User talk:Agwiii

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Agwiii, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Spinboy 17:52, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

- == Fathers' rights page == - - I was very interested in the piece you contributed about Lenin's attempts to abolish the family. I actually moved your piece and put it in an article of its own Russian_Communist_attempt_to_abolish_the_family, which somebody had put up in a vote for deletion. If you have more material on this topic, please let me know. Matt Stan 00:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) - - ==No text== - Hi. I appreciate what you're doing, but please don't make pages with no text but a stub message. Put what you know about the subject on these pages. If you don't know anything, please don't create the page in the first place. Howabout1 00:22, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) - - == Fathers' rights page == - - Matt - I have a gread deal more about the Russian origins of the no-fault divorce. Have you read "No-Fault Divorce: Born in the Soviet Union" by Donald AL Bolas? This was published in the Journal of Family Law, Volume Fourteen, Number One. Email me if you have questions. Agwiii 04:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) - - ==No text== - - This is what happens when you run out of time and want to complete the links. I had planned to return and provide more than a stub. Agwiii 04:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) - - == Your entry on VIP == - - Hi Agwiii. I saw your entry on Vandalism in progress. I don't know if you had a chance to read the directions at the top of the page, but political hijacking and and three-revert rule violations don't belong there, only actual repeated vandalism. In particular, please see the "Cautions and alternatives" section at the top. Three-revert rule violations may be reported at WP:AN/3RR. - - I tried looking through User:SqueakBox's contributions, but didn't find any actual vandalism as defined in Wikipedia:Vandalism, so I'm going to remove your entry. If he has performed as defined on that page, feel free to relist, but please provide diffs with the actual vandalism, since it is not obvious. Feel free to ask me any questions. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:36, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) - - == Harassment == - - Please stop this campaign of haraasment against SqueakBox. The evidence of your respective behaviour is a matter of record, and simply doesn't support your claims. You're not only making yourself look rather silly, and irritating other Wikipedians, but you're getting close to being disciplined for making improper accusations against another editor. Note also that we're not a nation of laws, we're an international encyclopædia. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) - - == Threats == - - Hello, Agwiii. I've carefully looked over all the contributions that both you and Squakbox have made recently, and I've noticed a couple of things. First, your reactions are somewhat disproportionate to Squeakbox's actions. Second, at least one of the articles that you are both trying to improve, abortion, is one that is often very emotionally charged – you wouldn't be the first person to let their passions get the better of them. Also, keep in mind that you're not the only person that edits the same series of pages: disagreeing with you in more than one place does not necessarily mean that you're being dogged. - - == Threats == - - Hi Mel Etitis. I know your intentions are honorable, but please stop contributing to the pattern of harassment by Squeakbox. - - * He has been dogposting me for days. - - * His most recent violation of Wikipedia was to change my words on a Talk page. - - * He follows me (that is called stalking or cyberstalking) and makes edits solely for the purpose of harassment. - - Pointing out violations of the law is not harassment, nor it is threatening. I am a Florida resident, and protected by the laws of my state. Squeakbox my not be in Florida, but his behavior remains in violation, and he is a Cyberstalker. - - In Florida Statutes 784.048(1)(d), Florida has now (October 2003) defined the crime of "Cyberstalking". - - 784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.-- - - (1) As used in this section, the term: - - - (a) "Harass" means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose. - - (b) "Course of conduct" means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct." Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests. - - - (c) "Credible threat" means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person. - - - (d) "Cyberstalk" means to engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose. - - (2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. - - (N.B. 775.082 (4) A person who has been convicted of a designated misdemeanor may be sentenced as follows: (a) For a misdemeanor of the first degree, by a definite term of imprisonment not exceeding 1 year; - - (3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person's child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. - - - (4) Any person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence or dating violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person or that person's property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. - - - (5) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks a minor under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. (6) Any law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person he or she has probable cause to believe has violated the provisions of this section. Signed ==> Agwiii 17:31, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Your obsessive reproduction of irrelevant law in inapropriate places is part of what I was referring to above; I have deleted it from my talk page.
  1. There is no evidence of SqueakBox hrassing you in the way that you claim.
  2. Florida Law is not terribly relevant to those outside the United States (you do know that there a world out here?).
  3. Making legal threats against fellow editors – which, despite your somewhat weak attempts at sophistry, are what you're making – are not acceptable.
  • I can only repeat my comments above, but it's increasingly clear that you're not prepared or able to heed them. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Reply to Mel

I'm sorry Mel, but Squeak box did edit my words on a TALK page. That is a 'no no' on Wikipedia, is it not? Let's talk about philosophy. The Internet is a planetary phenomenon, and one of the problems that we all have are the SPAMMERS, people that create VIRUSES, etc. I'm sure you understand and agree. International Law, National Law, and State Law define the locus of the crime as the unit that will have jurisdiction. For example, if you and your wife visted Florida and there was a public altercation between the two of you, you could be arrested for Domestic Violence. Your due process rights would be upheld, but you would be responsible to the laws of Florida. Cyberstalking laws work the same way. The fact that Squeakbox is in the UK, or any other place, is not exculpatory. Squeakbox is cyberstalking me. Are you excusing his behavior? Agwiii 17:50, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what any of the above has to do with philosophy, but let's stick to facts. I have already said that there is no evidence that he's doing any such thing, nor have you supplied evidence in the form of Diffs — you've just repeated the claim. On the other hand, you have made unsubstantiated claims against him in a number of places, most of them inappropraite, such as 'Vandalism in progress'. Moreoever, I have just discovered that you have removed a VfD notice from an article that you created, before the debate and voting was complete. Moreover you did so in an edit marked 'm'. You are getting perilously close to vandalism, and you have already made personal attacks. I strongly advise you to calm down — perhaps stop editing for a while until you regain some sense of proportion. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nothing but the facts

Indeed Mel, let us stick to the facts.

  • Squeakbox is dog posting me.
  • Squeakbox changed my words on a TALK page.
  • If the Vfd on the Ron Branson page was removed by me, it was a mistake. The history of the votes and the discussion of same is there. Mea culpa if that was my mistake. The Ron Branson page is a red herring with respect to Squeakbox's changing my words on a TALK page. If I mistakenly removed the Vfd, that has nothing to do with having my words on a TALK page edited.

Signed ==> Agwiii 18:07, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC) :Agwiii, can you provide any evidence of Squeakbox modifiying your comment? If you could provide some diffs it would be much more helpful, rather than simply repeating your claims. Also, have you considered following the steps at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? It seams to me that mediation might help you and Squeakbox. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No threats

Hello, Agwiii. I've carefully looked over all the contributions that both you and Squakbox have made recently, and I've noticed a couple of things. First, your reactions are somewhat disproportionate to Squeakbox's actions. Second, at least one of the articles that you are both trying to improve, abortion, is one that is often very emotionally charged – you wouldn't be the first person to let their passions get the better of them. Also, keep in mind that you're not the only person that edits the same series of pages: disagreeing with you in more than one place does not necessarily mean that you're being dogged. Finally, I know that you say that you're not making legal threats when you point out the Florida statute on cyberstalking, but in this edit, when you claim "I will see the law is enforced", you are making a legal threat. One editor to another, I think that you should just try to relax, maybe take a break for a day or two, and consider whether the two of you simply disagree on a few pages. Hope everything turns out well, ClockworkSoul 17:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi ClockworkSoul! Thanks for your very kind and wise words. In New York City in the 1960s, Kitty Genovese was stabbed to death on the sidewalk in front of her apartment. She was repeatedly stabbed by the stalker. She cried out to her neighbors and they closed their windows. Squeakbox's dog posting and changing my words on a TALK page are similar (but in no way as severe) as the stalker/mugger who killed Kitty. Walking away when we're right is simply not what good American citizens do. Agwiii 17:42, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
Hello again, Agwiii. I genuinely appreciate how you feel in this, and it always pains me to see disagreements turn ugly. I know that I'm not directly involved here, and of course you're free to ignore me, but as a neutral observer that essentially only knows both of you through your contribution history, I think that you may be approaching this the wrong way. If you genuinely feel wronged by another user, the best way to go about it is to be as rational as possible. You studied law for a bit, you probably know all too well that a person that over-presses their point is often ignored or worse, regardless of whether they're "right". Again, I'm just hoping to help a little bit, and I hope everything turns out well. – ClockworkSoul 17:52, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Just a quick followup: Wikipedia has a standard series of steps to resolve disputes like these. You may want to take a look at it: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. – ClockworkSoul 18:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cyberstalking Statute

I understand that you would prefer for Squeakbox to stop reverting your edits. I read the FL statute (I'm a 2L), but from a purely legal standpoint, I have serious doubts that he has done anything "causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose." While I am certain that you do not like Squeakbox's edits, I am fairly certain nothing he has done could cause substantial emotional distress. Even if you could make a case that the rather subjective substantial emotional distress test is met, his legitimate purpose is to maintain neutrality on Wikipedia. Regardless, there is a jurisdictional issue, since Squeakbox is not in the United States (I don't remember enough of first semester Civil Procedure to articulate exactly why, however). What school are you affiliated with? Your user page indicates that you have rather impressive credentials, and I'm just curious. Thanks. - Jersyko 19:34, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image tags

I took the liberty of looking at the images you uploaded, and noticed you forgot to state in two of them that the copyright owner has authorized their use on wikipedia: Image:Smile 2.jpg and Image:Ron Branson.jpg. Also, it would be very helpful if you went back to the four images you uploaded and added the proper copyright tags from the list at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags; they are useful for automated processing (for instance, some of the images will have to be excluded from a possible upcoming DVD distribution of Wikipedia). They can also avoid ambiguities (each one of them has a well-defined meaning). cesarb 19:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agwiii Here you crossed out my edit at Talk:Abortion. Don't do it again, --SqueakBox 21:06, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

No user is allowed to make legal threats against another user and continue to edit Wikipedia. This is a well-established precedent, and if you continue, you will be blocked from editing. RickK 21:37, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

If you are a member of the "good old boys clique, don't contact me.

What's a good old boys clique? BrokenGyro 21:58, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

+ This User has deleted his account.

-
+

-

If you do want to contact me, send me an email by selecting "E-mail this user.

+

- + - + - One herding trait obvious in political behavior is caucusing in exclusive cliques. Cliques organize human behavior by relieving their members of reasoning for themselves: The group's dominant members determine the beliefs, values, and behaviors of all the members. This is agreeably efficient, for each clique requires only one mind. Indeed, typical humans carry this characteristic over to larger groups: mobs and political parties. Clique mentality probably indicates a natural limit on the size of human flocks. That is, typical humans can't comprehend huge herds as collections of individuals. To distinguish friends from foes, they must rely on uniforms, if not literal, then figurative--e.g., religion, ethnicity, or skin color. + - + - http://www.enformy.com/$politic.html


This User has deleted his account.

Image:Ron Branson.jpg is up for deletion as a possible copyright violation; see Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion#April 11. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet letter

It appears that RexJudicata (talk • contribs) created Agwiii (talk • contribs) as a sockpuppet in order to give him some support at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Uniform Parental Rights Enforcement and Protection Act. Rex created the article at 9.12 on April 1 here. DJ Clayworth Vfd'd it 6 minutes later [1] At 11.14 Agwiii makes his 1st ever edit here with Rex coming back in here at 12.15. Here RexJudicata mentions and the elimination of Lenin's creation, the 'no fault' divorce.. Here Agwiii cretaes an article on this subject. They have very similar interests, and both supported the father's rights being POV'd into Abortion. Agwiii being a sockpuppet would also explain why he was so paranoid about having his contributions investigated, --SqueakBox 20:32, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Parents Without Rights

An editor has nominated Parents Without Rights, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parents Without Rights and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Lessman

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Thomas Lessman, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Thomas Lessman

An editor has nominated Thomas Lessman, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Lessman and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)