User talk:68.236.154.131

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Simply south (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to read up on Wikipedia's policy on legal threats. --clpo13_(talk) 03:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:64.128.172.131, you will be blocked from editing. clpo13_(talk) 18:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I don't know what you're on your high horse about...the template on top of User talk:64.128.172.131 is simply a notice that the IP resolves to a specific organization, that the IP may be used by many different individuals (and, therefore, messages left on that page may not be received by the exact end-user for whom they may have been intended), and that as a shared address for public use it may be the source of extensive unrelated acts of vandalism that may merit long-term limitation on anonymous editing if necessary (very common for school IPs, elementary to college--and 64.128.172.131 (talk · contribs) is no exception). That's it. What is the "threat" within the template that merits outside input and legal threats?

If you make any further edits that appear to contitute a legal threat, I will block this IP address, per Wikipedia:No legal threats policy, pending withdrawl of said legal threats. Furthermore, if there is further vandalism from this IP address--such as this, this, this, this, this, this, and more--this address will be blocked from editing. — Scientizzle 23:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

This is, again, disruptive. Your block lasts 24 hours. In the future, please discuss removal of maintenance templates on article talk pages. And please use an edit summary. — Scientizzle 23:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Note sure what you mean

It appears things may have gotten off on the wrong foot; please accept my apologies for any frustration that may have been caused by your prior interactions with the Wikipedia community.

Could you clarify what you mean by "the threat against Adirondack Community College"? The {{sharedipedu}} notice you're removing from the page is one of a few standard templates we place on IP talk pages, and is potentially important as it lets users know that the IP is shared by multiple users (and, for example, that messages may first be seen by someone other than the intended recipient, which can be confusing for writer and reader alike). It may be quite helpful to users wondering why the IP is occasionally blocked, or to administrators in configuring such blocks. If there's some ambiguous or menacing language in the template, that is probably best resolved if the template itself is changed -- but I can't really do that unless you explain the problem in more detail.

Finally, we cannot and do not intend to limit your full array of legal options, but as a community Wikipedia must ask that you avoid initiating or resolving legal business on the wiki itself; if you are interested in resolving matters outside of the wiki, then you may instead wish to use Wikipedia:Contact us, which should be linked from every page. I regret that I have to end this message with a warning, but it's important you know that any further legal threats made on the wiki may result in blocking. You're welcome to engage in dialog here, but please keep legal matters in particular off of the wiki.

Thank you for your time and consideration. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I considered your message to me and I must take exception with some of it, others I have nothing against. I think one should have the right to announce even on wiki the possibility of filing a legal action against Wikipedia itself or against another wiki member and have the right to use this service to make it public. In that regard I am adhering to a legal judgment issued by a US District Court that held that once a place is opened as a public forum, the forum owner has no right or power to amend or prohibit a speaker's message just because they disagree with it. If someone is blocked because of this policy and in violation of that precedent, if I were a sitting judge I would have no problem issuing an order including a mandamus commanding Wikipedia to unblock my petitioning party before me and an injunction against the No Legal Threats policy as currently written. I hold it's unconstitutional under my state's constitution and the US Constitution as interpreted by Supreme Court precedent on public forum speech, in particular the US District Court judgment I am taking my lead on from this. If I planned to make any legal claim in court, I would at least have the courtesy to notify the other side of my intention before I did it. If my only means was to make a notice of it on Wikipedia in a user page, I'd use it as my most reliable means. Addendum to my one statement above before closing, if I were going to issue an order on the No Legal Threats policy to order Wikipedia to unblock someone that violated it based on my finding of unconstitutionality, I'd also enjoin any further blocks of editors based on this and pending further action based on other Wiki policy without permission of the court. Otherwise, to whom this concerns, I respect you and hope to have a good working relationship with you. If you wish to email me, I'll provide my email address to you.

One flaw with that statement: Wikipedia is not a public forum. The talk pages are intended to be used in order to discuss improvements to the project. Therefore, any speech not directly related to that can be and often is removed. It's perfectly reasonable to want to notify others if you plan on taking legal action, however, Wikipedia policy prohibits users from posting that on talk pages. Most users provide email addresses, which is the best way to contact them in such an event, since it's more confidential than a talk page (viewable by everyone).

At any rate, if you're going to be a lawyer, you may as well provide sources for your claims, starting with that district court judgment. Then we can decide if legal threats on Wikipedia fall under its protection. --clpo13_(talk) 07:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I link for your viewing a judgment I follow in stating the facts as I see them, of the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Boy Scouts of America vs. Till http://www.netside.net/usdcfls/publications/00cv7776.pdf

And the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States in Boy Scouts of America vs. Dale http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=99-699

Hope to hear from you soon. Also if anyone here is a praying sort, one of my professors from ESC is got some growth on a liver scan. Further tests will have to be performed to find out the rest of the facts.

If the one link to the Supreme Court judgment doesn't work, just run Boy Scouts vs. Dale in a general search engine.

Future Reference

Please take a look at WP:FREE and WP:ANARCHY. Wikipedia is a privately owned website and is not a forum for unregulated free speech. Ergo, any arguments saying that deletion of comments or blocking is in violation of First Amendment rights is invalid. I didn't point out these policies earlier, so I figured I'd do it now. --clpo13_(talk) 22:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I dissent from the statement last sent to me by you and I still hold the opinion that the policies espoused by Wikipedia are unconstitutional violations of freedom of speech, and I would bet my next allowance payout that a court here would order a reversal of the blocks administration imposes on people like me. Contrary to yours and the Foundation's statements, this IS a PUBLIC FORUM. I would probably soon start a page to denounce Wikipedia and all it stands for that is against human freedom of speech. And the policy against original research is stupid, that is what schools and colleges sometimes call upon students to do in many class projects. I had to do some research of my own for a term paper at the end of last term. Also anyone who went or is going to graduate college would know those in Master's and Doctorate degree programs alot of those programs require their students to perform original research for peer and faculty review to be worthy of degree conferral at those levels. To close my message, no wonder people are jumping ship from Wikipedia and moving on to more worthy projects, like Citizendium. I congratulate Larry Sanger on his courage and wish him the best of success and eventual triumph over Wikipedia.

You're still not getting it. This isn't a public forum because the Wikimedia Foundation says it isn't. If you were to go to a white supremacy forum and exercised your right to disagree with them, they'd delete everything you said pretty quickly and there'd be nothing wrong with that. That is the right of a website owner. The First Amendment prevents Congress from abridging free speech, but there's nothing in there about private citizens.

And seriously, if you dislike Wikipedia so much, why are you bothering to stay? Every policy here has a reason behind it. If you disagree, fine. That's why Citizendium and others were created. Go there and stop pretending to be a lawyer here. --clpo13_(talk) 00:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Cipo13 is right here - this is an online encyclopedia, not a public forum. I cannot tell you how many morons post links to forums here in Wikipedia, and get all upset when those links get pulled for either not being reliable, verifiable, noteworthy or neutral. I don't want to rain on your free speech parade, but Wikipedia ony works when we all follow the rules. It's what you agreed to when you signed up to edit. See The Five Pillars. If you need some mentoring to help you over the learning curve of Wikipedia, let me know. I would like to help. You've got passion; you just need to know where the sides of the road are. Drop me a line and let me know. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

To Clpo13: I never claimed to be a lawyer, but I am a student studying towards those ends. I'm still in undergraduate college. What you called me cuts real close to the civil illegal act of libelous statement and maybe I should consider possible legal options in handling your actions. But before that I would like to try for an informal resolution, to be able to keep this in family and outside of public proceedings. For the record as well, my college has a policy against the use of information from Wikipedia. In fact I think that is overall SUNY policy on the grounds on unreliability as an academic resource. I have no opinion on it as all I've used it for is as a quick reference when I am doing research of a personal nature.

To Arcayne: I appreciate your interest in me. Unfortunate I couldn't take you up on your offer of Wikipedia tutorials because of an unwarranted and unfair block by Scientizzle. If you could reverse it yourself, would you override him so I can take your lessons as you suggest? I'd love to accept your offer.

Blocked, again

This is another example of you removing a perfectly reasonable maintenance tag without discussion or even an edit summary. Your comments on this page make it clear that you have no interest in cooperatively participating and building this encyclopedia. This block will expire in 72 hours. — Scientizzle 03:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

68.236.154.131 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Appeal on grounds of unfair treatment by Scientizzle, who I think has a vendetta against me by making me be blocked again

Decline reason:

The removal of maintenance tags from articles without reason or explanation is disruptive. You were told that before. You were blocked for that before. That you continue to do so shows that you are unrepentant in this regard, and this block is fully justified. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

((unblock))

Why should I be repentent to any man? Only God should I be repentent to. It's He who I answer to. To Arcayne, I hope to see you soon.