User talk:Time Will Say Nothing

From Amoammo

This is your talkpage - found it!

I got all your emails. I think that that blog you linked to was where i read it.

re: "I guess you're the one to do this?" i would have been happy to do it, but there shouldn't have been anything to stop you doing it (or any other good faith edits you want to make). Good luck with editing the articles you're interested in. I'm guessing you'll want to start an article Three Women (play)! Amo (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish literature and a new outwardness

I don't regard Kennaway's living in England as notable for a Scottish writer. Off the top of my head the same could be said of Fred Urquhart, Aeneas MacDonald or A J Cronin and many other mid-C20 writers. The paragraph where you are inserting Kennaway is about something rather different - writers whose practice was intervention in other cultural areas (France in the cases of Trocchi and White) and known through that rather than activity in their native land. A distinction that is clear , I think, in MacDiarmid's denunciation of Trocchi as "cosmopolitan scum" at the 1962 Edinburgh Writers Festival. I will be reverting the Kennaway insertion again, on grounds of non-notability to the subject at hand; if you want to discuss that further we can take it to the Talk page. AllyD (talk) 09:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I suggested above, differences of opinion are best covered on the Talk:Scottish literature page. I'll put a brief summary and references to the views expressed on our respective Talk pages onto that page. It's not a heavily used page, but that will give others the opportunity to put their views as and when they read it. AllyD (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Kennaway and place of death?

BTW there seems to be as contradiction in the article: place of death in the article given as M4 but Infobox as Scotland? The article is unreferenced (maybe something to address before a notice gets put on it) and I have no referenced information to fix on either myself, so I thought I'd mention to you, given your obvious interest. AllyD (talk) 09:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see the tone of your response on my Talk page to what I regarded as a friendly query with regard to improving the Kennaway article. AllyD (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rereading the rest of your Talk page, perhaps you may have misunderstood something - I was not suggesting that the Kennaway article could have a Deletion notice put on it. Far from it, he rightly has a page. What I was meaning is that it could have an Unreferenced notice put on it: the general principle is that anything should be backed up by references to published sources and it is good to add these when editing with info to hand. That was all. AllyD (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly advice

I have spent the last hour or so reading through most of your interactions with other users over the past couple of weeks and looked at a number of you contribution. It seems that nearly every time someone does something that you disagree with, you accuse them of harassing or oppressing you. Why is this? I have seen zero examples of anyone insulting you or accusing you of anything (I assumed that somewhere someone had insulted you badly and caused you to act this way, but I couldn't find anything). You have been pointed to policies on personal attacks, assuming good faith and conflict of interest numerous times, but you continue to accuse nearly everyone with whom you come into contact. I have seen this type of behavior many times on Wikipedia and it often comes from people who are editing a topic close to themselves (as you are). Basically at this point you have two choices. You can work cooperatively with editors who are trying to improve these articles here on Wikipedia or you can continue to refuse any outside input, accuse people of various misdeeds and end up getting blocked permanently. My suggestion would be to take a break and come back when you have relaxed a bit, then try and work with other editors. I realize Wikipedia can be a difficult place to edit and tempers can run high. I also realize that dealing with experienced users who understand the ins and outs can be intimidating and sometimes frustrating, but the solution is not to throw accusations around. If you are accepting of criticism and amendable to collaboration, you will find that getting things done on Wikipedia is much easier. If you need help just ask, but if you keep up your current behavior, the chances of a block are very high. --Leivick (talk) 07:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comment which is, however, not completely correct. If you have read my contributions carefully, you will notice that I do accept some advice, so to say "nearly every time' is simply a misstatement. The harrassment and bullying consists in the oppressive quantity of edits, posts, criticisms etc. As an example, one editor, Doc, says that I refuse to read a page that has never in fact been shown to me! There has been harrassment and it is going on right now, this morning, especially from editor Sebaz86556. Deliberate vandalism of pages I have created or am associated with is taking place. An insulting "reference" was placed on a page which I have edited. Sebaz86556 described my removing that and manually editing my signature as vandalism. Hilarious. He has reverted this p[age AGAIN and added an insulting comment about it to the revision history. You are apparently condoning all this vandalism and pointing the finger at me over it! A conflict is being set up by the way editors do their editing, tagging and posting and then you blame me for complaining about it and challenging it. Wikipedia is for me as well as for others. A calculated attempt is now being made to exclude me from it by setting up edit wars, because I have challenged the way editors behave. You ask me to work with editors. I would be happy to work with reasonable or competent ones. How is it possible to work with editors that vandalise my pages or edits? I have complained about all this direct to Wikipedia and I would suggest allowing them to resolve it. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 08:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't edit other peoples talk page posts unless they are grossly insulting (this isn't even close), do not get into an edit war. I have seen no deliberate vandalism on any articles you have been working on. I can see that your hostile attitude is being met by increasingly less pleasant responses. My advice stands, either work with people or get blocked. There isn't a :direct to Wikipedia" department that is going to come in and resolve this, it will be resolved here. --Leivick (talk) 08:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the fabricated reference re Martin Shaw's composition the Redeemer is not insulting or belittling about Martin Shaw, I question your judgment. If you are suggesting that I am not in direct contact with Wikipedia, you are at fault. The hostility did not start with me. I am standing up for myself against sustained attack. It takes two to get into an edit war. Yet you blame me alone for it. Clearly you are not impartial. Like most Wikipedia editors, it seems you do not take criticism well, although you expect me to. If you want me to work with you, why not try working with me? That means also taking account of my legitimate concerns and not taking sides. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 08:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to give you legitimate and friendly advice. I have never encountered any editors involved so why would I not be impartial. You are dealing with editors with some experience who know many of Wikipedia's complex rules. I really suggest listening to advice rather than making accusations, but the choice is yours. --Leivick (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) He's not suggesting that you're not in direct contact with Wikipedia, he is (correctly) suggesting that there isn't a "direct to Wikipedia" department "that is going to come in and resolve this". (In all likelihood, the people you are in contact with at Wikipedia/Wikimedia, are volunteer editors from here too.) Incidentally, accusing someone of fabricating references is not exactly calculated to calm things down. As a completely uninvolved observer, although I'm sure there might have been better ways of handling your concerns, it looks like the hostility really has been consistent at your end. People are just following existing policies and guidelines as to Wikipedia content, they are not in a grand conspiracy to annoy you. I very much imagine that most of them have no views on the subject matter at all. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was no 'fabricated reference', there was an example reference to show you the sort of reference you need to back your old edit. It may have been a bit jokey, but not insulting Shaw. You should definitely not have removed it from the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you call "a bit jokey" is also found to be insulting or inappropriate. As it is has proved controversial, why not just remove it? Yours is not the only view that counts. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because your dislike of it isn't a sufficient reason to refactor an article talk page. See WP:TALK. Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. The only reasons you should be even considering removing someone's comment from a talk page is if it's vandalism/deliberate trolling, posted by a banned editor, or libelous. Making a controversial comment doesn't fall under those categories unless the comment is also vandalism, trolling, defamatory, or made in defiance of a ban; if it did that would make the temperature of any discussion plummet. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 04:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

When coming off a block for edit warring, it is generally a Very Bad Idea for your first action after your return to be blanking the warnings, and your very next one to make the violation of the three-revert rule even worse. Between that and the disruption of editing someone else's comments to remove a good-faith sample reference, you are quite lucky nobody else has reblocked you yet. Before editing again, I would strongly, strongly suggest that you go take a look at {{Welcomeg}} and read some of those links that explain what the community expectations are here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edit warring block was improper. It takes two to edit war, yet only I was blocked and not the other person involved. I have never violated the three revert rule, before or after I was blocked. Thank you for providing proof that this i s a malicious campaign against me. And in my opinion, it is not a good faith sample reference. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"malicious campaign against me" — you need a serious reality check. Very serious. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think you need a reality check. You yourself are deliberately taking part in this malicious campaign against me. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I count it, you removed tags 4 times yesterday. I gave you a 3RR warning after the 3rd time and you did it again. Worse, right after your block you did it yet again. I agree, you are lucky you weren't blocked immediately. Before you were blocked there were 4 or 5 editors disagreeing with your actions. The block was absolutely proper, you were given a warning and you ignored it and carried on. No one else had even reached 3RR, let alone exceeded it. Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is completely false. I have not violated any rule, let alone the three revert rule, either before to since coming of the block. Count again. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Up to Now (autobiography) could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. As to your question, it is Wikipedia policy to block editors making, to use your words, an "allegation of a criminal offence". Wikipedia is not the place to contemplate legal action. If you intend to take such action, you are required to not edit Wikipedia until the matter is resolved. Feezo (Talk) 06:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you just violated WP:No legal threats on _Jimbo's_ talkpage? Are you trying to get blocked? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC) ×[reply]

Blocked per WP:NLT

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

I have blocked you for making a legal threat in this edit. If you feel another editor has engaged in illegal behavior you will have to take it up with whatever law enforcement agency you see fit. Legal action cannot be handled on Wikipedia. If you wish to retract the legal threat you can be unblocked at anytime. --Leivick (talk) 06:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that it's one for him to look at, not one for you to get involved in. Alleging a criminal offence is not a legal threat, nor is it taking legal action. I should have thought that was obvious. Blocking someone is regarded as an act of cyberbullying all by itself. Check this link - http://www.nationalbullyinghelpline.co.uk/law.htm. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 06:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) Wikipedia falls under US law, not British. 2) Alleging that someone has committed a crime is no different than threatening legal action, as the intent of both is to stifle speech. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 06:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, if it can be accessed in the UK it can be sanctioned under UK law. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On paper, but in reality Wikipedia is only beholden to the laws of where it is hosted, and in this case, it is hosted in Florida, and thus the US. Any legal challenge would, of necessity, have to work through the US legal system. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 06:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be slightly pedantic, the intent is unfathomable (especially in this case...), but the effect can potentially be to stifle speech, which is why WP:NLT applies. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that a block is also stifling free speech, in this case against someone alleging a criminal offence. Are you sure that's the way for Wikipedia to go? Again, I would suggest you look at this page http://www.nationalbullyinghelpline.co.uk/law.htm - scroll down to cyberbullying. Note what it says about blocking people who challenge the bullies. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to pursue either criminal or civil charges against Wikipedia or any editor, I can't stop you from doing that. However if you plan to or threaten to (as you have) you cannot edit Wikipedia until you resolve the issue or retract the statement. --Leivick (talk) 06:44, 7 January 2011 (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).

Time Will Say Nothing (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Alleging a criminal offence is not a threat of legal action, which would be a civil matter. Using a block to prevent me from supporting such an allegation could be construed as obstructing the course of justice - also a criminal offence. Are you sure you want to go that way? I would suggest you look at this page http://www.nationalbullyinghelpline.co.uk/law.htm - scroll down to cyberbullying. Note what it says about blocking people who challenge the bullies. I would suggest that blocking is not an appropriate action in this case, not does my allegation fall under a threat of legal action and suggest you lift it forthwith. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Disputing a block for violating WP:NLT by making a new legal threat is a unique approach, but clearly reinforces the appropriateness of the block, which demonstrably done for violation of established site policies. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:51, 7 January 2011 (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.

I also would like to politely suggest that other editors not argue with Time Will Say Nothing, if he wants to call law enforcement he can. Telling him he is wrong really just exacerbates the situation. --Leivick (talk) 06:53, 7 January 2011 (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).

Time Will Say Nothing (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The point is that the block may itself raise legal issues. I'm sure you and Leivick are acting in god faith and are well versed in Wikipedia procedures. However, are you sure you feel confident enough in your grasp of the legal issues here to persist with this block? Are you really sure the legal issues are within your area of competence? I would politely suggest lifting the block, if only to protect yourself and / or Wikipedia?

For clarity, I have no intention of taking legal action against Wikipedia or reporting anyone to the authorities. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This unblock request still does not resolve the problem, which is the threats of involving legal authorities to get people at Wikipedia to do what you want them to do. You claim to wish to contact law enforcement to force people at Wikipedia to do what you them to do. The fact that, in this unblock request, you challenge the block itself, and the dipute that led to it initially, as a matter which can be resolved by legal channels, is still the source of the problem. In this unblock request, you seem to talk out of both sides of your mouth, initially claiming that the block will generate legal troubles for people who blocked you. I don't see how that can be true. Until you relent on that point, you will not be unblocked. Jayron32 07:06, 7 January 2011 (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.

You need to explicitly state that you have no intentions now or in the future of taking legal action or reporting anyone to legal authorities. If you do that, I'll unblock you. If you don't, no Administrator can unblock you as that would be against policy. Right now you might be seen to be extending this threat to include the block itself. Dougweller (talk) 06:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, are you sure that's wise? He was already unblocked once after withdrawing hints of legal action, and two days later, he's doing it again, including in two successive unblock requests.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 07:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If he actually does explicitly disavow any threats of any kind, we should unblock him - he will then either become a good editor, not making personal attacks, not edit-warring, etc. or end up with either a topic ban or an indefinite block. I think it is important however that we not spend a lot more time on this and he is going to have to either agree to behave now or action is taken promptly. Dougweller (talk) 07:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make my earlier decline reason entirely clear. You were blocked for clear violation of a long-established Wikipedia policy. The block was done within process. That same policy clearly states that the only way you can be unblocked is by retracting the threat. This is not open to interpretation. To view the policy, follow the link WP:NLT. Should you follow that path, then I also urge you to read the policies listed at WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL, WP:HAR, and WP:NPA - which are all directly related to the issues you have brought up on other pages. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have refactored you last unblock request ~~(after the block was declined)~~ to say that you "...have no intention of taking legal action against Wikipedia or reporting anyone to the authorities." This seems like a retraction, although in the same request ~~(prior the decline)~~ you say that you "...suggest lifting the block, if only to protect yourself and / or Wikipedia." It is unclear what you actually mean here. --Leivick (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, your comments were made entirely before the unblock was denied, but you intentions are still unclear. Why would you suggest lifting the block to protect Wikipedia if you have no intention of taking legal action? --Leivick (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would have thought it was obvious to any reasonable person. I don't intend to take action. In fact, I've never said I did and your block was an overreaction, done without bothering to read my words properly. Nevertheless, an issue exists with respect to the criminal offence of cyberbullying. I am raising the issue and inviting Wikipedia to address it voluntarily. I would have thought any responsible organisation (like Wikipedia), having been alerted to a potential legal issue, would want to look at it voluntarily. You, on behalf of Wikipedia, decided to shoot the messenger by blocking me. That was an improper and irreponsible response by you. It suggests you have no interest in voluntarily moving into compliance with the law. I should have thought that was a matter of concern. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 08:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are saying that I (in addition to other Wikipedia editors) am breaking a law? If so this is a clear legal threat. I am not making any comment regarding the veracity of your claims as I am (as you pointed out) not qualified. I am however qualified to know that you cannot address this issue on Wikipedia, you must do this through outside channels. The fact is you cannot bring up legal issues and edit Wikipedia simultaneously per WP:NLT. --Leivick (talk) 08:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a grossly irresponsible comment. If you had read my posts carefully and intelligently, instead of jumping off the deep end, you would have seen that I never threatened legal action. That was entirely in your mind. What I did was draw attention to what is a serious issue within the criminal law. A responsible organisation like Wikipedia, having been alerted to the possible existence of such an issue, would immediately want to look at it with a view to moving voluntarily into compliance with the law, if that needs to be done. Blocking someone for raising the issue is grossly irresponsible, indicating contempt for the law. My previous unblock request did not contain any veiled threat of legal action. Nevertheless, someone could IN THEORY take such action in the future if Wikipedia were to continue in a state of non-compliance with the law. That is not a threat of legal action by me, nor could any reasonable person interpret it as such. It's a wholly responsible alert to an important and difficult subject - one that Facebook, for example, takes extremely seriously. Leivick, this is not about you, it's about Wikipedia and its policy towards cyberbullying. You say this is about stifling free speech. Are you saying that the right to free speech means there is no obligation to obey the law about, for example, racist language or sexist language? If there is a legal issue, you are much better off being aware of it than trying to stifle discussion of it, which is completely inappropriate on such a serious subject. Do you believe in obeying the law or not? Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 08:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to read Wikipedia:THREAT#Perceived_legal_threats before you continue shooting yourself in the foot. Active Banana (^bananaphone 08:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's very helpful. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Time Will Say Nothing (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

OK, yet again, I do not intend to take legal action or report anyone to the authorities. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 08:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=OK, yet again, I do not intend to take legal action or report anyone to the authorities. [[User:Time Will Say Nothing|Time Will Say Nothing]] ([[User talk:Time Will Say Nothing#top|talk]]) 08:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=OK, yet again, I do not intend to take legal action or report anyone to the authorities. [[User:Time Will Say Nothing|Time Will Say Nothing]] ([[User talk:Time Will Say Nothing#top|talk]]) 08:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=OK, yet again, I do not intend to take legal action or report anyone to the authorities. [[User:Time Will Say Nothing|Time Will Say Nothing]] ([[User talk:Time Will Say Nothing#top|talk]]) 08:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I am trying to make this as clear as possible. You cannot simultaneously say "...someone could IN THEORY take such action in the future if Wikipedia were to continue in a state of non-compliance with the law." and edit Wikipedia at the same time. Saying that someone could "IN THEORY" take legal action is a legal threat. I don't know how to make this any clearer. --Leivick (talk) 08:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a reasonably perceived threat, because I've said I personally am not going to take any action myself. Hypothetical future actions by other persons could not reasonably be seen as a threat by me. I quote from Wikipedia:THREAT#Perceived_legal_threats. "Rather than blocking immediately, administrators should seek to clarify the user's meaning and make sure that a mere misunderstanding is not involved." There was a misundertanding here, because I was not threatening legal action. You blocked prematurely, without bothering to clarify my meaning first, in breach of policy. I have made it clear that there is no reasonably perceived legal threat here, as I have undertaken not to take legal action. You can now be in no reasonable doubt about that. I'm afraid I think you are now Wikipedia:Beating a dead horse. The longer you persist in your stubborn refusal to see reason, the more the impression will grow that you do not respect the law on principle. I'm sure that isn't the case and I would therefore invite you to confirm it by now lifting the block. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but you are wrong. Saying others are in violation of the law (whether you are right or wrong) is a legal threat. --Leivick (talk) 09:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly not open to polite and reasoned argument. You acted prematurely, in flagrant breach of [[Wikipedia:THREAT#Perceived_legal_threats|policy]. See above. I note you ignore that point. Within policy, you should have contacted me first to clarify if there was a misunderstanding. Policy is explicit on that point. You chose not do that. You thereby compromised your position right from the outset, which is presumably why you are so desperate not to give way on this point.

Further, you have completely failed to understand the point I was actually making. Please read it again. I said: "Hypothetical future actions by other persons could not reasonably be seen as a threat by me." This means that I cannot (not could you or anyone else) give guarantees about what a third person, not connected to me, might do in the future. If you expect me to give a guarantee about that, you are being blatantly and wilfully unreasonable. That is completely different from talking about "others" being "in violation of the law". I did not mention that subject in my argument. My sentence is not a legal threat, under any reasonable interpretation.

The issue now is that you are not responding reasonably on this issue. Black will never become white, however often you try and say it does.

Also, I have given the only guarantee that is required of me and you are not acting reasonably by refusing to accept that. There is nothing more that I can say on this issue. If you persist in wilfully misstating my position in the teeth of clearly expressed and reasoned argument, then plainly you should not continue to involve yourself in this matter. A hard head is the enemy of reason and dialogue. This, actually, is why I have had such disagreements with Wikipedia editors, because you can't get through to so many of them however hard you try. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 09:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Time Will Say Nothing, I hope you don't mind a comment from me - I've just looked over these things and have no prior involvement. I've seen no evidence of cyber-bullying here - just a number of different editors trying to help you understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding article content. This is an interactive environment, and decisions are made by community consensus - discussing and disagreeing with your changes is not cyber-bullying. If you want to be unblocked, you will need to understand that and drop your cyber-bullying allegations, as it is impossible for other editors to work collegially and constructively with you with such allegations hanging in the air. You need to either go and seek legal redress through agencies outside of Wikipedia, or drop all allegations of illegal activity, not just direct personal threats of action. Hope that outside opinion is of some help. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 06:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He won't be able to comment there... Nakon 06:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but he can read it there, and comment here, and then other people can paste things back there if necessary. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]