User talk:216.153.214.94/archive1

Please cease your partisan edits to John Kerry. I recommend you peruse our strict neutral point of view policy before you continue editing here. Otherwise you risk being blocked from editing. Thanks for your consideration. -- Hadal 16:52, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Again, please stop your POV edits. Your last volley amounts to vandalism; if you continue, you will be blocked from editing. Consider this your final warning. -- Hadal 02:25, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I do not understand why you keep reverting my updates to John Kerry. There is NO POV violation these most recent ones from 07.21.04:

President Nixon and Charles Colson discuss John Kerry

In a secretly recorded White House conversation of April 28, 1971 which came to light after the (Nixon Tapes) became public as a result of United States v. Nixon, then-President Richard Nixon discussed Kerry with his lawyer, Charles Colson.

Nixon said, "Well, he is sort of a phony, isn't he?" Colson agreed, and claimed that during the antiwar demonstrations that had just taken place, Kerry stayed at the home of a Georgetown socialite while the other protesters slept on the National Mall. Colson said, "He's politically ambitious and just looking for an issue. Yeah. He came back (from Vietnam) a hawk and became a dove when he saw the political opportunities." "Sure," said Nixon.

Around this time, the FBI engaged in surveillance of Kerry and other anti-war protesters. They followed them, recorded their speeches, took photographs, and reported their findings FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover.

In May 1972, the FBI stopped monitoring Kerry's activities, stating in a final memorandum: "It should be noted that a review of the subject's file reveals nothing whatsoever to link subject with any violent type activity... Thus, considering the subject's apparently legitimate involvement in politics, it is recommended that no further investigation be conducted regarding subject until such time as it is warranted."

In 1993, Colson, who some years earlier had become a Born Again Christian and the founder of (Prison Fellowship Ministries), sent Kerry a letter asking for "forgiveness over any ways in which I hurt you in the past."

---

Pro-choice is not pro-abortion. I didn't revert the questionable changes you made to the John Kerry article, but you've stepped over the line on the campaign article. At least make an attempt to be impartial, or you'll be reverted often. RickK 23:14, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

---

See my reply to you at User talk:Rex071404. -- Hadal 19:30, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Welcome back, Rex. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 16:04, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Spam

Please refrain from spamming user and user talk pages. violet/riga (t) 19:20, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also, if you vandalise someone's userpage (or any other page for that matter) once more, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Hadal 19:34, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As this is an anonymous talk page, you do not have the right to blank it. Also, you are guilty of removing valid comments by violet too; e.g. [1]. Please stop this nonsense, or you will find yourself unable to edit. -- Hadal 19:40, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

VioletRiga

Please tell VioletRiga to stop deleting/editing my comments at Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks

Also, I acknowledge receipt of your message, yet am choosing to delete it from the talk page assigned to my IP address. 216.153.214.94 19:36, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My apologies about the 216.153.214.94 IP talk page. I did not know that I ought not to "blank" it. I presumed that my use of that IP linked me to that page and gave me the right to edit it as I see fit. I stand corrected. Also, what are you going to say to Violet? She started this you know. how dare she delete my Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks comments? She has no right to do that. What followed was a tit-for-tat retaliation. 216.153.214.94 19:45, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Tit-for-tat implies me doing stupid things to your pages or edits. At no point did I do that. In my opinion I wouldn't have looked at you twice if you'd been a registered user and none of this would have happened. Perhaps that's your intention though. As to how I dare delete your comments? Well:

• Try not to offend the majority of the worlds population ("who cares what they think")
• Don't threaten to attack Wikipedia with an "army", inserting the word "terrorist" into numerous articles (I see you have already done this yourself, too)
• Don't repeatedly spam your comments on my user and user talk pages
• Don't revert edits I've made just because I upset/annoyed you
• Log in

I honestly think you're being a little pathetic with your methods and your tone. I hope this silliness can now end. violet/riga (t) 22:38, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

More humor from Rex

I'm putting this here, as the followup to an exchange on my Talk page, because it's funny enough to merit wider attention.

I commented that it was obvious that this anon IP is Rex. The "anon" responded: "I've heard from others that JamesMLane leaps to conclusions."

Rex (or, pardon me, Mr. or Ms. 216), there's no such comment on this User talk page. No one can email such a comment to an unregistered user. So how, exactly, did you hear this from "others"? Did your pals at Free Republic set up a subpage about me, perhaps as the latest effort to distract people from George W. Bush's miserable failure to secure hundreds of tons of explosives from being used against the soldiers he foolishly sent into Iraq? I suppose the Freepers have to talk about something, but I doubt that it's me. So who are these "others"?

Oh, and speaking of attempted distractions -- you made the comment that I was jumping to conclusions. You didn't say whether the conclusion was true. Is it? JamesMLane 01:54, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Leaping to conclusions

When one "leaps" to conclusions, they are jumping over some of the available evidence. Since my study of your edits and comments indicates that you do indeed "leap" over available evidence, there is no advantage to be gained in trying to persuade you. Hence, I will not attempt to answer your questions regarding "truth" - unless of course, you are willing to answer this: Yes or No, is it true to refer to the 1st "wound" received by John Kerry as minor? I believe that user Rex071404 asked you that question some months ago, yet you have still not answered it. And if your answer is "no" please state, in detail, why. 216.153.214.94 08:00, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Who is this "JamesMLane" and why does it appear he is willing to believe such obviously false lies about President Bush? 216.153.214.94 07:24, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

do you think we're retarded? oh, and nice army. --kizzle 05:27, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

September 11, 2001 attacks

You will not re-insert anything if it is deleted by a legitimate user, or you will be blocked. This means that you won't be able to edit any more.--Honeycake 07:35, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In reply to your message on my talk page I am not saying you have no right to edit, I am saying that it is not appropriate to keep reverting other users' edits. If you do, it's vandalism. Therefore you are no longer a legitimate user, anon or not, you are a vandal. But, other users are still legitimate, so they can make articles correct in their eyes. Personally I agree with them that the word terrorist should not appear, but that's irrelevant. You should not make threats like the one you did on the talk page of the article, even if you don't plan to carry them out.--Honeycake 07:41, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In reply to your second message on my talk page, you should be aware that you DID NOT say that you supported the word terrorist, you threatened to use a practical method to get the word terrorist into the article. You threatened to keep reverting other users' edits to make sure the article was your way. That is what I was complaining about. If you had just said you supported the word terrorist, there wouldn't have been any problem at all.--Honeycake 07:50, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are leaping to conclusions. 216.153.214.94 07:52, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh no I'm not. Ask any user at all and they will probably agree with me that you threatened to use a practical method of ensuring that your article stayed the way you wanted it to.--Honeycake 07:55, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Indeed you are leaping. You initial statement (and underlying theme) presumes there can never be a legitimate reason for the statement which you are complaining about. Regarding that, I disagree. 216.153.214.94 08:02, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Disagree all you like. That's the way it is. Threats like that can end up getting you blocked if you do them on more than one count. Sadly, you've only done it on one. Also, I notice that further up your talk page you have complaints from other users. That's another reason why I don't trust you.--Honeycake 08:08, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not so. You don't trust me because you made no overture to dialog with towards trusting me before threatening me. Is this because you believe yourself to be possessed of rights to "threaten" that others are not? Please advise. 216.153.214.94 08:14, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I made no 'overture to dialog' with you, and co-incidentally this is about the only part of your garbled message I understand, because other users including Hadal, RickK and Violetriga had accused you of vandalism/misuse of Wikipedia and your edit to Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks was fairly obviously more of it.--Honeycake 08:20, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, your lack of an overture was supplanted by your leap, hence my contention you are "leaping to conclusions" 216.153.214.94 08:23, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I must say that I have no idea what Indeed, your lack of an overture was supplanted by your leap, hence my contention you are "leaping to conclusions" is supposed to mean, and I don't want to continue this debate. All changes you make to my talk page I will revert or ignore.--Honeycake 08:25, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I suppose then, since you are declaring your intent to ignore me, if and/or when you abuse your power by banning me without dialog, I'll have to request arbitration against you?... 216.153.214.94 08:31, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

One last communication: I have to tell you that I have NOT banned you at all, and as for the dialogue, it's nearly half of my talk page.

Indeed, you have not actually banned me at this point. But you have declared your intent to do that without any further dialog with me. 216.153.214.94 08:34, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I haven't declared an intention to ban you, I am not a sysop so I am not able to. Despite the fact that I would if I could, I have also had a huge amount of dialogue with you, so I feel that you have no grounds to request arbitration.

You ought to be aware that there is an effort under way by some at September 11, 2001 attacks to "vote in" a ban against the use of the word "terrorist" in that article. Frankly, since there is no such power vested to anyone or any group (regardless of "votes") to impliment such a word ban on this Wiki, I am simply notifying the word banners that I do not accept their mob-rule efforts to ban that word, especially since I support its inclusion into that article. 216.153.214.94 07:46, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If this is Rex, I shouldn't have to warn you; however, on the off-chance that this isn't Rex: Please don't delete signed comments from talk pages. It is not allowed, and I (or another sysop) will block you if you persist in doing so. —No-One Jones ^(m) 04:57, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Feldspar comment

Feldspar is ceaselessly reverting me without dialog at Dedham, Massachusetts please take note of that. 216.153.214.94 05:01, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you have a dispute with Antaeus Feldspar over article content, try resolving it through normal means: the talk page, a request for comment, mediation, etc. Paying him back (if that's your intent) by deleting his comments just makes you look bad, and if you persist, will probably get you blocked. It's definitely not going to help create a better encyclopedia. —No-One Jones ^(m) 05:29, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Read his talk page. He deletes my comments to him there. 216.153.214.94 05:35, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Has he done that anywhere else? Social conventions allow users a certain amount of latitude in handling their own talk pages; this includes deleting messages as they see fit. (I've explained this before, I think: [2], [3].) However, this freedom doesn't extend beyond one's own talk page; deleting comments from someone else's talk page is definitely not on. If he's done that, he should not have, but that's not an excuse for your misbehavior. —No-One Jones ^(m) 05:45, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The issue of talk page deletion is not being tit-for-tatted. Rather, it's his repeated rv's at Dedham, Massachusetts. The talk page deletions are only mentioned to point out that Feldspar has forclosed all avenues of communications. 216.153.214.94 05:51, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Has he been abusing the article talk pages? —No-One Jones ^(m) 05:54, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If ceaseless reverting (over a span of more than a month) without dialog counts as "abusing", then yes, he has. 216.153.214.94 06:06, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

From what I can see you haven't used the article talk page in over a month either, so we have a pot-and-kettle situation here. Try offering a compromise that takes both of your concerns into account. Right now I don't see any difference between your behavior and his. —No-One Jones ^(m) 06:14, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Then why are you not also admonishing him? 216.153.214.94 06:15, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)