User talk:Charles8854

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] G'day!

G'day there, Charles8854, and welcome to Wikipedia! Good authors are always welcome on the project, and I hope you like the place and decide to stick around!

We've got a few pages you might find helpful, such as:

It's all best summed up here: write from a neutral point of view, play nice with others, and don't let the rules get you down.

If you have any questions or need any help, my talkpage is always open for business, or you can see Wikipedia:Newcomers help page. Here's a tip to start you off: if you type four tildes (~~~~) at the end of any messages you leave on talkpages (like this one) Wikipedia will automatically insert your name and the current date and time after your message. Cool, eh? Happy editing! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Late Thanks

G'day Mark. I apologize for my late response to your note here. I was pretty frustrated from my last encounter, & i did not check back. And it seems that my problems are persisting. I probably do need to learn the rules better. Thanks for the tips, i will review them further.

I did some more editing on the common-law main page, as well as on the common-law talk page. My comments on the common-law page have been removed.

I just discovered that it was a moderator who did it.

I will contact him.

Thanks,

Charles ...

[edit] Comments on talk pages

Charles, if you want to contribute on Talk:Common law or other Talk: pages, you may find it helpful to read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Technical and format standards to make it easier for others to read your contributions. --Russ (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk Pages & Article Edits

Ok, Russ. I now see that you were the one who deleted my edits.

And i do see that you have given me the courtesy of contacting me about these problems, instead of just leaving me totally alone, cold-turkey.

I guess i should thank you for that.

So, as i consult my crystal ball in search of answers as to Why you have deleted my posts, with no explanation what-so ever, it seems logical to me that you-all are insisting on my making my posts first into the "talk-pages, before moving them to the main common-law article page, yes?

Is that what is happening here?

Can you-all explain the problem here clearly & simply to me?

Do i need a secret skull & bones /illunmniati/masonic hand-shake to get into the club before anyone will give me the courtesy of a simple concise explanation of what the heck the problem is with just pushing that edit button and doing the edits that need to be done???

I hate anarchy.

With all due respect;

Charles ...

  • "I hate anarchy." That may be the root of the problem, as Wikipedia is indeed fairly anarchic. As it says at the bottom of the editing screen, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." No secret handshakes; you can edit anything I write, and I can edit anything you write. Mercilessly. :)
As to your specific edits to Common law, I thought that one of them was pushing a point of view rather than factual information, and the other was at best a questionable interpretation of the historical record. If I have to pull out my old copy of Pollack and Maitland to provide citations for the development of the jury system, I guess I could, but it's generally up to the editor who wants to insert new information to provide references. --Russ (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Russ Wrote>"... Wikipedia is indeed fairly anarchic". Perhaps you are among the anarchists who prefers to re-define the word anarchy. Is that true? Do you consider your-self an anarchist? If so, do you admit that the etomology of the word "anarchy" properly indicates chaos , confusion, & lawlessness? http://thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=anarchy ; shows "lawlessness" as a synonym; & most sources indicate chaos & lack of guiding principles. Do you admit that anarchists seek to re-define that words from its true greek roots? If so; are you among those? Also: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anarchy ; seems to incline in my direction, indicating in its foot-note that anarchists have re-defined the term to suit their own purposes.
    • We probably are arguing semantics. More to the substance of the issues in question; are you seeking "Consensus"; or do you just take delight in destroying what other people seek to build? Do you agree that there are "Standards" of behavior which must be maintained in peaceful societies; or are you a "moral relativist", who thinks that guidelines of social-behavior are merely what-ever the brutes with the most power declare them to be?
    • The proposition that anyone can edit anything from anyone else does have useful potential; but it opens the door for a single malicious "vandal" to destroy everything. Wikipedia clearly has guide-lines against such 'Vandalism". I think you vandalized my editings of the common-law article; but because i am new, i seek consensus, again, & again; but not for-ever. I need you to throw me a few bones.
    • You said >"I thought that one of them was pushing a point of view rather than factual information, and the other was at best a questionable interpretation of the historical record. ... it's generally up to the editor who wants to insert new information to provide references."
    • Where on Wikipedia does it say that? Where is that rule written? Your vandalizing my edits; with zero explanation, places all of the burden on me. That is unfair. Explain specifically what you think is wrong with my edits, sir. Dig out your copy of hollock & maitlkand, or (prefered) talk with me more clearly. I need some answers, sir (anarchist?).
    • More specifically: Who are the "Stake-Holders" in this common-law article? Can wikipedia experts on fiction or disneyland come over her and skuttle the good work of any of us? If not, what mechanisms are in place to discourage that from happening? How do any of know that other editors are acting on "good faith"???
    • Are you available for phone discussion, so that consensus can be achieved more efficiently? My number is 503-668-5091; & i will make myself available at any time you prefer. Sincerely; Charles ... Charles8854 12:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wikiality

try here for an incomplete and imperfect generalization of the idea i was trying to codify. Sorry the video doesn't work. /Blaxthos 05:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles8854's Record of "Objection to Removal by "Thirty-seven" of Charles8854's contribution to this Common-Law web-page" (as posted by myself in "Thirty-seven"'s personal talk page).

I further see that you have seen fit to Alter my latest contribution to Wikipedia's "Common-Law" web page. I see you only identify your self by the fictional name "Thirty-seven".

You have removed my contribution to this common-law web page without giving me the courtesy of discussing any possible errors in my research. You have left no feedback in the common-law "Talk Page"; you have left no feedback in my personal web page; and so far as i am aware, you have made no other good-faith efforts to communicate with me.

It appears to me that you have committed "Vandalism" against my contribution to Wikipedia's "Common-Law" web-page.

I have asked all others who are in any manner concerned with these issues, to involve themselves in this controversy, and to render public common-law judgement in their own words, concerning the merits of whether or not your editing removal of my text was "Justified", in this abrupt & un-discussed manner.

I will provide my personal phone number & email address, upon request, to you, if you evidence any good-faith efforts to resolve this controversy.

Wikipedai rules declare that we are to "Assume Good Faith" & that "No Personal Attacks" should be made. I see you made an attack against my personal work her by assertting that my work was "uncited", "unsourced", and composed with "poor writing", & a few other derogatory comments which attack my personal work through words the meaning of which i do not comprehend.

I am really up-set that you, who refuse to identify yourself with your real name, can come in here and gut my good work, without so much as any discussion at all of the merits of that gutting. I really do seek to resolve this controversy with you.

Please state clearly, & precisely, what you think is wrong with my contribution to the common-law web page.

Please do this in a timely manner, or put my editorial contribution back on that common-law web-page.

Sincerely,

Charles Bruce, Stewart Charles8854 13:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Charles8854 13:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attack

This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent personal attacks, as at Talk:Common_law#Gate_Keeping, will not be tolerated. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.. /Blaxthos 03:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I see you still refuse to address the merits of my accusations that you are prejudicially removing my posts. I see you threaten to block me from any more posts here at Wikipedia for my objections to your admitted by silence gate-keeping. I see you scoff at my admonition that the supreme being of the universe takes note of your abusive practices against the common people. Jesus/Yeshuah was crucified for his labeling of the abusers of the poor and the children of darkness as the serpents and off-spring of vipers which they were. Do what you will, child of darkness. Charles8854 12:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey, there!

Hey, there! I see you seem to be in a bit of a dispute over the Common law article. I see that in this edit you seem to be objecting to a particular user's choice of username, and that you went on to ask "Why should you risk all of that tumbling down around your shoulders, when you can just continue slamming doors in the faces of good-faith commoners like myself, who obviously have no respect for your babylonian-whore/capitalist financed aristocratic education; Correct?", finally adding "Do what you will, child of darkness."

Please try to assume good faith and remember that everyone here is committed to making the encyclopedia the best resource possible -- we won't always agree on how to make that happen, but the common goal unifies us and holds the community together. It's important to keep a cool head in tense situations, and avoid uncivil or even hostile language, which only hold back from proper discussion of the issues at hand. If you need assistance, you might consider making a post at requests for third opinion, or at the village pump. Beyond that, please familiarize yourself with the dispute resolution process and try to work things out peacefully with your fellow editors. Thank you for your time! Regards, Luna Santin 23:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Luna: I thank you for your efforts at "peace keeping" here. To your points:
I only object to fictional user-names when there is no indication on the users home page of who he really is; and when he hides behind that mask to destroy other peoples efforts at accomplishing good work here at Wikipedia.
I did make the judgemental comments to which you note; but please note further that i have argued in support of those judgemental comments that: judgement of negative social behavior is generally a socially beneficial activity, and that it needs to be encouraged, rather than discouraged. If more people would stand up and denounces liars and bullies for the social mis-fits which they really are; then they would naturally become embarrassed in the public eye for their anti-social and counter-productive behavior, and there would then be a whole lot less of it, which in-turn would make everyones lives a whole lot better.
Please note i have "tried to assume good faith"; but that such "assumptions" are only capable of being made by reasonable people, when there is Room for "Reasonable Doubt" concerning whether or not "Good Faith" is even a possible motive for the perpetrator in question.
I note from your impressively detailed user/talk-page (very commendable), that you are only 20 years old. Please note that i am 52 years old. Please note further that i do recognize that neither personal integrity nor intelligence are directly increased by by increased age. But please note also that, by mere length of years, that even the most intelligent and honorable young person may possibly just not be aware of the realities of the universe which have been made rudely manifest to similarly honorable and intelligent people who have had those cold-hard-realities beat-into-them through simply their greater length of years on this planet.
You state that " everyone here is committed to making the encyclopedia the best resource possible", and that this "common goal unifies us and holds the community together". I respectfully suggest, that, your proposition assumes that this Wikipedia community is immune from the powerful influence of the "Forces of Evil" on this planet. Now i am confused, so please clarify: Do you actually believe that there is "No Such Thing" as "Evil" on this planet? If so; perhaps that minority view is a conversation we can engage in at length later. But i suspect that you are similar to most people, and that you do not deny the reality that There Is "Evil" in this planet.
Now if you do admit that there is "Evil" on this planet; then please inform me of Why you consider, that, some-how, this powerful net information-flow technology here at Wikipedia, is some-how "Immune" from these "Forces of Evil". That seems to be the clear import of your above words to me here.
But if you will allow me to respectfully point-out that your 20-year-old perspective, could use just a bit broader vision, to high-light its internal-inconsistencies, especially when attempting to fulfill your obviously noble calling in conflict-resolution; then i do believe both of our efforts here at resolving this particular issue will find much more fertile ground for actually accomplishing the goals of peace and harmony which we both seem to affirm to support.
I do appreciate your direction to the "third opinion", village pump", and "dispute resolution" links. I will spend some more time there, if Blaxthos or some other person does not summarily lock me out of Wikipedia here.
Please note further; that if your spirit is as pure as it appears; that i am truly impressed by your young and courageous involvement in this controversy. If your motives are truly pure, and your brain is minimally-functional; i will go to great lengths to maintain your respect.
Yhwh's will be done.
Charles Bruce, Stewart; Sandy Oregon; Charles8854 06:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LaRouche Mediation

Thanks for your note. Please understand that I am not soliciting support for LaRouche's ideas, or condemnation of his critics; I am asking that this biographical article conform to the Wikipedia BLP policy, and that LaRouche's ideas be presented clearly and without distortion. I am also concerned about problems with WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, with respect to some of the more extreme criticism in the article. --Tsunami Butler 23:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Tsunami; I did not intend my last words to you to be taken as direct support of Mr LaRouche. I only intended for my words to show to you that i am fully aware of the powerfully organized efforts to destroy the good work of basically honorable modern Americans like LaRouche; & that here-under, you may have reasonable grounds to hope that i will render my public-opinions in such manners as truly honorably address your concerns over the un-justifiable subversive editings of the Wikipedia LaRouche article, which do appear to me, at first glance here, to be taking place.
I do hope to work with you in insuring that purposeful subversion of this and other articles will soon become a thing of the past. It will take organized efforts by such honorable people as us, if such realities are to come true.
Also please note: I find that these web-based communication are very cumbersome and inefficient. I think our communication needs would be better served if we used traditional email. If you can send me an email, at my email-address of charles@constitutionalgov.us , i will respond, & hopefully, we can work more efficiently work towards our common goals.
Sincerely; Charles8854 18:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LaRouche Mediation 2

Before coming to a conclusion, I would advise reviewing more about LaRouche. For example, the conspiracy theorist designation is incredibly well documented. (Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche#Category:Conspiracy_theorists ). LaRouche has written that the September 11th attack was an attempted military coup to take over the U.S. government. Following the charter of Category:Conspiracy theorists, actively defending a September 11th conspiracy theory is a valid reason to be included in the conspiracy theorist category. For another primer, I would consider this article in the Washington Post [1].

Mgunn; I believe i am already fairly knowledgeable of LaRouche. I know he is among the more active "Conspiracy Theorists". I see no social benefit to having a category called "Conspiracy theorists". I think it only serves to prejudice the public against legitimate whistle-blowers. I believe everyone with an IQ over 70 is a "Conspiracy Theorist", including my-self, & your-self. For example, everyone agrees that the 11-Sept-01 disaster was the result of a "Conspiracy". Most, who seem to conveniently escape the "Conspiracy Theorist" label, theorize that a few radical muslums with box-cutters accomplished the entire event. Others theorize that it was an "inside-job", accomplished by elements inside of & surrounding the bush administration. And true, the LaRouche theory does seem to be an even different conspiracy-theory, which i am inclined against.
I like your words, in your link to the LaRouche talk-page, that conspiracy-theories are not inherently "point-of-view". That was a good choice of words.

I would take comments from Tsunami Butler with some level of skeptecism. A number of Tsunami Butler's edits have been simply factually inaccurate (others have been misleading). Tsunami Butler is a LaRouche follower who edits nothing but the article on Lyndon LaRouche and related articles. While many of his edits are good, his modus operandi is to work within the rules of Wikipedia to puff LaRouche up and whitewash negative facts as much as possible. Just to name a few, he's posted on WP:Living noticeboard, opened an arbitration request, and put comments on the talk page of Jimbo Wales. On the other hand, Dennis King, though a LaRouche critic, is a published author on LaRouche and has written numerous articles in newspapers and magazines. I think anyone will extremely hard pressed to dispute any of Dennis King's statements on LaRouche. Mgunn 07:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I will watch Tsunami Butler's words closely. I will not support anything that is not "proven beyond a reasonable doubt", from, her, you, or anyone else. I thought i saw a reference by Tsunami Butler to having a "Husband". Are you sure this individual is a "He"? Also; i can not find "WP:Living noticeboard" or "WP:Living". Do you have a link?
Also; i see nothing wrong with making significant waves, if and when confronted by gate-keepers who obstruct the truth. Now of course, if Tsunami is advancing the discussion away form the truth, then he/she needs to be confronted directly & firmly about that. But if Tsunami is just being beat-up-on by powerfully influential gate-keepers here at Wikipedia, which i have experienced here first-hand & personally; well then i am sorry, but i am going to be very slow to criticize anything which he/she does, at least until the more pressing problem concerning the establishmentarianist gate-keeping is more fully addressed.
Also; perhaps "Dennis King" is a good writer on LaRouche. I am unfamiliar with his work. But i note from his Wikipedia page that he works closely with "Chip Berlet". It is my experience that "Chip Berlet" is un-credible, as is the "Southern Poverty Law Center" which he works with. There are a lot of very seriously negative-karma people in this world; &, at least so far, Tsunami Butler & Lyndon LaRouche are fairly low on my list of negative-karma concerns.
To be clear, i do welcome your communication. It does seem that, perhaps, we may be moving in differing directions; but i also know that very frequently, first impressions can be false impressions. I invite you to communicate more efficiently with me at my personal email-address of charles@constitutionalgov.us . I find this web-interface cumbersome & inefficient. Respectfully; Charles8854 19:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How the latest dispute started

The dispute initially started when I removed this text from the lead (I had never edited the LaRouche article before) and was repeatedly reverted by LaRouche supporters:

He is reported to be highly regarded in Russia [1] and China, [2]

This is obvious LaRouche puffery, and the references don't even get close to justifying the claim. (You could not say "David Duke is highly regarded in the U.S." and then cite some nutty David Duke supporter that says he is a leading US politician.) Furthermore, the first citation is from LaRouche material (suspect, especially given the outcome of the previous LaRouche arbcom case) and the second citation simply doesn't say what LaRouche supporters say it says. Mgunn 07:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Mgunn; from your limited-context quote, this does seem to be "LaRouche puffery". But i see it is no longer on the LaRouche web page, & if Tsunami Butler does not wish to make an issue of it, i see no reason to dwell on it further. And from this lack of context, i see no reason to comment on your note concerning poor source material. Hopefully we all can interact on more pressing issues soon. I will say that i consider Mr LaRuche to be fairly close to David Duke in credibility; & that, in my view, both of these men are approximately twice as credible as "Chip Berlet".
Regards; Charles8854 19:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

At this point, things seem to have degenerated into a revert war. Please intervene. --Tsunami Butler 01:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Tsunami: I reviewed the last sections of the LaRouche talk page, which seems to be your focus. But i am having problems grasping the essence of the controversy. IN efforts to bring me up to speed efficiently, please send me a private email; to: charles@constitutionalgov.us . There-in; please direct me towards specific text in controversy, & tell me the essence of the solution which you seek form me. If that is too cumbersome, send me your phone number, & a time when you will be available to receive my call. Charles8854 20:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Duke???

David Duke, who gave the keynote speech at the Holocaust denial conference in Teheran last month, is twice as credible as Chip Berlet???? I think you just lost your credibility, Charles.--Dking 03:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr King: You seem of the opinion that there is only one singe camp of people who are sufficiently organized to judge "Credibility" of notable figures or authors here at Wikipedia. You seem quite comfortable Defending the Status-Quo of the deceptively-named "Anti-Defamation League", & of the "Imperial State", as "Ace Hayes" so described, in the "Portland Free Press".
http://www.geocities.com/berlet_archive/ace.htm
I admit that "David Duke" is less than perfect; but his participation in the "Holocaust Truth Conference" in Teheran last month was a noble event, & Mr Duke has numerous other "redeeming virtues", unlike your "left-wing gate-keeper" partner-in-crime, "Chip Berlet".
To summarize: Neither You nor your ADL co-conspirator-subversives are the "Final Arbitrators" of "Credibility", Mr King. You are nothing more than morally-compromised political-hacks for the imperial defacto-state; & your tower of babylonian slave-trading oppression is crumbling around you & your fellow gate-keepers every-where. Your personal judgement as-to my "Credibility" merely serves to confirm that my words concerning these two men are placing me on the correct & honorable side in this political/legal/spiritual battle.
Yes; David Duke is Twice as Credible as Chip Berlet.
Charles8854 13:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legal Threats

Your recent edits could give other users the impression that you may consider legal or other 'off-wiki' action against them. Please note that this is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats are often blocked indefinitely until their legal case is withdrawn or resolved. Please try to keep a cool head and work positively with other editors. Thanks. DXRAW

Your recent edits could give other users the impression that you may consider legal or other 'off-wiki' action against them. Please note that this is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats are often blocked indefinitely until their legal case is withdrawn or resolved. Please try to keep a cool head and work positively with other editors. Thanks. DXRAW 09:01, 13 January 2007

"DXRAW"; your recent comment above could also give others the impression that you are a moral-prostitute/gate-keeper; at least in part because the universe is full of abysmally-stupid people who might consider any insane proposition to be true. In contrast to the multitudes of abysmally-stupid people on this planet, I would like to believe differently about you. Please give me some tangible evidence for so believing.
Please note, i have made no clear threats against anyone, & i do not intend to do so.
If you have a specific quotation where i have made such a threat, then quote it here; & if credible, i will apologize for it & retract it.
I know "Law"; & if i ever decide to institute any legal action against anyone, i will simply do it, & i will not waste may time or energy making stupid threats.
The world is full of stupid noise-makers, &/or malicious evil-conspiring imperialist gate-keepers. On the surface, you appear to be among this generally negative social-behavior group. Who the hell are you? I looked at your page, & i see no clear declaration of who you are, or where you live, or how to contact you to discuss these concerns more respectfully or fluidly. You are only here placing personal slander innuendos against me on my personal talk-page; all from the security of your darkly-veiled & anonymously secretive & totally un-accountable ivory-tower. You have effectively insulated your-self from any long-term liability or accountability for your un-accountable & apparently negative gate-keeping-intended words against me here. My only available response seems to be through these harsh words, or similarly responding to you by also slandering you on your personal talk-page. I am not going to sink to that level; & i wish you would show the same respect to me, please.
My recent posts have given my email-address. You could have contacted me through private email, instead of publicly slandering me on my talk-page here.
Why do you not respond to the merits of my accusations of "Gate-Keeping" here at Wikipedia? Are you at all concerned for the American soldiers who are daily loosing their lives simply because we can not find solutions to the problems facing modern society? Is there any other modern social-justice problem facing the people of this planet which at all concerns you? Has your conscience been completely lobotomized? Do you even recognize that There Are "Evil People" on this planet? Why else would American soldiers be over in Iraq Killing People, unless they were there for (at least the colorable) purpose of Killing only "Evil People"? What about the 11-Sept-2001 disaster? Do not you agree that who-ever actually perpetrated that disaster were "Evil People"?
If you agree that there are these "Evil People" on this planet, then what makes you think they are not having at least some influence here at Wikipedia? What makes you think that we must exist here as one big happy family, & that we are not naturally going to be having some serious arguments, & that as we inventory those among us who are truly seeking Naturally-Conscionable "Justice", some dis-respectful (un-civil) arguments are going to flare?
("Respect" is a better word than the problematic-word "Civility", because "Civility" is a Roman Imperialistic word, which is related to that nation's ancient Slave-Trading practices. Here-under, the word "Civil" denotes the "Servile" or "Submissive" position of Slaves, & it technically has nothing to do not the "Respect" which Free Americans should treat each others as "Equals".)
I agree that "Respect" Should Be Sought at "All Reasonable Junctures". But there are times & places, when our American People need to recognize that the "Pathway of Peace" is no longer capable of leading to "Peace", simply because the other people involved in the discussion have been "Proven Beyond All Reasonable Doubt" to be absolutely & positively seeking only their own total dominance & control over our American people.
In these situations, All Reasonable People are fully capable of recognizing that "The Path-Way of Peace" has become "Exhausted"; & that there is no longer any "Justification" for any further "Respectful" communication with the hostile people on the other-side of the discussion. At this point "Mutual Respect" has Totally Broken-Down, not because of the lack of efforts at such respectful-communication by the first-group in question, but because of the Frequent, Repetitive, & Artfully Deceptive "Bad-Faith Communications" from the second party in question.
From a different angle, people who enter into public discussions while posturing as being concerned for the welfare of the community (Wikipedia, America, the world) have "Duties" there-in to Engage in "Good-Faith Discussion" the Specific Elements of the Issues in question. "Smoke & Mirrors" Posturing as being concerned is not sufficient "Just Cause" for jumping-in & mucking-up the discussion. Useless Noise-Making is Obstructive of Honorable Resolution of the Concerns. Those who have nothing significantly constructive to lend to the discussion need to "Sit Down and Shut Up".
To the current concern; if you are mentally-capable of engaging in these socially-responsible discussions, then Support Your Accusation against me of my alleged "Un-Justifiable Dis-Respect" of others, with Clear and Efficient Specific Real-World Evidence, And Also to my Related Counter-Claim Issue of "Gate-Keeping". Make this Response in a "Wholistic" manner, addressing responsibly All Elements bearing on your alleged "Justification" for your accusation against me.
Other-wise, stay away form my talk-page.
Charles8854 03:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Charles, You recent edits gave me the impression that you might of been thinking legal or other 'off-wiki' action against other editors so i thought of nipping that in the bud before it happend & a possible block for you.

I know "Law"; & if i ever decide to institute any legal action against anyone, i will simply do it, & i will not waste may time or energy making stupid threats.

Your quoted text can also be taken as a legal or other 'off-wiki' action.
To answer your question of "Who the hell are you?" i am DXRAW You said that you could not find a way to contact me. On the top of my userpage & user talk page there is a link which says Please click here to leave me a new message.
I know that you have given your email address but i rather use the talk pages as that is what they are here for. I do not see how i have slandered you. All i did was use a template that was available to stop a possible problem. If that template was slanderous then i'm sure the Wikipedia community would have it removed. I have not made Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation or A false and malicious statement or report about someone.
Also with your last line of "Other-wise, stay away form my talk-page." I feel that this shows a lack of Assuming good faith which is part of one of the five pillars that define Wikipedia's character. Also don't forget to Stay cool when the editing gets hot DXRAW 10:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Dxraw; (starting from the top of your last message to me) you said basically that you were concerned about how you were interpreting my messages here, & that you were trying to keep me from being blocked. Please note that i do not care how you are "Interpreting" my messages. Wikipedia policy is specifically Only Concerned about people making "Threats" of legal action. I have not made any such "Threats". Further; I do not need to hear about your "Impressions", and i do not need any favors from you like this. Also; I am adequately prepared for any un-American or dis-honorable gate-keeping practices which come at me from any ivory-tower gate-keepers lurking here at Wikipedia. Your help in these areas is Not Desired. You are Not Helping here. I do not appreciate your fear-mongering. I will be thanking you to keep all such negative fear-mongering commentary off of my talk-page, sir.
Please note that your "recent edits" here, you are giving me "the Impression that you Might of been Thinking of legal or other 'off-wiki' action" against me or other editors". Yup, by golly, from your words, i got the "Impression" that you Might be Thinking of that. Are you sure you were not Thinking of that? I certainly got the "Impression" that you were Thinking of that. You really were Thinking of that, weren't you?? Come on, Admit it! Less sarcastically; I am Not Responsible for Your "Impressions". I see No Mention of the word "Impression" on the "No Legal Threats" page. If it is there, please quote it to me specifically; & point me towards where it appears, clearly. Your use of the word "Impression" appears to me to be a Bad-Faith Gate-Keeping Weasel-Word.
In your next paragraph, I note that you do quote some of my most recent text here-in above as allegedly implying that i am Threatening to take "a Legal or other 'off-wiki' action". Please note first that this does Not Support your first accusation, because your first accusation against me was composed before this last text of mine which you now quote. Please note secondly that Wikipedia Policy Only Prohibits "Threats" of Legal or off-wiki action. I am not required to give up my Rights as an American to seek Justice in the courts of this land, merely because i am a participant here at Wikipedia. I am Only Required to Refrain from Making "Threats" to use the courts against any-one here at Wikipedia, and i have complied 100 % with that directive. Again; If You Have Reasonable Evidence to the Contrary, Quote It Here !!! Please note that I do Not want to hear your fear-mongering terror-engendering negative-energy propaganda. If you have a specific complaint to make against me, with some tangible Evidence to back-it-up; then Make Your Accusation !!! Other-wise, keep your negative fear-mongering energy to your-self, & off of my talk-page .
Your next main point is seeking to justify your secretive policy of refusing to identify clearly who you are or where you live or which email address you use. Your only on-point there was that you do not like to give an email address, because you prefer to use the talk-pages, because "that is what they are here for ". That is a weasel-excuse; sir. That evades the essence of my redundantly-repeated counter-complaints of Secretive "Sniper-Attacks" & "Gate-Keeping" going on form others here at Wikipedia, possibly including your-self. How do i know that you are not anything more than a "Sock-Puppet" for "Dennis King", or "Blaxthos", or some of the other gate-keepers here at Wikipedia? I live in Sandy Oregon. I am one of two Charles Stewarts in the phone book. I am Easy to Identify, if i should Dare to Operate in "Bad Faith", & any such negative activity by me can be attached to me for the rest of my life !! Who Are You ??? What is Your Negative Liability if You Operate in "Bad Faith"??? You can just shed your "Dxraw" legal-fiction identification like last years snake-skin. You are facing Zero Negative Liability for Your Gate-Keeping Negative Propaganda Against Me here.
There-after, you say that you just used a "Wikipedia Template" "to stop a possible problem". Please note that You Have "No Justification" for "Stopping 'Possible Problems'". There are Billions of "Possible Problems" on this planet! Go "Get a Life"! Is that what your calling is here at Wikipedia, in "Stopping Possible Problems"??? Is that the best thing you can find to do with your limited time-energy recourses??? I think "Gate-Keeping" is a much more likely explanation for the fear-mongering and slanderous implications of your words. Please note i have Not "Threatened" any-one. Further, i do Not even Intend to "Threaten" any-one, with any legal-action or with any other off-wiki repercussions. I have said that before. Are You Deaf ??? Or do you just Enjoy Slandering & Harassing Me ???
Although the "Wikipedia Template" Warning which you sent to me is worded very dysfunctionally; in itself, it is not "Slanderous". But this all changes when there is "No Reasonable Evidence" for posting such a Warning on a persons talk-page. Under these conditions, it then does become "Slanderous". It becomes a Tool of Fear-Mongering, Terrorizing, and Gate-Keeping. And i get the very clear "Impression" that this precisely what you are up to.
Further, to quote from the bottom of the Talk-Page for "Assume Good Faith", the 10-Jan-07 words of "Centrx": "People often tell others to "not be a m:dick' as though referring to some sort of 'official' essay excuses incivility, much in the same way that people accuse others of not assuming good faith by throwing in a link to WP:AGF, which is itself not assuming good faith." This is the same point which i am making here. When you make accusations against me of threatening legal action against other Wikipedians, then You are Not Assuming that I am Acting in "Good Faith".
Here-under; i assert that You Dxraw, have Knowingly & Willfully Made "False Statements Injurious to (my) Reputation" and a "False Report" about me. You said that my "recent edits could give other users the impression that (i) may consider legal or other 'off-wiki' action against them". Then, in your most recent post above, you said that you personally had received that impression from some of my earlier text, some-where. I note with pleasure that You Neither Quote any Specific Text from my keyboard which lends any Reasonable Evidence in support of your first original accusation against me, Nor do you Identify any other Wikipedian who has been so allegedly traumatized by my text. I assert that your first such accusation is categorically "False", and that it is "Injurious to (my) Reputation". Either Produce the Specific Text which i allegedly earlier wrote which allegedly causes you this trauma, or back-off and quit posting your Bad-Faith Assumptions against my clearly-written & clearly non-threatening words here at Wikipedia.
You end by Accusing Me of Not Assuming Good Faith, and of Not keeping a Cool Head. Why dont you save those accusations until after I am over posting messages on Your Personal Talk-Page and Accusing You Publicly of Giving Me the "Impression" that "Maybe", Possibly, You are Thinking about taking "legal action" against me. Until then, i will be thanking you to just keep your negative, fear-mongering, and gate-keeping propaganda to your-self.
Charles8854 19:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Charles, Because i can see you do not want to follow Wikipedia policy i will cease contact with you. DXRAW 20:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Dxraw (or what-ever your name really is); i see that You Still Refuse to Support your Slander Against Me (this time alleging that i "refuse to follow Wikipedia policy") with Any Specific Citations. This looks to me to be an "Admission by Default", in response to my previous & related accusation, that, you are nothing more than a "Gate-Keeper", and possible a "Sock-Puppet" for the other Bad-Faith Ivory-Tower Gate-Keepers here at Wikipedia.
Here-under, i welcome your assertion that you "will cease contact with" me further. I am so glad that we have finally come to a clear understanding. Charles8854 22:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Also i find you wanting to personally contact myself & other editors stalkish. DXRAW 21:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not give a rip what you "Find", Gate-Keeper. Again, if you have Specific Allegations Against Me; then Make Your Accusations, Clearly ! Other-wise; just stay the heck off of my talk-page. Charles8854 22:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indefinitely Blocked (05:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Your blatant and constant disregard for basic wikipedia policies in the form of No personal attacks, Civility and No legal threats, not to mention that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, have earned you an indefinite block. Have a nice day.Circeus 05:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems that i can still edit my own talk-page Charles8854 02:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Circus; i see you do not specify precisely which of my sentences are allegedly "In Disregard of Wikipedia Policy". I see you do not engage on my counter-allegations that i am surrounded by moral-prostitute gate-keepers. You look to be just another evil-empire gate-keeper also. If not, why do you evade engaging in open discussion of my counter-arguments of gate-keeping? You would not survive five minutes in truly open debate. Have a nice day in hell, you gate-keeping ass. Charles8854 02:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/a/User_talk%7ECharles8854_e8bb.html"