User talk:ArchitectBoiseIdaho

Welcome...

Hello, ArchitectBoiseIdaho, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Help How to write a great article Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place on your talk page and ask your question there. Kilmer-san (talk) 02:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. 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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked for making legal threats
You have been from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia as long as the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. If you believe that a legal action is warranted, you may contact our information team at  and they may forward it to our legal counsel or a more appropriate venue. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Per your threats to take legal action and. MuZemike 00:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Plus, he complained Wikipedia of being "used for criminals" and "must be sued", and that it was used as a "forum". A legal issue indeed. Check it on Jimbo's talk page.--Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 01:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

MuZemike, 7107delicious/Berlin has misrepresented to you what I wrote in my Jimbo-message. (Jimbo happens to be from my home State in the USA - and Auburn University, the alma matter of my relatives). Only people who speak English as a first language should be permitted to administrate, read and interpret what someone on the English version of Wikipedia actually means. Forum is not a four-letter-word. I believe criminals are using Wikipedia for the purposes I have alleged. 7107delicious/Berlin is inaccurate; you should check everything (s)he contributes. And please, stop using "per" incorrectly; id est: "Per your threat...", it's not legalese. I didn't threaten legal action against Wikipedia.

If you read my message you will see that it states,

"...If Wikipedia doesn't do something to control the editing process so as to eliminate these misleading and inaccurate postings, and malicious deletions, two things will happen. >First, Wikipedia will become a joke and the last place that anyone with any sense will go to get an explanation. >Second, Wikipedia will get sued in a Federal or State Court for contributing to fraud and violations of many State and Federal laws. ..."

Read the comment from another user that explained your problem; People are leaving Wikipedia. This message is an alarm I am raising to Jimbo. Does he know that this web-site he established has been high-jacked by the administrators/editors? As an aside, if an administrator edits and regulates the content, it makes an administrator an editor; therefore, the page that states that there are no editors is also inaccurate and misleading. My letter to Jimbo is a warning about the dangers of this irresponsible regulation of the content of Wikipedia.

Why didn't you ask ME what I mean? Why did you avoid a dialogue with me? Do I make too much sense? Talk to me. The Wikipedia page "Wikipedia:No Legal Threats" is a policy statement. Any policy statement by any organization is the guiding procedure. You have violated that policy yourself by blocking me from editing. If you were a Human Resources or personnel officer of a non-profit and you conducted yourself in this manner (ignoring your own policy) you would, and should, be sued.

Quote: "Rather than blocking a user immediately, administrators should seek to clarify the user's meaning and make sure that a mere misunderstanding is not involved." That was my whole purpose in posting all the alarmist writing - to get someone who knows how things should be done to post a note on my talk page. I was hoping it would be Jimbo. You want the prestige and control of being an administrator/editor, but you don't want the responsibility of being an administrator (that is, responsibly dialoguing with a contributor before blocking, as the policy states).

If you have the ability to block someone, surely, in Wikipedia's infinite wisdom, you also have the capacity to simply permanently remove inappropriate content. And you must surely have the sense to post a personal explanation of your actions to me on my talk page, after all, you are the administrator.

I may have just realized how one becomes an administrator. Is it by spending huge amounts of time on Wikipedia? If so, that's beyond pathetic. Pathetic not because one spend a lot of time on Wikipedia, but that, that is the criteria.

I don't even know where to begin with educating you and Wikipedia about implied merchantability and collusion to defraud. When it comes to subjects of a serious nature, such as, as an example, "How to save money by removing ones own appendix without the assistance of a medical doctor", it would be outrageously irresponsible if any encyclopedia included such an article on this subject when the encyclopedia is available to children and the mentally impaired. How about "unassisted suicide". Because Wikipedia has designated "administrators" the same thing as "monitors"/"editors" (Administrators monitor and edit), Wikipedia has established already that it has responsibility for the content of the web-site. Included in this broad area of subjects (the previous hypothetical examples) that merit additional attention are those relating to professions that require licensing for the protection of public health, safety and welfare, such as engineering and Architecture.

Try to imagine this hypothetical scenario: Someone creates a web-site that allows anyone to anonymously launder money and transfer funds internationally; a non-profit virtual-bank. People begin using this virtual-bank to launder money gained through illegal means. A person using the banking web-site for legal and legitimate purposes discovers that other people are using that web-site to launder money for illegal purposes. The legal user notifies the web-site monitors and the creator that this abuse is happening and describes the illegal nature of these activities on the non-profits' web-site. The operators respond by barring the legal user from access to the virtual-bank and instead ignore the illegal activities. Now, if you were on a grand jury, or, Heaven forbid, you were a judge, you would, as a reasonable person (jury is still out on that question), find that the non-profit, and maybe even the administrators of that web-site, is culpable (can be prosecuted).

You, and I do mean you, are at this present moment, allowing a deceptive article to remain posted about the subject of Architectural engineering in the United States. As I write this letter to you, several people who are seeking accurate information are being misinformed by what has been posted. I tried to gently correct and modify this content without hurting any contributor's feelings. But, after I read other postings by the same Duomodimilano, I suspect that this same person has been writing blogs in response to a professional publication. If indeed it is the same person, (s)he argues that licensing is unneeded and then mocks the process. The reasons for my genuine concern are too many to write to you here. Believe me, it is equivalent to the hypothetical situations in a more devious way. I have no idea to whom to write about a serious problem with one of your contributors who is using this web-site to misinform. How do I know that Wikipedia isn't involved? Everybody hides behind a fake name. Have you been on the web lately? (That is called a joke)

If it is the policy of Wikipedia as stated in the rules, the editors (you) should open a dialogue with the person who is blowing the whistle, not block them from writing to you. Also, how would I know that you are truthfully authorized to block me? What method does a public user have to verify that the whole web-site isn't operated by a group of snot-nosed nineteen year old insecure, emotionally frail, ego-centric, ego-nurturing, immature, pathological liars? Is Kilmer-san or 7107delicious/Berlin (or whatever name he has changed to this week) pointing the finger at me to avoid detection? It is a classic tactic of con-men and criminals.

The lack of transparency illigitimizes Wikipedia. Real publishers have to be held accountable for the content of their publications. Wikipedia is no different, whether a non-profit or not (when the non-profit CEO is still paid 300,000 dollars or more per year. I think that is the average pay for non-profit executives these days). When the administrators/monitors/editors act capriciously and arbitrarily, anyone who has any sense will avoid the web-site and as I stated, eventually, the content will degrade to the point that even you, omniscient as you are, will not be able to monitor all the inaccurate garbage that is posted. As I warned in my letter to Jimbo, Wikipedia will become a joke, rushed along by the administrators.

I am contacting the license boards and the AIA/ASCE as I wrote. But this does not mean they will sue. It is up to them. Since the administrators won't listen to me, a person who has been through the processes to become licensed, which includes knowing the law related to these subjects, and also the laws related to Contracting construction projects and the Public contract code, I am sure that Wikipedia will welcome the examination and editing of this page by the professional associations, trade publications and governments. Who better to clarify and provide accurate information? Will you block the Architects Registration Board and the board of professional engineers? That would be great. Please, promise me that you will do it.

They start by writing a letter to the business that is aiding in illegal practice and endorsement of the illegal use of the protected terms. You say that you and Wikipedia, are not responsible for what the contributors write, until, like me, they say that you should act to prevent fraud. Like you, I am not responsible for what the State Attorney General will do. By your own logic, you shouldn't block me, I am not responsible for what the agencies that regulate the practice of these professions and the use of these terms will do. I'm not going to sue anybody.

Now I also am going to contact my local newspaper and the television stations and a few national publications for these professions. Is freedom of speech also not permitted by Wikipedia? How about if the administrators come out from behind their curtains and have a dialogue about the subject of using protected terms and redefining legal professions in a public forum, in the light of day? We'll both see if you can block them from getting you deleted. You still have time to delete everything and run into a dark corner like a cockroach. It will be a little while, but, I will contact these organizations. Actually, I will only have to talk to three of my licensed friends and one phone call to the board and they will do something. You better start hiding your posts and deleting mine so there isn't an accurate record left of what was actually said. Get on it.

As you advised one of the other administrators who wants to attain some higher plateau of the secret world of Wikipedia, "[Try to not over-react to every veiled insult and objection to your actions.]"

Don't unblock me, unless you want an honest and qualified contributor who doesn't presume to both write, and edit out contributions by others, on the subjects of Italian heredity and language along with engineering without being licensed, five hundred other topics one is not qualified to read about, much less write about, and the mind of God. Just make the definition of Architectural engineering in the United States truthful and not misleading and without vague references to a profession that doesn't exist. Stop allowing them to imply that someone who has a degree from a USA or foreign school can practice any form of Architecture or engineering. That school/college misrepresented to the posters (the students) what exactly the students were getting for the money they paid -  not qualifying to be a "building designer/architectural engineer/architectural draftsman/architectural lawn-jockey, building engineer, toilet-cleaning engineer who bought a drafting table at the police auction and now thinks he can offer building design services, lawn-mowing engineer, all illegal terms, and all not able to design anything related to a building including life-safety systems, land planning, parking lot layout, choice of flowers, and MEP in the United States without the licensed design professional they are required to work for approving whatever they do.

Surprise me. Respond like an adult who is well-adjusted and deserves to be an administrator.

Some of the calloused comments on the responses at the Jimbo post discussion are hard to believe. The immaturity is blaring. I am really questioning everything about this site.

P.S. How old are you? I am really curious. Actually, I am thinking of delicious/Berlin.


 * I'm 13 years old. Sounds pretty darn young, ain't it. I just changed my signature. Sorry.

In contrast to your essay-like statement, WP:NLA clearly states that a legal threat is not an indefinite block. Legally threatening someone is something of what you stated on Jimbo's talk page. Wikipedia is not the place for you to describe your complaints. Plus, you said that you were going to call the news with regards of this issue. Remember that we cannot be sued for this, but if this is related to something legal, and that it violates the law in your country, YOU can be. Telling that Wikipedia will be a joke is ALSO a legal threat, unless you assign a reason to say so. Regards,Boeing7107isdelicious 02:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

October 2009
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because the username appears to constitute a company or vandalism.. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may file for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account and use that for editing. Thank you. Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 01:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

My user name is ArchitectBoiseIdaho.

I am a licensed Architect in Boise, Idaho. I was first licensed in California. Should I use ArchitectSanDiegoCA?

Nothing strange. The reason you have so much trouble with this is that there are no hidden agendas, personal biases, bigotry, deception, ulterior motives or false advertising. You're not used to reading and writing the truth.


 * Sorry. Misinterpreted that. Just please, no legal threats.Boeing7107isdelicious 02:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk page editing locked
Since you are fully intent on continuing to follow-through with this, I have taken away your ability to edit on this talk page. When you make a legal threat, that means you are not allowed to edit on Wikipedia. Period. Until the situation ends.

If you wish to contest this block, you may email. Regards, MuZemike 19:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Good job. That'll slow his moves. If he stops, get that unblock done already.Boeing7107isdelicious 03:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)