User talk:ZuluPapa5

Quotes

“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” — Galileo Galilei Within a Bayesian psychometric analysis, I am 110% certain that humankind is solely responsible for climate change; because, if not by material activity, then by conscious opinion manifesting as science. — ZP5 Forgive me, Nihilism by its lonely sad self aggrandizement, causes illness to exist in me. For real, it exists that way. Happily, there is a cure. — ZP5 "Human beings are selfish, small minded, violence-prone savages; civilization is a blight on the earth; the rising tide of chaos that surrounds us on all sides ensures that everything's going to fall apart any day now. Right? ..... Wrong, says Rob Brezsny. In fact evil is boring. Cynicism is stupid. Despair is lazy. The truth is that the universe is inherently our friend. Life is a sublime game created for our amusement and illumination, and it always gives us exactly what we need, exactly when we need it." " ... in modern mechanized warfare there is no warrior, no chance to be a warrior (with dignity), just little human boys in different uniforms ... so what Bly went on to say is that most men in this country cannot grieve, cannot experience grief! Good Grief Charlie Brown! ... Now the crux of the matter as Bly sees it and as my father saw it and Spiritual God-Father Mr A. Green, the full blooded Cherokee tattoo artist who lived in the apt next door for my first 13 yrs ... The heart of the matter has to do with the "warrior" in themselves. This "warrior" is not the one who goes to war. No this "warrior" is the one who goes through life with a quiet goal and sees it through "Come hell or high water" to use an apt a phrase." — Father to ZP5, 8/23/1990 "Within the body of a True Believer or a Skeptic you will find a heart that may unite them. " — Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk)) My editing occasionally suffers from transpositions transportation and typos. Please let me know if I may help you. — ZuluPapa5 If you are trying to help someone who has an “paranoid” mentality, they interpret your action as an attempt to oppress them or infiltrate their territory. But if you decide not to help them, they interpret that as a selfish act: you are seeking comfort for yourself. If you present both alternatives to them, then they think you are playing games with them. The “paranoid” mentality is quite intelligent: it sees all the hidden corners. You think that you are communicating with a “paranoid” face to face, but in actual fact he is looking at you from behind your back. This intense paranoia is combined with an extreme efficiency and accuracy which inspires a defensive form of pride. The “paranoid” mentality is associated with wind, speeding about, trying to achieve everything on the spot, avoiding all possibilities of being attacked. — From “The Myth of Freedom” - Trungpa

Talk

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted: A specially-tailored version of discretionary sanctions is authorized for the entire topic area of climate change. Enforcement requests are to be submitted to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, which is to replace Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. Experienced administrators, and especially checkusers, are requested to closely monitor new accounts that edit inappropriately in the topic area. Within seven days of this remedy passing, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages or request deletion of them. The following editors are banned from the topic area of climate change, and may not appeal this ban until at least six months after the closure of this case (and no more often than every three months thereafter); William M. Connolley Polargeo Thegoodlocust Marknutley ChrisO Minor4th ATren Hipocrite Cla68 GregJackP A Quest For Knowledge Verbal ZuluPapa5 JohnWBarber FellGleaming The following users have accepted binding voluntary topic bans; Scjessey [1] KimDabelsteinPetersen [2] The following administrators are explicitly restricted from applying discretionary sanctions as authorized in this case, as is any other administrator fitting the description of an involved administrator; Stephan Schulz Lar On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Obviously, WMC lead the way to this mayhem. What a laggard I have been. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC) ZuluPapa5's battlefield conduct 24) ZuluPapa5 (talk · contribs) has in the run-up to this case helped create a battlefield atmosphere by engaging in edit-warring;[3][4][5][6] by engaging in incivility and personal attacks;[7][8][9] and by seemingly wiki-lawyering and/or soapboxing.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] Passed 7 to 0, 14:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC) When I can realize the difference between dispute resolution and battlefield conduct, I'll be better off. Seems like a hypocrite maliciously threw my few bad diffs, into an unforgiving environment. Such is karma, where all is there for the picking, under bad faith intentions. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC) [18] Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FClimate_change This is formal notification because you are one of the affected parties. --TS 00:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Got it, not excited about being back in this thing. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Climate change amendment: notification of three motions posted Following a request for amendment to the Climate change case, three motions have been posted regarding the scope of topic bans, the appeal of topic bans, and a proposal to unblock two editors. For and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Climate change case amendment By motion, the Arbitration Committee has ammended remedies 3.1 and 3.2.1 of the Climate change case to read as follows: 3.1) Editors topic-banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited from (i) editing articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (ii) editing biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (iii) participating in any process broadly construed on Wikipedia particularly affecting these articles; and (iv) initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to these articles anywhere on Wikipedia, even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues. 3.2.1) Editors topic banned under this decision may apply to the Committee to have the topic ban lifted or modified after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done, unless the Committee directs otherwise in individual instances, no more frequently than every three months thereafter. — Coren (talk), for the Committee, 21:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC) ACCEPTED. However, my response here does not apply. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC) One of the joys of being involved in the ArbCom Climate Change case: Endless requests for clarification. Here's another. Sorry to bother you. Here's the request for clarification. Your ability to discuss the case would be affected. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:19, 11 November 2010 (UT Boundaries must be set, before they are abused. Response here: [19] Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) MfD nomination of Talk:Enneagram of Personality/FAQ Talk:Enneagram of Personality/FAQ, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Enneagram of Personality/FAQ and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Enneagram of Personality/FAQ during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. jps (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Notice The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to pseudoscience if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final decision. T. Canens (talk) 03:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Can you diff point me to the initial inappropriate behavior please, so I may specifically address my behavior. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Request for clarification I've submitted a request for clarification concerning your recent edits to Wikipedia:Activist. See here. --TS 21:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC) So I may be guided to rightful corrections of my actions, where specifically did you see offense for concern? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC) User subpages Bothersome You have several subpages in your userspace containing climate-change content, including: User:ZuluPapa5/Opinions on Climate Change User:ZuluPapa5/CAUC Site guidelines suggest that these pages should be deleted, as userspace "should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content." These pages don't appear to be under active development, and in fact it is probably impossible for you to actively develop them given the ArbCom sanction against you. I wanted to check whether you'd be OK with the pages being deleted in accordance with site guidelines. MastCell Talk 18:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC) Right .. don't touch them. That would be a cc violation. Go away and bother someone else, please. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure how it would be a "cc violation" - could you elaborate? I have no intention of deleting them myself, unless you consent. If you honestly think that the pages are compliant with the relevant site guidelines, then I'm open to hearing why. Alternately, if you'd rather I don't bother you directly, it probably makes sense for me to submit them for outside discussion at WP:MfD. MastCell Talk 19:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC) Sorry, can't talk about it. Did you agree not to harass me? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure what you mean. I don't think I'm harassing you now - that's certainly not my intent. I am not going to "report" you for answering direct questions that I ask you on your talk page, and I'm a little disappointed that you seem to think that's my intent. In any case, if you are unwilling or unable to even discuss whether the pages meet site guidelines, then it seems clear (to me, at least) that the pages can't be actively developed. MastCell Talk 19:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC) Where did the supposed harm originate? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry - what harm are we talking about? Do you mean the harm from having the subpages laying around? MastCell Talk 19:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC) What or who, caused your concern? Did you just now decided yourself that the pages were an issue and felt a sole cause to action on them? I checked the mission [20], these are fine for now, have faith in others to enjoy them as I do. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC) Ah. My concern is that having disputed content and "fake" articles laying around in userspace is potentially misleading to the reader, and serves no purpose unless the material is being actively developed to become article-worthy. Wikipedia is not a free webhost to indefinitely maintain such material for you; if you believe otherwise, then I think you've misunderstood this site's mission. I think my concerns are very much in line with community consensus, which is why we have specific guidelines covering the situation. MastCell Talk 20:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC) Got it. It's you. My concern is that you are harassing me and intend to escalate this with out my consensus. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC) I identified some pages in your userspace that seem (to me) to violate this site's guidelines. I came directly to you first, to bring the issue to your attention as a courtesy, and offered to submit the pages for outside discussion in the appropriate venue (WP:MfD) if we proved unable to agree on them. I'm not sure how you would suggest handling things differently; that's my understanding of the appropriate approach based on my experiences here. Submitting to WP:MfD is not "escalation"; it's the appropriate next step if we don't agree about whether the pages meet userpage guidelines. I previously stated that I would not personally and unilaterally delete the pages without your consent, as that would be an abuse of administrative tools. On the other hand, submitting the pages for discussion at WP:MfD does not require your consent. I contacted you prior to submitting them as a courtesy. You are more than welcome to disagree with my interpretation of the relevant site guidelines, although in an ideal world I wish you'd bothered to articulate your interpretation of the guidelines rather than simply questioning my motives. In any case, since it seems unlikely that we'll reach agreement here, I will submit the articles to WP:MfD for outside input. MastCell Talk 20:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC) Please stop. Note that I consider this harassment. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC) Be civil tag Glad to see you added it to WP:Activist and I know a few other places it has to be acted. I brought up at Wikipedia_talk:Civility#Template:_Be_civil that the template page does not have an explanation of how to use it, which I drafted. But I don't want to use it til there's better consensus of what editors can hide or remove, based on that tag. If you want to contribute your thoughts there to get things going, that would be great. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC) Got it. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC) FYI. Proposed minor change to make clear policy of who can delete comments and why and link to policy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Not a good comment...

This at least suggests bad faith. I suggest you remove it before it escalates. (And no, I don't follow you around - I have MastCell's talk page on my watchlist). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Struck per your concerns. Are you involved with "Deletion harassment"? It appear that you have been a substantive influence with WMC to having my contributions struck and/or deleted.Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not involved with any kind of harassment. WMC sometimes listen to some things I say, and sometimes not. That said, there is no right of editors that their contributions remain anywhere but in the history. In particular, it's both normal and desirable that changes that decrease the quality of the project are removed. I have no opinion on the particular edit in question, having not checked it yet. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Would you agree to clarification on this ... specifically editors have a right to enjoy making contributions without someone taking a seemingly hounding deletion approach to them?Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Your repeated descriptions of normal, good faith, editing behavior by other editors as "deletion harassment" and "hounding" is evidence of an "ownership" attitude on your part and is a gross assumption of bad faith and personal attack toward other editors. I suggest you read about "ownership" of edits. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No, not really. "Seemingly hounding" is to vague to be useful, and nobody but you can reliably know what you enjoy or don't enjoy. I'd certainly agree that edits (except in the case of banned/blocked editors) shouldn't be removed just because of their author, but I see no evidence for that here. Having now looked at your edit, there are ample reasons for disputing it. You yourself called it "bold", implicitly inviting a WP:BRD cycle. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I tried. I've objected to harassment, did you see that? You claim you aren't involved in "deletion harassment" and don't wish me to seek clarification on this with others. Would you reconsider? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but either you misunderstand me or vice versa. If you want to object to harassment, do so directly, specifying exactly what your complaint is. Don't make vague allusions. I see no evidence for harassment so far. I don't think I've said or done anything that could lead you to validly conclude that I "don't wish [you] to seek clarification on this with others". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It must have been that part when you said "No". All ok now, thanks. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

My "no" referred to your question "Do you agree..." - which I don't. I hope that's clear now. Have a good evening (or whatever time of day your time zone supports) - I'm on my bike and off to dinner. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Have fun. Thanks for stopping by. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk)

Continuing, this [21] isn't great either. strike per team concerns doesn't suggest good faith on your part, and looks like an attack directed against Stephan Schulz William M. Connolley (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would you say that? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Civility

No offense, but you don't appear to be responding to the comments and concerns that are being brought up here. It's as if you simply don't understand what others are saying, you aren't interested in supporting your own edit, or you want to use the talk page for some other discussion whose topic you've yet to make clear. If you don't understand others' comments, please ask questions so others can attempt to clarify their positions. If you're not interested in supporting your own edit, then there's really no point in the discussion, is there? If you want to discuss something else, please attempt to clearly state what it is you want to discuss. --Ronz (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I want to amend the content for inclusion, please help with that there. Thanks. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Then start by making a clear statement about what you want and why you want it.

After that, address the concerns that have been brought up. --Ronz (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Ronz, have you noticed how ZP5's behavior and comments are disturbingly similar to the behavior of User:QuackGuru? That's not a good omen. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No offense, but my impression is that perhaps ZuluPapa5 has difficulties understanding English, so he rarely responds to directly others' comments. Instead, he appears to be constantly trying to redirect discussions to personal issues. This appears defensive - an attempt to give some sort of response when he doesn't understand what's being said in enough detail to respond in any other manner.

ZuluPapa5, do you feel you have a good understanding of others' English here on Wikipedia? --Ronz (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand that harassment is a personal issue. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly the type of response that I'm concerned about: It's a defensive reaction that shows no understanding whatsoever for what was said.

ZuluPapa5, I'm sorry that these discussions are upsetting you. If you don't want to answer my question, that's fine. --Ronz (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, your right. Now why, do you guess, am I being so defensive about this issue? see: User:ZuluPapa5/Deletion_HarassmentZulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

What is that userpage supposed to show? It lists some articles and a talk page. --Ronz (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

As the title suggests, the page will show deletion harassment evidence. By editors intentionally interfering with my right to enjoy creating content, as well as my topic ban instructions to do such. It is intended for consented dispute resolution, may possibly result in a warning or interaction ban. It could just be frivolous distraction, and spun into battleground rubbish. Who knows. However, I am very concerned. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't show any harassment evidence right now, it simply lists some articles and a talk page. --Ronz (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, trying to avoid inflaming the issues, before a fair hearing. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

So you're defensive because you feel harassed, and you're in the process of putting together evidence of this harassment.

I fail to see harassment towards you on any of the pages you link, though I might be overlooking something. Certainly, you have a history with William M. Connolley. In the case of WP:CIVIL and it's talk page, there's very little to review, so I'm fairly certain that there's nothing there that could be construed as harassment toward you. --Ronz (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

What would demonstrate "deletion harassment" to you? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Harassment is something that clearly violates WP:HA. There's nothing there about "deletion harassment." --Ronz (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Well what about Section 1.1 WP:HOUND, where an editor stalks your contributions, goes to articles they have never had an interest, and selectively deletes your content. Not to mention editors who go out of there way, to nominate articles you created for deletion based on their POV, and no prior concerns or discussions about the articles with others, except their single POV. Nor even good faith attempts to make a NPOV. This would seem like a bad faith nomination request, would you agree? I mean where an editor makes no attempt to reach a NPOV, that is just poor faith deletion or even speedy deletion abuse. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Not in the slightest from what I see. Certainly not in the discussions on Talk:Civil. --Ronz (talk) 06:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, you might not have the complete and fair picture. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 06:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

....or, ZP5, you might not understand what is allowed and normal behavior here. We use watchlists to keep track of articles and other editors. Many editors are disruptive to this project and need watching. It is not harassment or hounding when they are provided with instruction designed to improve their behavior, or when their edits are altered or deleted. That's how Wikipedia editing works.

When an editor does something problematic or controversial on an article or in a discussion with another editor, that raises red flags and we start noticing what that editor is doing elsewhere that might also be problematic. That's all perfectly normal and legitimate here, and which is enabled by using our watchlists. For example, I currently "have 5,272 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)." The chances of me noticing your activities, even if I wasn't interested in if you were still up to something detrimental here, are pretty good.

So far I haven't seen you doing anything constructive, but certainly causing lots of disruption and controversy. I suggest you stop impugning the motives of other editors and recognize that when you are properly approached by other editors you have no right to be left alone and respond improperly. You must AGF and place the best possible interpretation on their actions and words.

Neither do your edits have a right to be left alone. You do not own them. You are not an island and all your activities here are public, accessible to others, and are subject to being altered by others. This is not your private blog.

You are required to act in a collaborative manner here, and that includes replying politely to questions and requests. Your treatment of MastCell, for example, was above and beyond abominable. I have rarely seen such behavior. He did nothing wrong, was far more polite (and amazingly patient with you!!!) than the situation and your reaction called for, and yet you still think he did something wrong. Neither has WMC done anything wrong.

The problem here isn't that we "might not have the complete and fair picture", as you put it above, but that YOU really don't get it. When EVERYONE ELSE says you're doing something wrong, maybe you really are! Have you thought of that possibility? -- Brangifer (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Civility means have a little faith friend, even when you or others my be abusive. Best regards. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yet another unhelpful response that carries the seed of an accusation ("when you or others my be abusive") within a fist disguised with a "civility" glove. Not very nice. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

How can I help you (have faith) today? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk)

It would help a lot if you began to show that you understood the problem. You keep blaming others, talking about being harassed and hounded, not wanting to interact with others, etc.. You even have an "evidence" page, which doesn't even have any evidence that would be considered legitimate here. We know what interactions you have with others and no one has been harassing you. Wikipedia is a very open place, and it's supposed to be that way. If you can't handle someone looking over your shoulder all the time, this isn't the place for you. You have no right to privacy here. Such an open environment demands honesty on your part. All of us editors can't work together here if we can't trust each other and are certain that each other has the same goal....to create a better encyclopedia. That's why we're here.

It would also help if we saw you actually doing something constructive in the way of editing articles, rather than leaving cryptic messages, making statements, complaining, etc. on talk pages. Start producing some actual work in the form of improving articles. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"Ok, you might not have the complete and fair picture."

If you cannot provide any evidence whatsoever for your claims of harassment, then it's extremely hard to see those claims as anything civil or otherwise appropriate for Wikipedia. I suggest you delete User:ZuluPapa5/Deletion_Harassment.

Ronz (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Who or what says I can't provide evidence and wants to delete this? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It's you. We're not talking about anyone but you. You're claiming you're being harassed. You need to provide some evidence of this.

There's no harassment going on at WP:CIVIL directed at you. What is the purpose of claiming otherwise? --Ronz (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly! ZP5, you have been interpreting normal activities here as harassment. That's not very nice. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

What would demonstrate to you there may be others attempting or actually harassing me? Maybe, I should just ask for an interaction ban and take it from there? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

If someone has been harassing you off-wiki, we might not know about it. We do know that you haven't been harassed here at Wikipedia. All the contacts which you have labeled harassment have been legitimate and civil contacts. You have reacted very poorly to them. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You've already asked this question in this discussion (22:17, 27 January 2011) and I've answered it.

If you want a request for an interaction ban to be taken seriously, and not hurt your own credibility, then you need to provide evidence. --Ronz (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would you suggest I delete my evidence page then? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Its very existence is evidence of bad faith on your part. You are proving that you are paranoid and think others are harassing you. If there were actually evidence of harassment there it would be a slightly different matter, but there isn't. What you have there is an odd collection of links, many of which really make no sense, and some of which actually show you reacting poorly. You're shooting yourself in the foot by having that page. When subpages of that type aren't factual they are actually forbidden here. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you show me the evidence please? What type do you mean?Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Notification

I regard your conduct here, as well as at User talk:MastCell and other venues, to be recurrences of the battlefield conduct for which you were sanctioned in WP:ARBCC. I am drafting an enforcement request in my user space and intend to submit it within 24 hours (at the moment I am traveling and can only edit sporadically). If in the meantime you disengage and begin to follow the sanctions imposed on you I will take that into account. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would you want to continue the said "battle"? Seek peace my friend. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

ZP5, that reply is obtuse and refuses to recognize that others see YOUR behavior (including denials, obtuse replies, ownership attitude, and accusations of "deletion harassment" and "hounding" (see my comment above)) as evidence of YOUR battlefield mentality, and they are calling you on it and want YOU to stop. They are not trying to "continue" it. That's an unhelpful reply to SBHB's comment. You can't just deny you've been doing it and try to walk away as if you're innocent. We need to see that you really understand the problems you've been creating, learn from the comments and criticisms you have received, and truly repent. You must admit it, apologize, and THEN walk away from doing it anymore.

Your behavior and comments are disturbingly similar to the behavior of User:QuackGuru and that's not a good omen. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

What are you implying by your association? I would like to address your specific concerns. I have no experiences with QuackGuru, that I can recall, except you raising an issue. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I checked the sanction, how are you going to convince folks that my user space content is in the scope of my sanctioned articles? It was originated from deleted content, hence not in the realm of the sanction. I realize this is a fine line, that's why I stayed out of the content; however, seems like you will have to establish that this content is relevant to my ban, and the my actions were substantial related to sanctioned content. I assure you, my concerns have been in the realm of harassment. Really want to save you wasting folks time on a frivolous issue. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:ZuluPapa5/Opinions on Climate Change

User:ZuluPapa5/Opinions on Climate Change, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ZuluPapa5/Opinions on Climate Change and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:ZuluPapa5/Opinions on Climate Change during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. MastCell ^Talk 22:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Asshole, this is malicious harassment. I am not allowed to participate in this topic. PLEASE STOP NOW AND DO NOT RETURN TO MY USER PAGES. YOU ARE NOT WELCOME HERE!! Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)