Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Mary Wiki, Mary NO!

Is there one amongst us that has never uttered the words, “Mary Cummins you have been blocked!”  I was hoping to take the weekend off but Scum Dum is just too active.  As long as Mary Cummins insists on attacking the innocent, defaming the masses and crying “Why are you stalking me?” to EVERYONE, I must continue to share with the world the self promotion of Mary Cummins or as anyone who has every followed her malicious activities have come to know it as: “The idiot ramblings of an obsessive, vindictive, mentally unbalanced malcontent.  Mary Cummins goal in life apparently is to hurt as many people as possible, but she will not be allowed to stalk, bully and harass the way she has done in the past.  Amanda Lollar and Randy Turner brought that chapter of Scum Dum’s life to a close.  Because of them there are too many of us now; too many to lend support and support each other in order to expose the Mary Cummins’ of the world for the true monsters that they are.  I will give her credit for one thing though -she takes the cake for being the dumbest of them all because she never learns from her mistakes.  Someone said to me, “I guess she must have been good in bed, because she certainly isn’t smart, and that is how she has skated for so many years.”  I said, “If that were true, where is the proof – the Mercedes sport coupe, the expensive condo, the fabulous clothes and jewelry or even the adoring man?”  Sorry, I think she failed in that department as well. 

Read on followers as we take a walk down ‘Wiki Lane’ and read where editors tell her to go back to her sandbox.  LMAO.

mary cummins

The poor Wiki Editors have been exposed to the maladjusted rantings of Mary Cummins and her relentless attack on Amanda Lollar, Bat World Sanctuary and Dr. Gary Michelson.  However much sympathy you may want to bestow on them for having to contend with Dumbin’ Cummins, let’s face it, this will MAKE YOUR DAY when you read the laugh-a-thon attempts of Mary Cummins trying to convince the intelligent that she knows what she is doing.  (Oh dear God, she is sooooo stupid and apparently has great difficulty with both the English language and comprehension in this exchange).

Wiki:  You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.”  Wait, it gets better:  “The blocked user’s unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator who DECLINED the request.  Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. 
NOTE:  Just because Mary never learned to say, “No” (wink-wink) is no reason why she should not have learned the meaning of the word. 

Mary Cummins aka Scum Dumb:  “I will not post about Amanda Lollar, Bat World Sanctuary on wikipedia. I will not post on the Bat World Sanctuary page but was told I can comment on the talk page. Hopefully she will not post about me on Wikipedia in any of her user names. Thanks. Mary Cummins (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)” 
NOTE:  Wait a minute, when does the illustrious Ms. Lollar ever talk about Scum Dumb?  Wikipedia is not telling Ms. Lollar to “STOP”.  Poor, poor Scummy Dummy is projecting yet again.  I think the only thing Amanda Lollar is doing is laughing all the way to her new facility; the one that is virtually inaccessible to any one with ill intent.   Get this, law enforcement lives ½ block away!  On a small world note I spoke with someone who actually has family in the neighborhood and they all welcomed Ms. Lollar with open arms.  Some have even visited my pages and the Stomp the Roach page.  Fantastic! 

Wiki:  “Thank you for this commitment, however I think it would be unwise to edit the article talk page as well. Please agree that you will not edit the talk page either and I will unblock. Please don't make sockpuppetry claims in unblock requests, there is a proper forum and procedure for this. If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked. 08:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC).”  
NOTE:  This is early on in the game so Wikipedia does not yet recognize that Dumbin’ Cummins is an ‘obsessive media whore’ who is lacking in basic comprehension skills so they were being gentle with her but they soon learn.  Keep reading.

Scum Dumb Cummins:  “I was told that if I have an issue with someone's edit that I should contact that editor. I contacted them on their talk page. I did not post on BWS page. I did not make any legal threats on wiki. If an editor is going to post about one side of a legal issue, they should post both sides of the legal issue. It is not balanced to only post one side. If they are posting a link to a biased article full of errors about a legal issue, they should at least post the link to the official appeal. Mary Cummins (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC).”
NOTE:  Bat World Sanctuary did not create their own Wiki page, Wiki people did and they chose to put on there that Bat World had secured a “$6.1M settlement against a former volunteer”.  This is what Dummy Cummy is referencing as “a biased article full of errors about a legal issue”.  Oh, does the entertainment never end?  Do you think Mary will ever realize that EVERYONE laughs at her and not with her?  LMAO. 

Wiki (genuinely trying to work with Dummy):  “Neither party should be discussing nor continuing any legal action, statements, summary of their concerns, etc on Wikipedia - period. Continuing to do so after being advised to stop was more than unwise, it was fully blockable, and you had been made aware of that. You made a promise not to break Wikipedia's policies, and you broke it - flat out   23:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC).” 
Wiki continues:  “You violated the terms of your previous unblock by discussing this matter on Wikipedia. Did you not understand the terms under which your block was removed?  little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  23:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC).”
NOTE:  Now to a sensible person this is called a clue.  Maybe Scum Dumb wants to be renamed, “Clueless MMMaryinLA”.

Mary Cummins  “I made a comment which disappeared. Anyway I went to the article where you are discussing my block. Snarky personal comments about me should not be allowed. If wiki is going to post about one side of a legal issue, they should include both sides or else not post about it at all. What was posted was defamatory against me. Mary Cummins (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC).”
NOTE:  No comment because at this point ‘Stupid is as stupid does’.

Wiki:  “Let me be blunt. While the legal proceedings are in place, you will be blocked if you make any posts remotely related to BWS. Unless you convince an admin that you will agree to not post about this subject, you will remain blocked. If you continue to post on this page about this subject, your access will be removed. Now I'm not unsympathetic to your dilemma with this article. Should you have issues, please email them to me with the "email this user" link and I will try to assist you within Wikipedia policies.  little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  23:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC).”
NOTE:  One of my faves so far!  “Let me be blunt.”  I do believe that is Wikieze for “You friggin’ idiot, pay attention!”

Mary Cummins:  “Where is the "email this user" link? What page? I was told I am supposed to talk about these issues on my talk page. How can I talk about the issue without mentioning B** W**** S******** or Law*** which are the issues? What is being posted about me is defamatory. It is not objective, unbiased or the truth. What would be the point of wikipedia if it only consists of highly biased unverified material? Are you saying that I just have to get someone else to post objective items on the BWS page then you'd be fine with that? Mary Cummins (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC).” 
NOTE:  I am ROTFWL!!!  EXACTLY you kale eating fool!  Wiki does not want “highly biased unverified material” which means your shit.  That is what she posts – unverified material.  Look at Turner or Lollar or Rocco or any of the Bat World people, they always back up their statements with hard proof.  They post ACTUAL court documents not doctored ones; they post ACTUAL government inspection reports of Bat World Sanctuary NOT altered ones and they post COMPLETE emails and letters NOT portions that have been manipulated to read as other than what was intended by the author.  

Mary Cummins: “I found the link. Never mind. Mary Cummins (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC).”
NOTE:  Below you will see where Wiki now knows what we do about Dummy Cummy – Mary is an IDIOT devoid of any aptitude for comprehension.

Wiki:It doesn't seem like you're getting the message; let me see if I can phrase it more clearly. You have agreed to post nowhere on Wikipedia, whether on an article, a talk page, a user page, anywhere, about this issue and these people. It doesn't matter if you think you've been defamed or people are saying things about you you don't like. It doesn't matter if you think someone else is violating policy. It doesn't matter if someone else does so first. It doesn't matter how much you think someone else's posting is inaccurate, biased, unverified or inflammatory. It doesn't matter if someone asks for your opinion. You can post nowhere on Wikipedia on these subjects, and a very quick way to earn a permanent block would be to get someone to be your stalking horse and do so for you.”  They continue:  “How do you talk about your grievances concerning the issue on Wikipedia? You don't. How do you change these articles? You don't, no matter how much they really need to be changed. Your only recourse is to e-mail LGR as was offered above, or to convince an admin that when you claim you'll abide by these restrictions, this time you're genuinely being sincere. If you don't think you can stay silent in these particular areas no matter how much you believe you've been provoked or how important you think it is, then the block should continue as long as legal action remains pending.  02:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC).”
Comment:  For the record, Mary has contacted me via email and I'm attempting to assist her as much as possible within policy and guideline. As many people who have been personally involved with a Wikipedia article she seems to be displeased about WP:NOTTRUTH. And who can blame her? Being close to a subject and not being able to comment on what you think to be true must be frustrating. Rest assured that I will not be editing for anyone on BWS as a proxy, and any edit I make will be backed up by a RS and/or discussed on the talk page.  little green rosetta(talk) 03:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC).”
“I could understand frustration...WP:DOLT gives a great breakdown for her :-) ... it seems to match some of her issues right now. (BWilkins) 12:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC).”
“Good essay, but unfortunate name. Not sure if it is intentional or not, but its use can have the effect of pouring gas on a fire.  little green rosetta(talk) 13:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC) .”
NOTE:  You just have to love Wikieze.  Time for a recap before we move on, so let’s see what we have thusfar:  “YOU HAVE BEEN BLOCKED”, “LET ME BE BLUNT”, “IF YOU MAKE TOO MANY UNCONVINCING OR DISRUPTIVE  UNBLOCK REQUESTS…”, “YOU MADE A PROMISE TO STOP AND YOU BROKE IT – FLAT OUT”, “YOU VIOLATED THE TERMS OF YOUR PREVIOUS UNBLOCK”, “LET ME BE BLUNT”, “IT DOESN’T SEEM LIKE YOU ARE GETTING THE MESSAGE, LET ME REPRHASE IT” – OMG, it does not get any more insulting than the last one!  Interpretation:  “You are an f-ing idiot, I can’t take any more of you, you are a waste of my nasal discharge – GO AWAY!”

Mary Cummins  “Yes, it is extremely frustrating to see things which are not the truth posted about me and BWS. The untruthful items about me are negative yet the ones about BWS are positive. I will not post about this any more. littlegreenrosetta has explained to me what wiki is and isn't. I now realize that wiki articles are not the truth. Wiki has nothing to do with the truth, just what the media reports. Mary Cummins (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC).”
NOTE:  Mary thinks she is being sarcastic, but Mary is not clever enough to pull this off.  Wikipedia will have none of it.

Wiki:  “A slight correction: Wikipedia is not your version of the truth. You have a bias and you are unable to overcome your bias. What you deem true is from your perspective. That's why we need third party (uninvolved) sources. If the battle is fought anywhere, it's in the courts and not here.--v/r - TP 20:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC).”
NOTE:  And here we have it in a nutshell – Mary’s version of the truth.  Someone who does not know her, does not know much about her past her own self promotion on their site, sees the picture clearly – Cummins is UNABLE to overcome her bias.  What she deems true is from HER perspective and not from the real world.

Mary Cummins:  “You don't know me. I write 100% honest reports about animal abusers and people who commit stock fraud. I've been sued for defamation before, represented myself pro se and won those previous cases. I always speak the absolute truth as these are reports I send to government agencies. All of my reports are 99.99% just government documents which I post online. I do freedom of information act requests and research. Here's an article about me Cummins wins Ashton Technology lawsuit and another Cummins wins Kathy Knight-McConnell lawsuit. My last case set case precedent on Internet and trademark law and has been cited in many other cases. Mary Cummins (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC).”
NOTE:  WOW, Mary now sees herself as a freedom fighter and a legal wiz who has set legal case precedent!!!!  OMG, the delusions are of serious concern now.  The only precedent Mary ever set is how to be a cyberstalker; how to be the most hated woman on the Internet and how to be 47, never legally married, indigent, a total failure at business, accused by California Department of Fish and Game as being an abuser of animals, the President of a suspended non-profit and a person who finds it important to malign her aged mother and try to encourage people to report her for tax fraud right before the holidays.  Wow again.  Oh, before I forget, this ground-breaking legal precedent of which Dummy speaks, it was a simple case of “lack of jurisdiction”, meaning, the courts in that state did not have jurisdiction over a person in another state.  In many states they have a statute known as the “long arm of the law”.  That is what happened to her in Texas when she tangled with Amanda Lollar.  Cummins had done business in Texas consequently the Texas Long Arm of the Law statute applied.  Mary Cummins tried desperately to get out of being held accountable by trying to once again claim ‘lack of jurisdiction’ but that did not work this time because over-confident Mary had signed a contract while she was at Bat World Sanctuary.  I believe they call that a slam-dunk.

Wiki (losing patience):  “No, Mary, it's not about knowing you. It's about the fact that you see the world from your perspective, that's why it is your perspective. Wikipedia is not your perspective. That's why it's not your truth. That's why you should not edit here and that's why we do not allow folks to edit who are in a legal dispute. Deal with it in the courts.--20:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC).”

Scum Dum:  “You forgot to sign your name, whoever you are. I am dealing with it in the Second Court of Appeals in Texas. I am not posting about BWS on wiki. Enough said, buddy. Mary Cummins (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC).”
NOTE:  Aw, Mary’s attempt at winning an argument – be nasty.  Does not every criminal who has lost their case apply to the Court of Appeals?????  LOL.  Dummy Cummy wields that “I filed an Appeal” like it means something.  Cummy left the courts on June 14, 2012 owing Lollar $6.1 MILLION DOLLARS PLUS $25,000 interest each and every month.  What a moronic slip and slide fool.  (DEFINITION:  A slip and slide is an individual who goes through life looking for the easy money.  They do not like to work for a living or pay for things people earn, like paying for one’s own vacation).

Wiki:  “I'm hesitant to wade into this discussion, but let me offer some advice. I have strong opinions on stuff in Wikipedia. Okay, they might not be as strong or as important as yours, but opinions they are nevertheless. I think quite some articles on a specific topic (that's not worth mentioning here), even those that have gone to WP:GA are as dull as dishwater and missing the point of the readership. Nobody else appears to agree with me, and on the few times I've brought it up, all Hell's broken loose. Consequently, I edit about other stuff on Wikipedia instead. I haven't been blocked or topic banned, but I'm sure if I kept ramming my point home, I might have been. That's kinda why you were unblocked, because there's plenty of other stuff on here you can write about, and we gave you the chance to do that. I'm concerned if you keep on the way you have, you'll lose talk page access, which makes getting unblocked even harder. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC).”
Scum Dum (lying yet again):  “I have no desire to talk about BWS on wiki again. I understand what wiki is really about. I read the wiki page of the supposed founder ;-) I am making my own BWS wiki page in my website. This way I can link to official government documents which can't be done on wiki anyway. Mary Cummins (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC).”
NOTE:  No desire to talk about BWS?  OMG what a LIAR!  That is all she does talk about.  Look at her pages they are filled to the brim with Amanda Lollar, Bat World Sanctuary, Randy Turner.  That is her life – stalking and posting and filing reports.  Quick, someone hand her that sticky Giant “L” so she can slap it on her forehead.  

Wiki (not buying the usual lies that come out of Mary Cummins’ mouth):  “This is exactly what you said last time. What makes now any different? Livewireo (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC).”
Mary Cummins:  “This block is no longer needed. I will not post about Bat World.”
Wiki (willing to give it a try):  I am accepting your unblock request on the basis of your undertaking not to edit on the subject which has in the past been so problematic. I note, however, that you made a similar undertaking the last time you were unblocked, and did not stick to it. Please be aware that if you do not stick to what you have said this time, not only it is virtually certain that you will be blocked again, but it is also highly likely that you will not be unblocked again, no matter what undertakings you offer.  (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC).”
Wiki (another editor):  “Could you please expand on your very brief unblock request? Why is the block no longer needed? If you were unblocked, what types of topics or articles would you be interested in editing? Qwyrxian (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC).”
Mary Cummins:  Where did my reply go? I said I would not post about bat world but about real estate, wildlife rehabilitation and the like only. Mary Cummins (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC).”
NOTE:  LOL, it looks like Wiki is just having some fun at Scum Dumb’s expense.  The old good cop, bad cop routine.

Wiki:  Hi, all pages on Wikipedia except those deleted are visible to all users. I can see yours just as you can see mine. There is no such thing as a private user page. Although a certain leeway is given for user pages, they must not be used for advertising. When I've finished this, I'll remove the spam links to your company and your charity. Please don't replace them, persistent spamming will lead to a block. If you want to publicize that information, do so on Facebook or Linked-In, not here.”
Mary Cummins (dense as a rock):  You cannot delete my page, although you could blank it or add insults, actions that can easily be reversed. Looking at earlier postings, you seem to be a somewhat combative editor, but I suggest that you try to follow the guidelines and avoid abrasive edits, cheers 8:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC).”
NOTE:  I do believe this is akin to when Mary Cummins thought she was cute and wrote, “Love, Mary” on a sanctions payment she made to Randy Turner.  See Bat World Sanctuary website, www.batworld.org for a copy of the document.  Did she think that would upset anyone?  Did she think that would be cool?  How can she be that stupid to think the people who dislike her the most would be upset with anything she writes?  LOL

Wiki:  “I've deleted your sandbox. Don't recreate it with a self-promoting article about you, or you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)”
Mary Cummins:  “Why are you stalking me here? Why are you following me? Who are you? I need a copy of the page you deleted. Mary Cummins (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC).”


Okay all together now to the tune of  My Darlin’ Clemintine:    

“Scummy Dummy, Scummy Dummy,
Scummy Dummy, Roachybum!
Thou art stupid beyond measure
And annoying, Roachybum.

Everyone stalks you and denies you
While you call out, “Who are you?”
“I’ve deleted your new sandbox
Don’t recreate it, Roachybum”

On the hillside in the cabin
Eating kale before the fall
You could see Mary Scumdumb
Beat her head against the wall

 “Mary Scumdumb, You are truly, truly done.”
“Mary Scumdumb, You are truly, truly done.” (fading)
“Mary Scumdumb, You are truly, truly done.” (fading more)
“Mary Scumdumb, You are truly, truly done.” (barely audible)

Wiki:  Bbb23 and I are both Wikipedia admins. It's not that we are stalking you, it's your actions that are attracting our attention. Your sandbox content is unlikely to be restored since it cannot stay there indefinitely, and the content is unsuitable either for a user page or an article. Please consider editing constructively instead of attempting to promote yourself or your company. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC).”

Wiki:  “Here's the history. Mary was indefinitely blocked in December 2012. She was unblocked on October 25, 2013, after making certain promises that don't directly relate to the current brouhaha. Today she made an edit to her user page. I've had her on my watchlist for a very long time, so I saw the change. When I looked at the self-promoting article, I almost deleted it myself, but I decided to tag it. After evaluating the tag, Jim deleted it (I'm assuming Jim was not aware of Mary before this). 

Wiki:  “I deleleted the sandbox on my own because it was effectively the same as the deleted user page. As for your needing a copy of the page, why would you need that? You recreated it in your sandbox without any assistance from us.  Now let's get to the core of the problem. Since you've been unblocked, you have made no edits that evince any interest in improving Wikipedia. Your sandbox is a place to test things, but not, as you call it on my talk page, a "private" area. Just like everything on Wikipedia, user space pages exist for the benefit of the project. Any user space that is being used inappropriately can be deleted and the user can be blocked if they persist. Frankly, I don't find even the current pared-down version on your user page to be acceptable if all you're going to do here is using Wikipedia for your own benefit.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC).”

Scum Dumb:  “How is my user page benefiting me? It mentions a non-profit where I volunteer, i.e volunteer = work for no money. My sister is Juliette Cummins. Her boyfriend made her page and it's a copy of her resume. All she did was (Redacted) some crappy horror movies. That is data which helps the world? She's still working even though her page says she isn't.  I haven't edited any articles recently because I was blocked. I was getting ready to start editing again when my page was deleted. I am sorry that I confused Jim with Bbb23. I couldn't see who edited my page because it was deleted. Mary Cummins (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC).”

Wiki:  “Benefit doesn't have to be financial. Your sister's page is in article space and is subject to different rules, so comparing it to your user page is mostly apples and oranges (I have made some changes to the article, though).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC).

Wiki (more to say):  “Just to be clear, let me point out a few things about how Wikipedia functions. Wikipedia is not a social networking site. A user page is in principle for information about the user in connection with their work on the encyclopaedia and not for posting a personal web page unrelated to such work. Use of any Wikipedia page for any kind of promotion is contrary to policy. For some reason a good many editors think, as you evidently do, that the word "promotion" can only mean promotion for monetary gain, but that is not so. Contrary to what you appear to think, there are various ways that editing of your user page may come to the attention of other editors who are not "stalking" you. For example, anyone who regularly takes part in new page patrol is likely to see it, and anyone who has ever posted to your talk page and watch-listed it in case you reply to them may see it. I saw it because I watch-listed this page when I unblocked you, as I always do with editors I have unblocked, to keep an eye on things in case of further problems. If, as you suggest, you mistakenly thought that your user page would not be seen by any other editors, and feel that anyone taking notice of it is intruding, then you were attempting to use Wikipedia as a free web host to hold a personal page for your own use, not for use of the project. That is itself contrary to Wikipedia policy. You have a history of taking a battleground approach towards other editors with whom you disagree, which is closely related to the reason why you have been repeatedly blocked from editing. You have recently continued in the same vein, posting angry diatribes against people who have taken actions you don't like. Any editor who continues in that way is likely to be blocked indefinitely, especially if, as in your case, there is a lack of constructive contributions to the encyclopaedia. As far as your editing history goes, your only purposes in being here appear to be to tell the world about your work, and to tell the world about how bad you think someone else is. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC).”
NOTE:  You go, Wiki.  Just say “No” but be prepared to say it again and again and again because those roach head’s just keep popping up.
Wiki (more still):  “One more point. I have just done a Google search for "She is President of non-profit Animal Advocates which rescues ill, injured and orphaned native". Your Wikipedia user page was the first page listed, contrary to your apparent belief that user pages don't show up in searches. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC).”



November 2012
Bat World Sanctuary
Mary Cummins:  “Your edits of BWS are not totally balanced. Any group can get a line of Benefit Wines. That's just fundraising. Please, include both sides of the litigation if you will be including it. The case is currently on appeal [1] I was told to contact the person making the edits which is what I'm doing. Thank you. Mary Cummins (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC).”
Wiki:  “Right, and in the article I wrote "In 2011 a Bat World Sanctuary line of wines was released by Benefit Wines." How is that inaccurate or "unbalanced?" I didn't say that nobody else could get a line of Benefit Wines.  As far as the link that you provided to show that the case is in appeals, I can't really decipher much from it since none of the events listed return any description of what actually happened. Thanks, MisterUnit (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC).”
Mary Cummins:  “The link shows every action in the appeal. I am appealing the case and have won the first round. I did not defame anyone.”

NOTE:  Earth to Mary Cummins, there are no rounds in the Appeals court.  You have won nothing.  N-O-T-H-I-N-G.  Again with the inability to even show any level of competence because Mary also claimed she won in California against Amanda Lollar.  Say what?  She is having to pay Lollar’s attorney fees for filing frivolous lawsuits.
Mary Cummins:  “A non-profit selling "Benefit Wines" is not news. It wasn't in the media. Plus, no one checked on the status of the old building at 115 N.E. 1st in Mineral Wells. They sold it January 2012 because of 18 years of complaints [2]. The Bat House project was a failure. The City told them they must remove the boxes because of all the feces that ended up on the streets [3]. They removed them in 2005. And, BWS is not the biggest bat sanctuary in the world. The Monfort Bat Sanctuary has 1.8 - 2.5. MILLION bats. They hold the Guinness World Record [4]. Mary Cummins (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC).”
NOTE:  Samal Montfort is a partner of Bat World Sanctuary.  Samal Montfort has a display in their visitor center soliciting donations for Bat World Sanctuary. Samal Montfort does not rehabilitate bats nor do they teachBat World Sanctuary is the world's largest rescue/rehabilitation/teaching sanctuary dedicated exclusively to bats. Samal Montfort is the largest concentration of Geoffrey’s Rosette fruit bats and hence the Guinness holder for exactly that.  Is anybody else just plain tired of Mary being a moron?????
Wiki:  “Well if you're personally involved in the case you shouldn't be editing information about the case on Wikipedia, or trying to alter the content by influencing other editors.  I'm aware that a non-profit selling benefit wines is not news. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. MisterUnit (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC).  Also, the links that you provided above do not support your claims that accompany them whatsoever. The first one is an appraisal that has no mention of any complaints or problems with the property, not to mention "18 years of complaints." The second is a complaint about bat droppings outside an unrelated building, which certainly does not classify an entire, years long, project as a "failure." The third is a link to a Wikipedia page, which was conveniently created 5 days ago. I'll be taking a look at that page now. MisterUnit (talk) 02:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC).”
NOTE:  Nicely done, Wiki, you see Mary for the conniving malcontent that she is.  On this planet, where the rest of us reside, that is called a wrap.  Needless to say in the land of ‘Never a Brain’, Mary Cummins will see this as an invitation to say more.  



Amanda Lollar, Amanda, Lollar, Bat World Sanctuary, Bat, World, Sanctuary, Bat World, Mineral Wells, Texas, lawsuit, complaint, animal cruelty, batworldsanctuary.com, website, official, Mary Cummins, Mary, Cummins, Animal Advocates, Animal, Advocates, Dorothy Hyatt, Kate Rugroden, Larry Crittenden, John Hyatt, Martin Rugroden, animal abuse, animal neglect, USDA, permit, Texas Parks & Wildlife Department, Animal Welfare Act, violations, revoked, reprimand, restraining order, TRO, crazy, mentally ill, 5150, uneducated.  Mary Cummins made false reports to government agencies about Amanda Lollar and bat World Sanctuary. Mary Cummins has herself been reported for animal cruelty, animal abuse, animal neglect, violations of the Animal Welfare Act. She was investigated. Violations were found. California Department of Fish and Game suspended Mary Cummins' permit for abusing a squirrel with no eyeballs, making false reports and other violations.  Mary Cummins Animal Advocates is suspended in the State of CA. Mary Cummins lost her CADFG Educational permit. Mary Cummins was reprimanded by California Department of Fish and Game. Mary Cummins lies about her lack of education. Mary Cummins takes donations illegally.  Mary Cummins has failed classes in animal care. Mary Cummins is a cyber-stalker with serious mental problems. 

And lastly, a plug for my favorite charity-
bat world sanctuary amanda lollar

No comments:

Post a Comment