User talk:216.153.214.94/archive2

User talk:216.153.214.94/archive1

All entries prior to 11.04.04 have been archived (see above). 216.153.214.94 05:29, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you carry out your talk-page-spamming threat, it will be added to the existing batch of evidence, in the existing ArbCom proceedings against you. Please don't, and save us both the time. Ambi 05:43, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's not a threat, and you are now obligated to converse at Dedham, Massachusetts 216.153.214.94 05:46, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC) PS: You are the one making threats. Does that make you a bully? 216.153.214.94 05:46, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Evidence in arbitration proceeding
In response to your bad-faith demands for "more proof", I've commented on a couple of them, and I've called the whole hilarious collection to the attention of the Arbitration Committee, at Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence. I will not be responding further. JamesMLane 06:51, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * In light of the statement on the user page that this anon IP is no longer editing Wikipedia, I have suggested to the Arbitration Committee that the IP should be blocked immediately. JamesMLane 11:09, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dedham
AlistairMcMillan 10:34, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) 1 Stop using your sockpuppet. You are fooling no-one.
 * 2) 2 Stop telling people what to do. You can ASK people to contribute, not TELL them.
 * 3) 3 Stop threatening people if they don't follow your orders.
 * 4) 4 Lastly apologies for the language but... go fuck yerself.

I don't take kindly to threats. If you start repeatedly editing my Talk page as you have indicated you will do, you WILL be blocked from editing. Discussion is fine, even editing my Talk page is fine, but threats will not be tolerated. RickK 19:44, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Actually...
...if you did that, that would be wonderful. Then there would be no need to have action taken against you, which would save us all a lot of time. Ambi 23:54, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Explain how it is fine
The article is about fraud with vote counting machines, not insignificant instances of violence. Have you been reading the talk pages? Zen Master 22:01, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, at this point, You are wrong
For my benefit could you explain, again if you have already, why I am wrong? Read the other talk sections about the stuff that is Included in the article and stuff that is Excluded. Do you agree there is a few orders of magnitude larger potential for vote fraud from rigged voting machines than anything else? Zen Master 22:07, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You miss the point
All the allegations are substatiated, all the stuff you wanted listed is not at this point conclusively the work of "democrates". It's not just the fact your stuff does not belong on this page, it's also the manner in which you present it. Please note the page contains no info on republican dirty tricks relating to violence. moot point now since page was marked protected, you will have to go to talk page and in a detailed manner defend your point of view. Zen Master 22:19, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

cry "voter fraud"?? 25 highly democratic counties in Florida becoming Republican strongholds overnight? Exit polls matching actual vote counts in counties that do not use electronic voting systems? you must be blind. --kizzle 09:52, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

The arbitration matter of Rex071404 is closed
Excerpt:

8) During the course of arbitration Rex071404 ceased editing under that user name and began editing as User:216.153.214.94. See page history of Dedham, Massachusetts


 * Passed 6 to 0

....

2) Rex071404, Bkonrad and others who have committed petty offenses are admonished to consult Wikiquette and to conform their edits to that standard.
 * Passed 6 to 0

3) Rex071404 is banned for 4 months from editing Wikipedia articles which concern United States politics.
 * Passed 6 to 0

4.1) Rex071404 is banned from reverting any article for six months.
 * Passed 5 to 0 with 1 abstain

5) In view of his demonstrated deficiencies in engaging in and interpreting the results of research Rex071404 is required to cite a relevant authority, either by footnote or by comment embedded in the text, which supports every [disputed] edit he makes.
 * Passed 5 to 1

For principles, findings of fact, and enforcement see Requests for arbitration/Rex071404. --mav 06:09, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism
Violetriga is not a vandal, however you are. Do not blank people's home pages!!!! I've got her home page on my watch list: you have been warned. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:53, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Signature
I have contacted the wikitech-l mailing list regarding the signature problem. Fred Bauder 11:59, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * You're not the only one. It happened when they introduced the new version of the MediaWiki software the other day. Numerous people got hit, including The Epopt, one of the arbitrators. Ambi 12:58, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 04:58:06AM -0700, Fred Bauder wrote: > Due to some change in coding at least one signature which previously > displayed properly no long does. See User talk:Rex071404 and look at > Rex071404's signature. Known issue, see the village pump technical section. The signature was never correct to start with, however it happened to work with the old software. Users affected should switch on 'Raw Signatures' in preferences or fix up their signature.

-- Frank v Waveren

See the notice at the top of Community_Portal

Loose ends
You have reverted three times. If you revert again, you will be blocked. If you are Rex, you will probably be blocked for a long time because of the arbcom ruling and decision. ugen 64 04:59, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have an absolute right to edit my own user page. If you don't know Rex071404 edits from 216.153.214.94, then you are not possessed of suffcient knowledge to be butting in. I do not have to log in to edit my own user page, so please butt out. And if you don't think I speak truth, send an email to Rex and see if I answer it... 216.153.214.94 05:07, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Three-revert rule violation
I came here to make sure you knew about the three-revert rule, given that it was stiffened while you were on Wikibreak. Coming here, though, I find that Ugen64 already notified you about it. Regardless of its application to the Rex071404 user page, it is fully applicable to Killian documents. You should take note of the provisions at Three-revert rule. JamesMLane 06:57, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked you for 24 hours for violating the three revert rule on Killian documents. Gamaliel 07:05, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

talk page behavior
Please stop posting trolling comments to my talk page and the talk pages of other editors. If you cannot use them productively, avoid them. If you continue such behavior you may find yourself blocked for disruptive behavior and vandalism. Gamaliel 19:13, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you take objection to the word "touche" you are overly sensistive. 216.153.214.94 21:00, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)