholars will it be, not evangelists nor prophetes from the church?... You've got a problem here.

sophie --213.237.21.242 18:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bogdanov policy

Ban on editors involved in Bogdanov Affair
All user accounts used by participants in the external controversy are indefinitely banned from editing Bogdanov Affair. The criteria for determining external involvement shall be a review of their edit history, it being presumed that if the vast majority of their edits are to the Bogdanov Affair they are not Wikipedia editors but persons involved in the external dispute. This group includes: YBM (talk • contribs), XAL (talk • contribs), ProfesseurYIN (talk • contribs), Igor B. (talk • contribs), CatherineV (talk • contribs), 82.123.187.53 (talk • contribs), Laurence67 (talk • contribs) EE Guy (talk • contribs), 82.123.46.149 (talk • contribs), 82.123.57.232 (talk • contribs), Luis A. (talk • contribs), and all others who meet the criteria. Any new user account or anonymous IP which commences editing of the article without substantial editing of other articles shall be presumed to be a participant in the external controversy.

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair#Final decision for details.

Rama 09:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Answer to Rama and to the corrupted Arbitration Comitee

I do not accept this ban and the way it was decided and you know very well that I am right and that what happened was completely unlegitimate and a violation of most of wikipedia rules.

You were part of this error and played an important role to keep this error roling.

You dont know anything about the case at hand and have been unable until now to explain your actions just before the ban, like insulting people every day and editing/deleeting wikipedian contribution with no other reasons but your own hysterie at giving place only to those having exclusively your own meaning.
And you talk on your own site about liberté egalite and fraternité??!!
You do not know a thing about the meaning and application of those words as all your actions are those of a despote.
You know very well that you accused me inside the ban of things who were false, knowing that I couldnt answer them, as when I deleeted some of the stuff on my own talk page, after receiving order to do so by an administrator and you accused me on the arb com site of voluntaraly trying to dispose of evidencies knowing I acted agsainst my own will, and I even several time asked Nicholas Thunbull to write it on the arb com for me or to contact you about it but he didnt and I even contacted you personnally to tell you it several times but you ignored it and left all your unlegitimated attacks on the arb come site, knowing that I couldnt voice your hypocrisy.
That is also the real reason why you have removed my text today, as its contain disturb you still today.
You should no longer be an admi on wiki as your behaviour are enough to ban you and for your knowledge I have written several articles on the french wiki and on the danish one, but I dont give a shit about your childish way to hide your compleete imaturity.
The arb coms member submission to the order of a pro bogdanov admi and decision to forbid me to participate to the arb com was scandalous and is still to be read in the talk page for discussion between admi. YBM also participated to this discussion together with 2 other anti bogdanovs administrator, so here it goes for democratie and equality.
It was compleetely discriminatorical and unacceptable.
I was the one who asked for a arb com and Nicholas had double me in my back, asking me to wait until he give me the list of the people I should contact and to do not act before that, at the same time as he proceede with an other admi who was anti bogdanov and with YBM to contact the arb com on an all different subject than the original one.
YBM WAS NOT BANNED at the beginning he became it only by force as it was too evident that if he could proceede so this Arb Com was a joke.
More to it is the fact that nobody in wikipedia can be banned for a year. And thats an integer of the wikipedians set of basic rules to protect people freedom to express themselves.
I remind you that YBM was deleeting all my edit systematically since months, before the arbcom begin, and was even protected in doing so by an admi, who protected him and encouraged him to do so in her action, as she banned me from the talk page each time he had deleeted my contributions and I complain about it or put back my text.
This state of thing was to be pursued even as the arb com begin, as she took care to ban me as she was convincing the arb com not to let me voice my opinion and come with disturbing informations. She officialy banned me 24 hours but in reality 5 days, after wich I was forbidden by the arb com to take part to the debate, without any reason given to me as why I couldnt participate.
The Bogdanovs affair will be remember as the wikipedias scandal of difference of treatment, discrimination, lies and corruption of administrators and arb com members.
You just covered one another and know very well that your conduct was far from acceptable and will not hold a control.
You alone solution is to keep people out.

And for your knowledge I was not banned of the bogdanovs affair talk page as it was officialy told, but from all wikipedia, and this because I do not agree with YBM??!!

I had never deleeted anyones work nor insulted people, and had never performed any act of vandalism anywhere on wikipedia, and I was banned for indefinit time of all Wiki??!!
Recall what you did in the short time you were there before the ban: you spread violent talks, insults, deleeted several people contributions, made personnal attacks on wikipedian on the basis of their standpoint who was different from yours and abused your status as an administrator to promote your own personal opinion.
All of it thing who are strickly forbidden on wikipedia.
Wikipedia is now completely corrupt when arbitration comitee members make such an enormous abuse of power, and sweep off all other partie arguements, and deny access to the arbitration to the person who asked for the arbitration!
It is the world up side down.
That you accepted it so easely and were an active part of this bluff of arbitration, prooves how corrupt and amoral you are, and how routined you are to abuse of you "power" as an admi, and how proud you are of it, disregarding all other human values and dignity.
That you pretended to be blind to what happened and still do, is only one more proove of how low you are and how much you apreciate corruption and power at all cost.

Freedom and liberty you say? but reread the first sentences you put on your own talkpage, and see if you were not talking about yourself...

You do not deserve to be an admi nor to enjoy the freedom of expression, equality, and fraternity, when what you mean by fraternity is corruption scandals, and you deny freedom to others, and treat with equality only those who have the same voice as yours.
All wikipedia is a joke and this place is full of cases like that, where the most despotics people have the louder voice and place in wiki, at the cost of real information and diversity.

You had no rights to remove my text as I am no longer banned, but you ignored it because it suited you. You dont even know why you are doing it nor what exactly brouhgt you to this talk page and why you are doing this systematic vandalism and propaganda of an affair. You have even never asked you the question. You are not mature enough to beset the function you have, and are certainly not able to judge the case with the distance and the wisdom necessary to do so.

In short get yourself a life, and stop pumping yourself with cyberinfluence and power, at the cost of the freedom of expression, [not to mix with the right to remain eternally silent].

--213.237.21.242 14:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Here is som exemple how rama is avoiding the question and directly lying

Rama's assumptions

I'm kinda surprised Rama freezes everyone who slightly diverges from his views of the article as a "sock P." of the brothers. I am not. And probably King Vegita is also not a sock P. Perhaps Rama should apply some physics training in order to understand correctly some edits. One thing to be a "pro" in sexuality drawings (User : Rama :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rama/Sexuality_drawings) another one to be a good editor in physics. If you disagree you can always email me.

Having over 500 edits in completely unrelated articles, including building some articles from the ground up, I would hope I wouldn't be considered a sock puppet.

KV 16:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I freeze and block anyone who comes to Wikipedia to begin editing this article right away and nothing else, in strict compliance with the policy edicted by the CAr. The fact that these people tend to always have the same view of the affair is something I leave to your sagacity. My personal opinion on the matter is quite out of the question.

As for my formation, I fear that your wild guesses about my modest person are stretching too far as well; I happen to be a physicist, though I am not specialised in cosmology (and have never suggested that I was). Though I am flattered that you should appreciate my drawings, I certainly do claim to have some experience with the scientific community. Rama 09:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

PS: most of this reply adresses the first, unsigned comment. I assume that KV does not condone the insinuation that I "freezes everyone who slightly diverges from [my] views". Anyhow, this is no the case. I am far too busy to spend my time watching every other edit for compliance to my alleged opinions; I have a very simple criterion to use (number of edits), and I would be foolish not to use this to save my time. Rama 10:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Rama never freezed nor block people from the anti bogdanovs wing, and even supported and actively helped them in their edit and reverting actions.
He was among those who directly insulted users, and the Bogdanovs, accused without proove many wikipedian of being sock puppet who was a hit at that time instead of preasenting a proper argumentation or contra argumentations, or proove of their accusations: reverting, personal attacks, insults, paternalism, and threats.
He is not the alone administrator to have do so in the process of the bogdanovs affair of the affair, but he was the one remaining and still doing this kinf of unlegitimate actions, ensuring that this paper remain one eyed and subjective, reflecting only one side of the the whole.
I think that the scientifically proofs of Rialuezos and Baezs' errors have been copiously argumented and offered with numerous exemples, but was always been ignored, at the same time asaccusations picked out of the blue were emphasised.
Like Anville do by writing down some of the contain of unserious magazine, all containing personal and unfoundet and irrelevant attacks, who have been available as link in that article and in other internet site on the subject since more than 3 years.
I remember being bogged down for much lesser than that, and how administrators were abundantly using of sanctions against contains and forms of even slightly pro bogdanovians' contributors, or even neutral or questioning newbees, that they were themselves largely doing, and threatening people (read pro bogda) of sanctions for presenting stuff that they considered as disruptiv or out of subject when they were themselves doing so even initializing it, and were a primary motor to the general agressivity, adding fuel to the fire and reigniting it as soon as thing had reached a status quo.
Rama dont have always say he wasnt a specialist in cosmology, and it is funny to see how untruth he is with the real chain of event and how unclear he can remain of his own role in this play.
All keys arguments and so call Proove against the bogdanovs, all pillars of the ante bogdanovs wing, have been pilled down to the bones, and prooven wrong.
It has been done so several times, both inside and outside wikipedia, and some key personnages of this affair have on purpose pretended not knowing of that fact in order to abuse and confuse a nice number of administrators and users and gain them to theír side.
As many newbees as Rama and Bishonen didnt make the effort to read previous contributions and even look at ongoing prooves, ignoring all that was not 100% their own meaning, and only reading documents largely provided by the head of the anti bogdanovs wing, they were with to contribute to the problem and make it explode, by their offending and provocativ one sided comments and evaluations and unfair treatment of users and very humiliating treatment of users who didnt agree with them entirely.
Not surprising that pro bogda users were getting slightly tired at repeating themselves and that scientifics users were no longer interested at doing so, considering it as unserious.
This was also abused by anti-B. in many situations.
In fact, what can be seen on this affair remind me of what is happening on all sites about the Mormons.
Only mormon control the place and are also administrators, how convenient!
So this kind of unlegetimate and uncontrolled irregularities is quiet usual on wikipedia.
There is no differences between George and Bishonens and Rama abuse of their power and the mormons abuse of the same both in their own interest to defend their own ideas and opinions.

What you accused us of is what I saw in you.

It was so evident that you couldnt pretend the opposit without being deliberatly lying.
Still now you are accusing users as KV of being a socket puppet, doesnt it ring a bell? Dont you ever ask yourself questions concerning your misconduct?
I still want to speak with Anville as I can clearly see that he/she has been misleaded and know only one side of the affair: the well remake official side, as it can be read on his talk page.
It seems for me to be a lost as this person has shown good ability to analyse a bright number of subject and make a good work on it.
I will suppose that he or she is able to see through what happened and make the distinction between active brain wash and facts.
I do not see how I could be fan clubbed nor socket puppet when I am in Danmark and first heard about the bogdanovs and their work in august last year, about a month before this article was opened, and 2 months before the arb com and my total ban.
YBm, head of the anti bogda wing, had previously banned me from his forums as I was able to counter his attacks and proove him wrong, which was not so good for the stability of his fan club.
He followed me in the Bogdanovs affair in wikipedia as he could seemingly not spare himself of my sparks.
He was less than a week at begin his dayly reverting sessions, always by nigth, and I didnt knew enough of wiki system at that time to use of the right chain of command, so by the time someone looked at it, it had been going on for 2 weeks, and I was accused of reverting and banned even so I had never reverted anything.
I still dont have been compensate for that, and all the misunderstanding who followed, up to the arb com final decision, was based on that only.
I suppose that if the arb com had been told or had realised that the head of the anti fling, had from his first week on wiki abused of the 3R constantly and systematicaly, and had even confused an administrator in believing that somebody else had done it, the outcome will have been different. But it isnt even sure as those admi cannot say to dont have known about it, they were warned and could see it in the historic of the talk page.
There has been some deliberate misconduct, to say it nice, and it isnt by shuting the mouth of all and burried it in a wiki corner, that it is going to diseappear, like if never happened "with time".
No, it will come back at you with a vengeance, as errors of that kind have often deeper roots and are the external signs of a more subversiv and extended problem.
The "affair of the bogdanovs affair" is the top of the iceberg of wikipedias repeated inadequacy at solve dilema involving administrators own point of view.
I was never aloud to publish anything in the article as it was always removed, and it was also used against me! I was not contributing to the article!!
I also wish to say to wikipedia board and to the arb com and to admis, that you waisted an opportunity to have Stefen Hawking writing an article in WIKI, and it is a very stupid thing to do, as a chance like that will not come by anytime soon.
I will in that regard like Anville to watch on the archive of the talk page and take a look at the reactions of the anti wing, and among them rama, when I presented this proposition to have S. Hawking giving his meaning about it all in order to close the debate once and for all.

hope to hear from Anville,

--213.237.21.242 10:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments at Talk:Mormonism

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; 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. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 20:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I was the one being under personal attacks by people who avoid the subject and kept to personal attacks instead to read what I was writting, and yes my contribution was avancing the subject with very important and new informations, but the other users were constantly trying to stop it by the mean of personal attacks.
I wonder that you suppress my contribution but let the one of val stay, who contain nothing but a copy paste of very large part of my edit, without any reasons for it, whcich is against wiki rules, and with personal attacks in between.
Very convenient too that you leave ton for holyday straight after doing so, meaning less than 6 hours after having doing so.
This talk page is not a talk page but a propaganda page for a propaganda article, with only mormon administators to make sure nothing they disaproove as church member will come through.
You do not have given a fundament for your actions, and I therefor disagree with it.
you will have to be there to do so.

--213.237.21.242 08:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Being yourself a mormon and actively working in wikipedia for the sole purpose to defend mormons interests your decision cannot be accepted. You are a like a member of the klux klux klan parading as impartial judge in a trial against a black.
This cannot be accepted and will not be.
You are directly violating the first 6 rules of wikipedia and I will not let you escape from this gratuituously.

Sophie--213.237.21.242 12:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

For starters, I'm not Mormon. Had you taken a minute to look at my user page, that would be abundantly clear. Second, as you've continued to ignore the WP:NPA policy, I'm blocking you for fourty eight hours. Please use the time to review the policy, along with WP:NPOV. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 20:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

WHAT A SURPRISE>!

I thougth you were on vacation in Mexico as you pretend to be this morning and not being back before end of june... how strange!
I couldnt reach you this morning but you are surely available to do som mormon business.
You are a mormon and you will have to prove the opposit before I believe you.
You cannot block me before the administrators I have contacted and the members of the board have respond and look upon this case.
You are also a mormon sympathisor so this exclude you si ne qua non from emiting a neutral judgement on this case.
You have in the past largely contribute to mormon propaganda so you are not to be trusted in your hability to emit a judgement on me respecting wikipedias requirements of being unpartial and neutral.
First you insult me then you revert me than you make my text diseapeared and as it doesnt work to bend wikis rules so much you just piss on those rules and block me.
How convenient!
And what are your real arguemnt for doing so?
You grab to preformed sentences taken from wiki vocabulary for doing so and excuse your illegal actions, but you forgot to illustrate it with exemple taken from the real case at hand and taking both parts and their actions in consideration.
Your actions are unconsequent.
I will be very happy to be prooved wrong.
The worse in your story is your invocation of no personal attacks as a reason to block me, i didnt attack any one personly but many of those users surely did and abondantly and I defended me from that, but isnt it typical to kill the victim as you have done it several times before?
I have asked sin´ce the 10 th of june to 4 users to stop their personal attacks, and if you had reaf the contain of the talk page AS YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO DO BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY BLOCKING OF A USER you will know that this W: NPA against me is an insult at me and to make laught at wikipedia system.
You are one of those administrator that I mention as dangerous people undermining all the wikipedias sytem, and you should be ashame of that and get yourself a life instead of destroying what others have build up by abusing of some virtual power given to you.
One last thing, I didnt aloud you to put a link to my talk page on yours and you are not aloud to do so without my permission.
Go back to Mexico to eat some burritos and let real people take care of this case. You cant even read, so what are you doing on wikipedia? Pretending you can do so?
I hate your invocation of talking about the contain and not the person it came from as I have repeated this exactly to all other users constantly and told you so but you dont give a shit, what do you get from them? a blow job on the plane?
You didnt warn them then, nor after I told you and you dont have even looked upon it to see what I was talking about.
It is because shit people like you that the world get worse every day and that wikipedia is becoming shity pedia.
Thats greek geak for shit on 2 feets.
You know perfectly well that you are lying and what the hell does it help to create and follow rules if it is to use them to the complete opposit purpose than what they were ment for.
Now, I really hate you.
Do you now feel the slightly difference between selfdefense and personly attacks?
I dont anymore, I am just MADDD!!!
About your idea of cooling down, why dont you just fuck off somewhere else?

And we dont forget:

Ummm no - no unblock -- Tawker 21:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I could be cooler than cold fusion, maybe in another life, or when I will try.

Sophie

Some clue to Zero in the whole case

Since you asked others, who didnt have read the passages you have also choose to ignore, if they contained some more than the archive 2, yes they did, and by this question you have in fact give the evidence that you have indeed deleeted all and banned me out of an assumption in correlation with some second hand gossips.

I strongly recommend you to actually read what this is about, by reading my first text, the one titled some more things about mormonism, and try to get the move of what realy happened later on.
You will also have to keep in mind that I started the 10th of june in the evening, which also mean that I was insulted immediatly and waited 2 days of activ attacks before reacting at all, and that nevertheless, my first defense talk was immediatly sanctioned with reverting/archiving with no access to the original text, on the third day after I had contribute to this talk page.
What a welcome comittee we have there!
The attaquant were not warned nor sanctioned, which also must imply that one has to have his internal connection in order if one wish to truly experience all or part of the first amendment to its fullest on wikipedia.
It seems to me that the true free expression platform is reserved to the few with the right contacts, and a good practice of lobbyism, conjugated with a good rutine at twisting wikis'basic rules.
Instead of replying, just make a call to your first contact and provocate the person in the mean time, until you get the right kind of response, then contact another one and ring the clock stronger, provocate again a little more, and when the newbee is tender, just give it some more heat in form of threat or revert or both, then you can be sure that it will trigger the reaction you were waiting for, and you can ring to your 3rd contact in the lobbyism chain, to hammer that person right onto place with big warnings, global revert, and more threat, to of course summum it all with the ban who had been the prime goal all along.
It work perfectly each time, but aint you a little surprised that the escalations steps who should usually take weeks, from appel to an extern person, or admi, to observations, and warning and revert, was all done in less than 48 hours with no communication at all, as I dont call communication to beat first and talk after.
Had you first look objectively at the escalation patern you will have seen many sides who are absolutely not available here, and who will have give you a version who was all together different from the actual one.
You say you do not know the contain of what you removed, so were your action based on facts or on gossips?
Have you contrareacted against a person or was it because of the contain of this persons edits?
As you dont have read those I think that the answer is obvious and in compleete contradiction with your own reason for banning me.
So what are you to do? Ban yourself?
Reevaluate your motives?
Or remove the ban?
You made the same mistake that you were sanctioning me for doing.
All is not as we first believed it is, and appearences are what we made them to be.
I do not have a wiki name because I was out of wiki and inside the theoretic physic institute for a long while, and my wiki name seemed to be gone when I returned here this 10th of june in the evening, so craving me to have one on the 11th was pretty provocativ in my eyes.
IT IS ALL ABOUT THE EYES WHO SEE.
But facts have their sayings that the reason cant ignore and those facts are telling a very precise thing for the one really trying to see clear. Not the one just passing by with gossips all over his both hears.
So in archiving and reverting and deleeting, you were doing a very big and provocativ mistake, as you were suppressing those facts, and with them the alone chance to know what had really happened. The facts.
They were removed with very laconic explainations, but I reinsert them with very specific and abundant explainations for my actions, doing the only right thing to do, in my eyes, and as those removals happened in a very unusual and sudden maner, you should have expected that kind of reaction.
I am talking of the first amendement here, soon you cant no longer burn the flag, but would you still be aloud to talk your mind as here in 10 years from now?
Why do you deny me the rights that you are supposed to defend, and why do you blame me and sanction me for errors and actions that you do not blame nor sanction on others who do it to me, and that you do yourself?
Is it because you believe in the good of discrimination and retaliation?
Is it because you are unaware of it?
Or is it because you do not have analyse the situation and see with clear eyes the consequences of each persons actions inclusiv your own?
I didn't become aggressiv between the 11th and the 13th out of the blue, and I didn't become from assertive to madly aggressiv between the 13th and the 14th of june without a very real and good reason.
I told them not to blame the messenger for the message and to dont kill the messenger, as you will have read in my texts if you had read them.
You can jump to conclusion in certain situations but you cant act and distribute sanctions on an inch, just because you have the power to do so.
I found it discusting, and hope that somebody is going to show me some light here and to proove me that wikipedia is not becoming its contrary with only place for people who cannot think and who just want to impose their limited view on what interest them, and are ready to go to any length in order to do so, inclusiv denying the freedom of expression and the free flow of informations to those who dont agree with what they want to say, witness, and wish to hear.
In this question of testing the true face of wikipedia and preventing or stopping destructiv ways of doing things, as solving by disolving problems, who has become a bad habit, If I win we all win.
But for the specific subject that I was beginning to mention the 10th of june in the talk page about mormonism, anybody who win, we all loose.
If they succeed in hindering me to speak and refusing to hear what I am telling them, they will never know about it and because of that will never have the mean to stop it and hinder it to happen any longer.
You see, they never asked me the real questions, like "where heard you this, whom did teach you about that, what did they say exactly, why, can those person be asked about it now, can we come in contact with them and ask them directly?"
Which will have been the proper way to proceede and a clear sign that they were really interested in knowing the sources of those facts, and not just trying to forget about it by just denying it all.
That is why I say that if I win, it will be a lost too, as they will get the proove of what I say as being true, and then, something else will be broken.
So no matter who win, we all loose.
In a different sector of our life or of Life, but isn't all interconnected anyway?
I think that i might have to give the key or relay to ACLU.
I aint going to fight alone against an invisible all or plenty.

Try to do it for me, when you wont do it with.

Sophie



[edit] Pseudo Archiving, REAL MASS REVERTING

Hi Sophie. I have archived the discussions again along with your allegations of a coverup. the information - including all the history of edits etc is available at Talk:Mormonism/Archive 2. I have also posted a prominent notice on the top of Talk:Mormonism indicating your concerns and redirecting comments there. Have a good day - Trödel 15:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As you know it yourself you are not elligible nor credible nor a reliable source of neutrality in this case as you are yourself a mormon and all you do is to support other mormons, without following any wikipedias rules, but your own churchs solidarity.
I dont believe that any of you has even the intention of being straightforward with non mormon or to be a little bit honest, but that the alone thing that activate you is your own religious believe and the pedantisme to think that all you may say or do is auto righteous in the name of the church and all the illusions you dream of with open eyes.
I dont want a mormon admi, I dont want a mormon admi, I dont want a mormon admi, to look into this case, but an external one with no relations nor contacts what so ever with this church nor its representants or members.
If you cant do that, it must be because your circle of admi friends is around the church, or because you know very deeply that all you did was deeply unappropriate and wont stand a micro mile in a wiki trail.
I am mad, very mad at you, also because you ignore what I have say, so why should I care about your saying and doing if we have to be neutraly equal?
Any idea?
I want the text who was deleeted from the archive, it is unacceptable that a text is deleeted from archive and from the edit history, just one hour after you reverted it and less than a day after it was written, without any previous warning of any kind about it.
This is all about wiki rules and you have broken them all.

--213.237.21.242 16:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption. • List of personal attacks: Calling me a "little geek"

Ok then, a Big Geek, are you glad? I surely hope so;

accusing me of "[sacrificing] innocent wikipedians ... to [my] wiches burning parties";

no, no, no you know very well I wasn't speaking to you but to all the mormons especially administrators who are involved in this kind of destructiv actions as vandalism of the page, reverting, group personnal attacks, and so on. But I am sorry that you felt concerned, any idea why?
calling all the editors "You are all sick and control freaks!";
not the editors the mormons administrators, there is a difference, (isn't it??!!!)

comparing editors "KKK member[s]"; .. see this set of "contributions."

no no all administrators who are mormons and involved in this vandalism, you cannot be the defendant of the one you accuse, and the KKK exemple is very appropriate in this case, by many aspects, as you will see it in the future.

You are hidding and perpetrate your crimes under pseudonym and hide from each others, and have to show loyalty to each others and all has to be sacrified for the church, and you cooperate and show great solidarity for the commun goal or against the choosen target and have allies in the police and among lawyers, here administrators and members of the board.

You dont hesitate either at creating lies and involve the official court to defend your lies and to make it support your own goals and own rules.
You see, it is the same.
Little racism can't be excluded as well, as 2 users show it several times.


Worse than all that, "You" didn't sign, so I do not know who you are, maybe you are a mormon in chief under disguise, I do not accept unsign and undated messages on this page.
You are warned.
You have, you and different mormons users, vandalise the talk page as a group in order to eliminate contributions of non mormons who disturbed you and I found this unacceptable and against all wikis essentials rules.
I will therefor not bow under you threats and insist for the intervention of a non mormon administrator who isnt a personal friend as well.
There is clear discriminatoricals actions who have to stop and being alone against 10, it is difficult but not all impossible.
I simply cant accept that a group of religious extremists insist on imposing their views on different talkpage at the cost of wikipedias rule of equality and neutrality and at the cost of real information as well.
I am not hiding as you are all doing so at the moment nor lying and pretending something else.
I do reply to those attacks, but I have the dignity to leave place for the other users, and to dont revert their texts and to in fact reinsert their answers and questions with mine who were deleeted with theirs.
The excuse of archiving is very thin seen in the light of the real purpose, and rearchiving in less than 24 hours, after only 4 posts, is unacceptable and to spit at wikipedias face.
Do you think that all wikipedians are idiots and cannot see what you are trying to do?
I was called a troll, a lyer many times, insulted, and anyway terminated my contributions and answers to this with: "kind regards", that was until the joke went too far, and the insults too loud, and the circus was too obvious that I used a more direct language, but it was not before you started those mass reverting actions disguise as archiving that I really went angry and asked for proper explainations.
Which you answer to by reverting even more.
I dont accept this.
You have no rights to do so and your insistency at grabing at wikis morality and set of rules to cover up for your diffamations is both hysterical and an hypocrisie who do not fool anybody.

i can see that you have all a long time training at doing so as you exchan´ge each time who is going to bear the hat...this way each person remain innocent as the guilt is dispearsed among as many as possible.

Very smart, but not less dishonnest nor more invisible.
Try pronoïa instead of being all trying to found something wrong about me and come back to my first text to wich you never answered and most certainly never read to understand it. You read it to critisized it.
Here is the result of your crusade.
Are you happy with it?
I hope so, 'cause I dont found it satisfying at all.

Sophie --213.237.21.242 19:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] = To administrator Tawker =

Template:Smoke signals to Tawker, Vancouver, do you read me?

I am pretty sure that you have to reread what i wrote as you must have read what i wrote on purpose to provocate a mexican or his cactus, because of recent trauma.

My personal attacks are in fact a critic of wikipedia system in view of recent actions of some editors, and the critic of the us government and other general, very, assertions, but nothing persdonal. As for vandalism I was the one being vandalised and reacting to it on a very propper way by propper actions, as reinserting ALL persons edits and not just mine, with significant informations as my reason to do so.
I also think that some people in the story have been pretty quick at giving blame without having read anything of the contain wich say one or two things about their morality and how they view the WP/NPA, biaize, if you see what i mean.
I was trying since 5 days to get somebody from the wiki board to take a look at some specifik things but I still wait for the answer.
It was before I actually participate in any debate or talk page.
I begin to do so the 10th PM and was banned the 14th PM
It went very fast, with revert and archivising and reverting of all my edits, and my banishment in the course of the 14th, less than 9 hours exactly.
Thats a guiness record i think, some should get a reverted ban star for that kind of thing.
Try to contact me by email or give me your or an email or unblock me, bref one way we can communicate.
Good you answered to my joke, now i met an admi who isnt a mormon and who is a specialist in all what i ignore.
Its going to be a fruitfull encounter, hope it will be reciproque.

contact me here or on that mail: sophie@nostromo.dk

I hope very soon, if not you will have saved me from becoming a wikiaddict, there is so many other things I should do, this geak is insane. (the unblock dims is more a light signal or smoke signal to have you back looking at this, I could believe in santa claus but not the one on wikipedia.)

--213.237.21.242 03:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Admited personal attacks, no unblock. --pgk(talk) 07:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TO ALL ANSWERING THE UNBLOCK SMOKE MESSAGE

As could be clearly read here, I wasnt asking for any unblock, but to talk to Tawker, so unless you had the intention to contact him for me, or to contact me directly I dont see why you have put your finger in it.

Please any other admi coming here, do not remake the same mistake and give my smoke signals further to the rigth target:
Tawker.
I dont care about being unblock, I do care about being treated as a person and been given acomment and else that outsiders dont mingle in a case that they do not know a single thing about.
Being reverted for not adering 100% to all mormons theories is in my view a direct attack to the first amendement.
Here are some proove for what I have advanced in some of my edits (I have edited from the 10th of june 2006 in the evening to the 14th of june 2006 in the afternoon), with being subject to unfounded personal attacks and reverts without explainations from my first edits. Both from other editors (all mormons) and from administrators who were also mormons.
As you are not an administrator and not the one this edit VERY VISUALLY is adressed to, so you should have step away or contact the person himself to ask him to take a look here.
Your actions in that case are counter productiv Pgk and waist my time and place in wikipedia.
Try to bode for this or use it as a learning stuff for future times.
Do not make the mistake of using your previous type of experiences in vandalism as a stonehenge model for all situations.
Take into account the basis and what actually occured in the case at hand and that the people who generated personnals attacks against me did it without having been subject to such on my part, and only by assuming things about me who werent true.
Even when confronted with that fact they pursued their personal attacks in form of racism and accusing me of lying and calling me a troll, and all their edits stating those have not been removed nor do those editors have been sanctioned nor even warned.
Most probably because they appeal to mormon administrators to begin with.
I have written contributions in only 2 days, before all were reverted without explainations. That i was blocked on the basis of NPA is a cynical joke, as I thad tried for days to make the other editors to stop agressing me ´by answering my edits with personal attacks and to instead adrees the content of those edits.
I have in all my answers to them specifically and always adress the contain of their edits directly and accuratly, that it had contain also similarity with personal attacks has to be seen in the ligth that their edits were made of 90% of personal attacks and false allegations about my motives and source of informations, thought i had clearly stated what those were several times, and even was falsly citated on words and sentences I had never uttered!
The feeling of being done wrong was growing for each of those unfounded attacks, and instead of getting clear and founded and logical responses, I was confronted with further illigetimates handling as a pseudo archiving of the talk page where all edits, incl the 4 th last, had been removed, and the talk page was left blanck, and was officialy choosen to dont reply to my first edit, who was never adressed, meaning its contain and not me as a person.
The last edit written by me had been deleeted from the archive and the historic, which I didnt accept, as I know it was against wiki rules. No explainations nor warning were given nor the possibility to contact the admi who had done so as on his talk page he pretended to be on holyday until the end of june wich I found odd as he had done those actions a couple of hours ago.

Nobody being there to can talk that matter through with, nor any others being named to take over, and no plausible explanations being given for doing those hidden reverting of the page, I took the initiative to reinteger the last 4 edits in the actual empty talk page, as mean to pursue the communication and arrived at a propper reaction regarding the contain of my contribution and not personal attacks against me nor disuasiv terror actions being made against me.

I argued about it and explained my actions abundently both before I did it, and at the end of those, with a clear stand point concerning my worries about the freedom of expression being severely enfringe in wikipedia and the danger of letting this type of actions going on without control, as well as seeing wikipedia getting too onesided on a relevant amount of articles.
I hope this clarified some point and i didnt appreciate being bulled nor sanctioned by an admi who officially recognised not having read the edits he removed and reverted and archived, nor having read my explaination for reinserting some of those from the archive to the talk page, and also being warned and threatened and banned from an admi, the same, who didnt look at all at the contain of any of my edits nor look upon what happen in the course of only 3 days, for reasons that I was complaining about concerning the other users, and all that on the basis of what he heard other say to him, and not on the basis of his factual experience with the case.
In short he give a judgement and sentence and executed it without having read the case.
It is unacceptable, and extreeme and trigger extreeme reactions.

Anything else will be ignoring human behaviour and elementar psychology as aperson under stress and attacks from several sides and unfairly and unequaly treated will have to shout louder in order to be heard and will feel the urge to do so especially if none is listening nor taking this persons views nor the facts at hand into account.

Ignoring and pretending like if things as otherwise is the worse form for insult and agression, and a real psychological attack.
To say it very clear: If you didnt have beat me, I will not have scream nor feel pain.
Denying to have ever beaten me, is a form of psychological torture, and I do hope that wikipedia policy do not support this kind of behaviour, and should begin to at least recognise this fact and to take it into account in the future evaluations of conflicts. I have seen that it is often the vandaliser who accuse the victim of vandalism in wikipedia and that many users and admi are very bad at distinguish between calculated and planed tactical psycho war to trigger specifics responses in order to ban or eliminate a person, and the persons who trigger the buttons of this war. They often are misleaded and become active participants of this psycho war, helping the real vandaliser to achieve their plans instead of amening a solution to a problem. Their actions often fired even more an already infected situation.
I will not use this case here as an exemple, but more as a mini model of such, and will not either generalised to all types of conflict nor all kind of vandalism actuated on all wikipedias articles and talk pages.
I just have witness som specific reaction and action patterns who are in my meaning encouraging good manoeuvers and manipulators to do more of the same, and serve as splendid models of battle work for future replication of the same, at the service of ex and future unpunished vandlaiser, who even often end up being gratified for their actions!!!
BUT, in the process, it is always possible to see, at some points, that something is wrong, and that all is not as it seems, but admi having already given in and being often alredy part of it, have difficulties at coming out of it, and setting a critical eyes on whats going on really as it will imply critisising themselves.
Not that people are unable to do so, but it is often more difficult to do so one oneself for many, specially when adrenaline is up, tension is mounting, admis have already taken side, and in many cases the persons are involved with several other things or articles or other conflicts at the same time.
The time and ressource factor is here often a big limit.

One will have a tendency to jump where the gear is lowest and oversee even central things.

That was this problem and the consequences of it in matter of freedom of expression and justice , as wiki justice, and equality and protection of neutrality, inside wikipedia as a whole that I have tried to expose on the talk page but also and specially outside, before participating in the mormons talk page at all, by sending several emails to members of wikipedias board, to drag people attention on it.
It is more part of a general changement of attitude toward the freedom of expression, gaining several countries, than just a specific to wikipedia only thing, who is the cause of such problems.But nonetheless those issues need to be urgently taken up at wikipedias top, for evaluation and to see what can be done to avoid it in the future.
I know wikis ressources are limited and that the number of admi is also restrained, but I do hope that the problem by its repercussions, will be taken up seriously and soon enougth to avoid an escalation of it in wiki, conducting at the end to the abrogation of wikis most basic principles in all wikipedia.
Voilá.
Hope you, reader, can now see where I come from and go to, and that something will happen in that field because of what I set into motion now, and if so, it will be my best contribution to wikipedia, and people at large.
I have until now only meet narrow point of view, but here are some professionals stuff about this freedom of expression problem that has infected wiki since short ago (but more than a year at least).
"The group [Reporters Without Borders] evaluates how well the world's nations respect freedom of the press. Finland, Iceland, and the Netherlands are the top three, while North Korea, Cuba, and Burma are at the bottom. Canada is ranked tenth. The U.S. is 137th (of a total 167) in terms of the press freedom that it fosters outside of its own borders, although it's 44th in its own territory."
Taken from RWB homepage.
An illustrativ reading for what I just presented.
I do hope that most admi as possible and users will see what I am depicting and hear about this growing problem, in order to can stop and prevent it.
To do so it will be very valuable if the next admi or user visiting this page and reading it, was to inform others about it.
I do not know if it exist a chanel where all admis and users will see to, and where it is possible to post messages of that category concerning the whole wikipedia and the safety of wikis equality neutrality and free data exchange platforms foundament, but I ask you who read this now to make use of it and render this accessible to all if you know of such, or equivalent.
Thank you in advance for all who will contribute to this action, and who have the right or ethical view on this, and can see its high relevancy as well as its urgency.

Sophie

sophie@nostromo.dk

Template:Free wikipedia from psychological terrorism and selvdestructiv misuse of wikis own set of rules leading to undermine wikis basicals odds of neutrality, equality, and freedom of expression {{Unblock}}

Unblock denied. Sasquatch t|c 18:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some info for those that are reviewing this issue

Although I know that the above edits speak for themselves - I wanted to help anyone that needs it find the diffs related to this.

  • About noon, 213.237.21.242 (talk • contribs) copied the text below into several articles on the 10th of June:
  • All were reverted fairly quickly (within 5-10 min) by Mike Rosoft (talk • contribs) who as far as I can tell has not been an active participant (other than an excellent vandal fighter) on any of the articles related to Mormonism and who nicely informed the user why.
  • About 12:45, 213. then added the same quote to the talk page of one of the articles Talk:Mormonism.
  • About 10 min later, Storm Rider (talk • contribs) reverted with comment "(RV: this is getting to the point of vandalism)" and then restored (2 min) with comment "(rv: my edit, I have been following this editor and did not realize it was a talk page)"
  • Over the next 30 min, Storm Rider and Paul D. Anderson (talk • contribs) then tried to engage, here and here, the user in discussion
  • About 13:45, 213. responded. Some excerpts:
    • "I do trust my own analitycal abilities as well as my perception sens to understand what I see, hear, and read, and consider myself as being able to make my own conclusions based on facts."
    • "Personal opinions are what can be read on more than 50% of wikipedia ..."
    • "...they were ALL simultaneously removed from all sites at almost the same time from the same administrator, whcih email adress cant be reached. All that was done less than 30 minutes after I had inserted my informations, making it impossible to this person to have read it. So or this person is mormon and have the job to watch the articles for the church, or he has been contacted by those watchers from the mormon chirch who called my contributions for vandalism."
    • "Concerning the scientifical proove og gods non existens, it is very simple, and the theory of the point zero of the univers together with the recent data brought by the sondes send into space 15 years ago and who came back in february and marsh, we have the proove of this theory compleeted, and thereby the proove that god does not exist."
    • "My analyse of the church is based on concrete facts and direct first hand observations through years, and my knowledge of religions and mythologies at large."
  • About 15:15 Kmsiever (talk • contribs) makes a request for references.
  • About 16:20, 213. replied
  • About 16:35, (I am assuming because of no immediate response), 213. started classifying the responses as attacks ( I think that is what she means by "agress"). Some excerpts:
    • "Instead to concentrate yourself on the facts at hand, you have choosen to agress me personnally, to discreditate me."
    • "Where are your scholars here and your citations? (How typically mormon!!)"
    • "Dont you think you should pray for your souls tonight as doing so is so very against all your teaching, but so very mormonic as well, you see?"

It basically deteriorates from there with 213.x classifying the responses from Storm Rider, Paul Anderson and Kim Siever as personal attacks. But that is the beginning.

The text that started it all:

(template linking incompelete, deleted by Visorstuff as it was interfering with additional editing of the page, however, text is below - thx visorstuff - I was waiting for the unprotect to do that myself :) )

[edit] SOME MORE DETAILS ABOUT MORMONISM AND CONSTRUCTIONS FUNDAMENTS

Regarding polygamism with early mormons, Joseph Smith and his first group of 12 mens were using it all the time but hidding it from their wifes... Joseph Smith was married to more than 20 womens, without the knowledge of his wife, and problems occured when this first group around him wished to make this polygamism as an official rule of their sect. as the first wife of J. Smith was to know about her husbands several wifes, and made a scandal against it and asked for divorce, so angry she was against him, Joseph Smith changed his mind. It made J. Smith to think a little more about the problem and to make it a non legal part of their rules, which made the other male members angry at him. It end up as a polygamism rule, but first fully applied to all after Joseph Smith death. As many things in mormonism they first appeared after the foundators death, and are mostly made by its closest coworkers to assist them in gaining more power.

It is also very well known that previously to Smiths writings about the supposed contain of its golden books, he was contacted by various members of masonics loges, and many of this church rituals, both sacred and profane, are directly taken from classical freemasonry and masonic orders'rituals. Many of the believes enumerated in the mormons books are also directly taken from those traditions, therefor the mormons books looks more, for a religions and myhtologies and esoterisms specialist point of view, like an amalguame or milk shake of several religious and sectars theories, well known within other religious groups, than a religion in itself. Nothing in the mormon books is original, all is taken from somewhere else, often with quiet a unimaginativ mind.

The mormons researchs in latin america have given zero zero zero as prooves who could elaborate anything stated in the book of mormon as a source, or even ressembling source, for all the tribes described there.

Another correction to what some have earlier stated here: there is a hell in mormons theory. Only true mormon, true knights of the later days saints, and else being it since as most generations as possible, have access to heaven,(the upper part, nearest to God). The downs part being reserved to just coming in members and half fallen members. And out of it is hell, for non mormon, who cannot access the other levels, and will never been able to be in the upper levels. It is clearly stated in the mormons teaching, and I heard it several times, by mormons priests, that there is no salvation for non mormon. Christian go to hell too, and none of the christian priests are recognized as such, nor are they aknowledge the power to baptise anyone, and they teach that even the first apostles, those walking around Jesus Christ, were not able to baptise others and that it is therefor their power was stopped there, until Jesus christ himself took to latin america, and baptised a bunch of by mistake-landed-there-hebrews, and later on this power was given by Christ and Moises itself to Joseph Smith.

And thats the way the story goes.

The foundator of the christian church is by definition unable to baptise others. Peter was spiritually impotent if we are to believe the mormonic song.

A way one can undoubtly see the influence of freemasonry in the mormon church is their attribution of 1st and second degree of priesthood, like a copy-paste of hebraic traditions, with some dubious change into it.

You are missing here also, the place of womens in the mormon church where political reasons, clearly prevail: It is for exemple today teached, that the upper god, is a goddess, the wife of God, and higher than him, and that she cant be named, and very little is known about her because she is OH! so high and special. It is also teached that the reason why women cannot be priest nor teach like priest, nor baptised, is that women are per birth closer to god than men, and that is therefor men only must try to come closer to god by manifesting their spirituality from an early age, all things a woman do not need to do as she has it all to begin with... It is also teach that men must fight harder to attain the same spiritual level as women have, and thats why women must do other things in the mean time: like give birth to more mormons members, do the cleaning and make food, and play missionary 1½ year of their life just before getting married, as soon as they return from mission time. All that good propaganda methods to secure the upcoming of new female members in that order, as well as keeping the youngsters in the old sheme of things, without risking having them asking certain questions, very up to date, very warms, and never answered by this church. There is of course nowhere in the mormon books where anyone could actually read exactly the thing stated above, but they are very good at finding partial prooves of it when ever asked, and the teaching about it is very real. They also have it on print with draws, as regarding the different level of hell, with a special area for non mormon, and later on, it is directly sayed that no non mormon ever experience salvation. There is a big difference too between what is directly available as information source for non members, then for first members, and for members known in the church since some times, as well as there is a distinct grade of access ´to knowledge inside the church, not depending in how long you have been in the church nor for how many genereations. It is none the less, quiet accidental wether or not one gets to know certain things or not, making it rather diffuícult to make research. Some believers are kept beliving in one thing, and at the same time other have access to other scriptures, and prints who are often in direct contradiction with the first teaching and who touch very fundamentals part of the Churchs teachings.

Another interesting thing to noticed about this religious sect, is that nobody really agree about the deep meaning of it all, as a direct consequence of the facts stated aboves, and no one really know about its own religion, and most of the church members disagree completely about very basics and important parts of their religion, as the place of womens, and the existence of hell or not, and the place of non mormnon/other religions members after death, and the burning question of knowing if only mormons are saved, as all others are eternally doomed. All that even if those things are teached regularly every sunday there, inclusiv the fact I stated above, and special papers with draws and descriptions are passed, or distributed to all present in certain class.

To your knowledge I am not anti mormon, my standpoint is that I can scientifically proove that God does not exist, and am a warm adviser of a compleete interdiction of all religions on earth as they have a very negativ impact on humans psychology, and IQ, and EQ, as well as their ability to think on their own, and not only about their religion but on all matters. I just wanted to state those things in a very clear way. Mormons can be very nice and helpfull people, nothing wrong about them nor that, but I am speaking here about the pendant and base of this pseudo religious cult, and being from Mircea Eliades classical school of myth and religious study, I can clearly see what is and what isn't from which and which religion or previous sect, or myth, as well as distinguish all borrowed elements from other cults.

Kind Regards

Sophie --213.237.21.242 10:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC) }}


[edit] Sophie - your email

Thanks for your email. I will review the issues, but at this point, don't feel like I've followed this issue enough to make specific comments. However, I have some general comments and would like my comments to be taken in the spirit they are meant - I will be honest and forthright, yet I have not read over all of the comments and am withholding any judgement either way.

One issue is that your comments have disrupted the wikipedia process. You may want to change your edits and comments in accordance with the suggestions made by editors claiming this and start over. These editors quickly forgive.

Second, the editors and admins involved in this dispute are very very trusted wikipedians across the community, and for this group to as a whole gotten involved in this means that something is wrong. The wikipedia community, at first glance, will likely side with them, as they are so trusted are nearly always right as individuals, and when a group this large all say the same thing, it really cuts down on your arguments - becuase of the trust they have from the community. Because of that, you may want to listen to some of the issues they bring up and change accordingly. Just my two cents, not having studied out this issue.

The third issue is specific to article pages themselves. You have not provided citations for any of your edits in the articles. An "I was there, I am a witness" unfortunately qualifies as original research (see: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

Fourth, you should look at more detail into the background of the folks you are dealing with. You have three Mormons, at least one exmormon, and at least a couple never-been-a-mormon involved, so that leads me to believe that your issues are not Mormon-specific, but wikipedia-process specific. Giving better and more concise background on yourself would be helpful as well.

Please sign all of your comments by typing four tildes at the end of your posts like this: (~~~~). It is hard to follow your typing without it. I'd also encourage you to use, or register a wikipedia account.

I'll review the situation but with the arbcomm involved, I'll follow their lead, but provide my own thoughts as well. -Visorstuff 17:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tabitha- newbee!!!

66.82.9.65 21:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)Hey I'm a Newbee I need To ask The users on this site how to add lots of stuff to your page this is mainly to 213.237.21.242 about one of your pages I think its cool and all but were did you get the info and how did you add the table of contents????


My user name is Lynn Booboo ==

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../2/1/3/User_talk%7E213.237.21.242.html"