Ricxster

Hillary Rodham Clinton

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Onorem♠Dil 15:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. 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 ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton

Removed 'leading candidate' from ending of opening section. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In truth, both the Clinton & Obama articles should have leading omitted. Afterall, the Democrats have only been through 'two' contests. Editors out there are truly 'jumping the gun'. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What "was" means

I have no problem with removing the "was", as you say the two formulations say the same thing. But there is no attempt, sly or otherwise, at trying to shade meanings here. I've been working on the HRC articles for three years, I would know if there was. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken. Separating the Clinton hate from the legitimate good-bad-or-indifferent Clinton biographical material is what I do here, but sometimes people can see agendas in subtle wordings that aren't really there, it's just how something got worded. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

First female President

Can we please wait until & if Clinton wins the Democratic presidential nomination, before we start pointing out her potential historic momment? GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Because it's jumping the gun Ricxster; we may aswell put in the John McCain article, he could become the oldest 'first-term' President. Clinton could quite the race, be assassinated, take ill etc. My point? - let's not crystal-ball things, let's be patient. GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

All I ask is for patients, the same would apply to Barack Obama concerning he's being the first 'black/white' President. Besides, for all we know, Edwards might pull off major victories on February 5th. We certainly can't go by pollsters (they were wrong, concerning NH Primaries). GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Obama is actually mixed-race, but also - we should wait and see if he wins the Democratic presidential nomination. Patients, we've only been throught 'two contests' (Iowa & New Hampshire). GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ricxster, I suggest you take a break from Hillary Rodham Clinton, the edit warring & loud edit summaries are not appreciated. This article may have to be 'semi-protected' (disallow anon-editing), also as the 'third party' I'm siding with Bellweter. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

5RR last warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hillary Rodham Clinton. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. You don't seem to get the concept of 3RR - please stop reverting until consensus is reached on this very minor matter. On a quick count it looks like you've reverted 5 times in the last few hours. Please stop or you'll be blocked. Tvoz |talk 20:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And lest there be any misunderstanding - please read WP:3RR and note the following in particular:

• A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time. In other words, the policy applies to all reverts made on a page in 24 hours,. not just the same revert. So you've far exceeded the limit that's tolerated for today, but
• the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day

Thank you for your cooperation - you'll find that if an edit is valid there will always be other editors willing to make it as well, as you see with the one in question. I meant it sincerely when I suggested that you take a break from these articles. Tvoz |talk 20:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion, like GoodDay's above, was well-intentioned and respectful. Your response on my talk page is in keeping with the way you've approached editing here, unfortunately. Best of luck to you and to your students if you really are an academic. Tvoz |talk 21:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Tvoz

While I appreciate that you may feel insulted, your comments at User talk:Tvoz could be interpreted as personal attacks, regardless of their intent. Please, I urge to you take a step back and have a cup of tea, as continuing to beat the issue into the ground serves no one's interests. Best to you, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No, absolutely not - but, looking in the other direction, Some of your language has been rather harsh, as well. I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't be insulted, but - rather - that it might be better right now to walk away from it for a bit. Thus, the cup of tea. You're angry and insulted, and letting things settle down for the moment might end up with a better result from the discussion. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 22:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you appear to be blocked under WP:LEGAL. Not much further I can say on the matter, except that - again - I urge you to take a step back. The editors here, however you may feel about the matter, really are trying to help the project, and I have to recommend that you listen to their advice. No discussion of any kind can take place while legal threats are, well, threatened. Further, in matters of this nature, the Arbitration committee is rarely inclined to review the case - but, should you still see the need to file such a request, I wish you the best. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 23:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Do not make legal threats

Your recent edits could give editors of Wikipedia the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that this is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a genuine dispute with the Community or its members, please use dispute resolution. This message is specifically in regard to this edit. Retract it immediately. Pagrashtak 22:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The statement you made—"I have case for defamation and believe me, I am very angry."—could easily be interpreted as a legal threat over defamation. At the least, reword it or make an explicit statement that you are not considering legal action. Wikipedia takes legal threats very seriously, so you need to be careful that you don't even come close to giving the impression that you are considering legal action. Pagrashtak 22:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for handling disputes with other editors. For now, though, remove the sentence I quoted above from Tvoz's user page. I like to be slow with blocking, but if another administrator saw that, he or she might block you on the spot. In addition, having that statement left on her page will not help you during dispute resolution. It is in your best interest to remove it immediately, and I highly suggest you do so now. Pagrashtak 22:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Do yourself a favour Ricxster and follow Pagrashtak's advice. Move on to something else. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Just trying to help you out, here's hoping you'll reconsider. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats

I have blocked you indefinitely for making legal threats against your fellow editors. We don't allow this because it has a chilling effect. If you want to resume editing at Wikipedia, you will need to categorically withdraw your threats first. I also expect you to promise not to make them in future. If you are willing to do this, please say so below and add an {{unblock}} template. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 22:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I will promise to remove any ascertation as to law - but i will not promise you anything in regards into what I do in future - how dare you request such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricxster (talk • contribs)

• No, that won't do. I asked you to categorically withdraw your legal threats. You have not done so. I also expect you to promise not to make legal threats in future. You have refused. Therefore, by Wikipedia policy, you will remain blocked. I'm sorry that you have chosen this path and I regret the loss of any editor. But legal threats and the threat of future legal threats serve only to frighten your fellow editors who are all entitled to edit freely and without intimidation. As you don't agree with this, so far, the time has come for you and Wikipedia to part company. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 23:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What a shocking abuse of power - I am proceeding with Arbitration.

Legal threats

I am going to say this once. I have no idea who you are, where you edit from, what your name is, whether you are 10 years old or 60 years old, whether you are an academic, a shoe salesman, a man or a woman. You chose to edit without revealing your actual identity - that is your right. You accused me and Bellwether (and I'm not even going to bother looking back to see who else) of editing with an agenda and have been uncivil to me and others repeatedly. You have violated Wikipedia policy right and left. You said in a comment that you are an academic - that may or may not be true - I have no way to know. I said to you "Best of luck to you and your students if you really are an academic." I have no more reason to believe that you are one than that you are not one. You have provided no credentials or any other evidence other than your claim, nor am I the slightest bit interested in seeing your credentials or finding out more about you. I have not defamed you or attacked you whatsoever, and if you think you're going to intimidate me by having sought out my name and included it in your post on my talk page, and cyberstalked me by searching on my name, you are sadly mistaken. Do not contact me on or off of Wikipedia. Tvoz |talk 23:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I made no threat in law, but will remove mention of any legal ambiguity. However you have no right to demand apology or occasion requirement on my future activities. Is Wikipedia violating the First Amendment? I said nothing untoward and have promised to remove ambiguity - but if you seek to have influence in my life, a say in regards to what i may or may not do in the future - you can can take a running jump. I am however willing to seek solution to relations between another editor and myself - for i believe that it could be settled amicably. I have proceeded with Arbitration in regards to that shocking request which is so far removed from what I would expect of a wiki admin

Decline reason:

That statement is not a reason why you should be unblocked, not is it a clear withdrawal of legal threats. Note that Wikipedia, a private website, is not bound to observe the U.S. bill of rights. It may censor whoever it wants to. — Sandstein (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

---

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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I made no threat in law, but will remove mention of any perceived legal threat. However you have no right to demand apology or occasion requirement on my future activities. Is Wikipedia violating the First Amendment and all things in regards to freedom of speech and requirement on future? I said nothing untoward and have promised to remove ambiguity - but if you seek to have influence in my life, a say in regards to what i may or may not do in the future - you can can take a running jump. I am however willing to seek solution to relations between another editor and myself - for i believe that it could be settled amicably. I have proceeded with Arbitration in regards to that shocking request which is so far removed from what I would expect of a wiki admin

Decline reason:

The "what I may do in the future" quote is enough for me to decline unblock at this time. Please also note that the First Amendment is not relevant here. If you wish to unequivocally state that you are willing to withdraw any real or perceived legal threat, either now or in the future, unblock may be considered. — BLACKKITE 00:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

---

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.

• Note to reviewing admin: please see comments in penultimate section of this talk page regarding the threat of future threats. Thanks. ➔ REDVEЯS is standing in the dark 23:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected this page to prevent from abuse of the unblock template, and in light of potential future legal threats from you. As has been repeated many times to you, legal threats are not acceptable on Wikipedia, and your refusal to abide by our policies as such has resulted in your being indefinitely blocked from future editing. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)