User talk:Rei016


 * Hi. I understand what you are trying to say, but this may be better in "Gun control in the US" than just "Gun control." Check the existing text for ways to reference these statements.

Gun politics in the United States
P'm also contaccting the IRS to find out how a foundation with a hidden agenda can obtain a tax exempt status. There re several legal issues at stake here. The 1st Amendment is just a small part of the big picture. Why is it that our colleges and universities will not accept text  written from your site? Onlt tme will tell what the court will do in this case. Send me your addrss in Ca. please.

Let's see what the Federal Court has to say on this matter. It is not a threat is now a legal matter. I have my federal rules of Civil Procedure. I need your address as this is a matter of different jusisdictions or diversity. The last case I had cost the defendant in excess of 100,000. Please mail me your complete address for serving process. I'm 76 years old do you think I care if you block my account or not? I enjoy legal proceedings especially ones I can win. Your fancy legal team think it is cute to make it difficult to reachyou people or your company. Expect to defend your procedures and hidden agenda. If you have a legal team have them email yoour company information. In this coutry anyone can sue anyone.


 * I think you seriously misunderstand what this project is. This is a collaboratively created encyclopedia written and maintained by thousands of (mostly anonymous) volunteers. You have literally nothing you can threaten those volunteers with that will stop them from doing what is necessary to maintain the integrity of the project, and no individual user can be considered an official representative unless they are clearly identified as such.


 * Further, the first Amendment has no bearing whatsoever on the content of a privately run website. If you are so knowledgeable about constitutional law that should be fairly obvious. Ask any first year law student if you don't want to take my word for it. Your suit has no merit and will never even make it to court. I also doubt you have standing to file a suit in Chicago.


 * Blocking accounts that have made any sort of legal threat or legal action is standard procedure, see WP:NLT for details on why we do this. It has nothing to do with what your opinions are or whether I or anyone else disagrees with them or not, we simply do not allow persons who are engaged in legal proceedings against the Wikimedia Foundation, the entity that supports this site, to edit so long as any threat or actual proceeding is ongoing.


 * In any event, contact information for the Wikimedia Foundation and its legal department can be seen here. Good luck, you're going to need it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The contact page linked in the above message has all the information you should need. This is neither here nor there as regards your misguided legal threats, but colleges have long held that students doing research on a topic should not just look in an encyclopedia, be it this one or traditional outlets like Britannica or World Book.


 * I suspect there is little point in discussiing this with someone who is so quick to make uninformed threats of legal action, but many, many tax exempt organizations have an agenda of some sort. You haven't said what this supposed hidden agenda is but reading between the lines I assume you are suggesting that there is some hidden pro-gun/NRA/republican plot. You should probably be aware that the conservative media, espescially Fox News, hates Wikipedia and has accused the project of having the exact opposite bias. You might want to consider the logic of your stance.


 * You were making disruptive edits that did not respect our content policies. When this was brought to your attention you decided, in what is unfortunately far too typical in today's Americe, to immediately make a threat of legal action. That is a bright-line offense here and so you were blocked. That is all that happened today. See WP:NPOV. We do not allow any kind of biased editing from any part of the political spectrum. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Borderline vandalism. have you ever heard of the 1st Amendment. I have Freedom of Speech under the Constitution. You people make it as hard as you can for a user to discuss (talk) about a post. Maybe a lawsuit in the Federal Court will help shead some ligh on your hidden agenda. This will not be the first time I file a pro se s uit in the federal court in Chicagp. Get ready to receive my complaint.

Hello, I understand that you have strong feelings about gun control policy (don't we all), but Wikipedia is not an advocacy platform. Please refrain from making such additions. They are borderline vandalism and could result in administrative action. --Nstrauss (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Rei016, you have been reported to the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard for administrative action. You can find the report and ensuing discussion at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)