Welcome!

Hello, The Cyndicate, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Kimchi.sg 23:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as CHEESESQUIRE, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from {{{url}}}. As a copyright violation, CHEESESQUIRE appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. CHEESESQUIRE has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:CHEESESQUIRE. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at CHEESESQUIRE, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia.

Your page has been deleted because it is an exact reproduction of copyrighted text from a newspaper. Kimchi.sg 23:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a journalist for The Graham Star wrote the article in his own words and it was published in the newspaper, the copyright for the article would be with the newspaper, regardless of where the journalist got his information from. Because Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text from elsewhere. If you want the text to be available on Wikipedia, please send The Graham Star a letter or email requesting them to either:

1. Make a note permitting reuse under the GNU Free Documentation License at the site of the original publication, or
2. Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions at wikimedia dot org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation.

Regards, Kimchi.sg 13:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. While you are free to make whatever statements you like in the talk pages, it is explicitly a violation of WP policy to include ANY "original material" in an article; please acquaint yourself with the guidelines at WP:NOR. It is also a violation to keep re-adding material that has already been justifiably removed; the policy in this case is WP:3RR. Perhaps more to the point, the article ALREADY indicates that rods are a known video artifact, and your additional "original explanation" does little to improve upon what is already there. If you would really like to contribute, then if you could find additional links to technical discussions as to how video cameras produce rod-like images, and add those links, that would be the most constructive possible thing to add to the article. Thanks, Dyanega (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say it one last time: WP DOES NOT ALLOW original material. If you revert back again, it will also violate WP:3RR, and it will be reported to an admin. It is not worth getting your account blocked just to insert your personal opinion into an article that already agrees with you. Dyanega (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OH NO!!! Don't Block my account, considering that ANON IPs can edit material!!!

Again, I REMOVED the Original Material and left only the legit research that you STILL removed. I am marking this article with software to AUTO undo any edit to my content.

Please DO contact an administrator.

You are Violating my Civil rights and also violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (A.D.A) of 1990. "The.gov ADA Law" "The EOC.gov ADA Website"

I am aware that this website is run under the laws of FLORIDA and I just happen to be a legal Florida resident. Any further suppression to the information I add will result in legal action. The information I add follows the rules and are well within bounds. YOU just want to take credit for things and you want to continue to shove your "authority" around, but you have none. Again, Wiki "Rules" do NOT trump United States LAW! Period. The Cyndicate (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After receiving your message on my talk page, I contacted a former admin who had helped one other time where I had been threatened with legal action and the person making the threats had been blocked immediately as a result (in that case, I did not report the legal threat - the admin read it themself); in that earlier case, the offended editor was reasoned with, and later the block was lifted. I'd hoped that maybe they could step in and help resolve the dispute before it came to a block, but they passed it along to a different admin who put the block in place immediately, because WP evidently has a pretty much "zero-tolerance" policy about legal threats. Whether you believe it or not, that was NOT my intent; I'd only wanted an experienced admin to look at the edits, and see whether they agreed with them, or instead felt I was applying WP:NOR and WP:3RR inappropriately - if the former, they would explain it to you, and if the latter, they would explain it to ME. I would've been content to accept whatever they said on the matter. In effect, though, the legal threat trumped any hope for a simple resolution. If you can get an unblock request put through, I have no objection to attempting again to have an admin look over the edits, and see what a third-party observer says. I am NOT here to censor anyone, nor shove anyone around; I was trying to edit according to policy, plain and simple. Dyanega (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for making legal threats. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Nakon 22:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of the message that you left is very harsh. Please try to calm down the tone whatever the tone of the other editor.

The rules of what wikipedia calls a legal threat is clear. Editors are blocked but may be unblocked upon withdrawal of the threat. What wikipedians consider a legal threat is very broad so keep this in mind.

If you become unblocked, try not to get mad. WP is considered a privately owned website. Therefore, it can dictate its rules, including the one about legal threats. The legal threat prohibition makes sense because we don't want people threatening to sue each others. Also note that reporting someone to the authorities is considered a legal threat in WP even though in real life it's not a legal threat.

I think that once you state that the legal threat was not intended and that it is withdrawn (or simply that it is withdrawn) a few editors will unblock you. Once you are unblocked, don't try to test the system by editing angrily. Archtransit (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comment that "I am marking this article with software to AUTO undo any edit to my content" would also need to be withdrawn. I don't know if this is even possible to do, but it certainly would contravene the whole purpose of a wiki on which anyone can edit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Since when is explaining my LEGAL position, considered a "Legal Threat"?

Decline reason:

Legal threat has not been rescinded; rather, it has been restated. User is in continued violation of WP:NLT and will be unblocked upon rescinding the legal threat. — Revolving Bugbear 19:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

The freaking brat was removing my posts because he was JEALOUS of the information I was adding. He then begin to slander/liable me and to silence my post and topics. He has now gotten you to do his dirty work for him. Instead of him telling me EXACTLY what text I had posted had violated the rules, he just said it ALL did and deleted it. On top of that, the ADA law is being violated against me, as you HAVE to follow it as a business listed in the state of FLORIDA. I have a RIGHT to be treated within the bounds of the law, and equal to other posters of information. Now you have violated my most basic of CIVIL rights. It's also horrible to learn that you BAN people for "Legal Threats". So you now BAN people for exercising their legal rights? This is just horrible and I guess its time it is stopped. I guess you need to hunker down and get ready for legal fight.

BTW, I am making posts and edit by using a proxy network, that you cannot block.

Enjoy your false sense of security. The Cyndicate (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]