User talk:Neights

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "This is all fact! I have even given links to prove these copyrights and I am also the copyright holder of the mentioned copyrights as dan brown's are almost 2 years later than mine that were all online way before the Da Vinci Code's."

Decline reason: "As far as I can tell this account has not been blocked. request has been declined. — nat.utoronto 12:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "Am I the vandal that removed the links to Peter Smith(judge) page that let you see the da Vinci code's judgement? did I place unsourced unverified FACTs on his page about dan brown committing perjury aboutlinking to Pierre(plantard) all through the da Vinci code's sysnopsis? If you read judgement it was critical to the outcome as to when dan brown used the book HBHG(which is about Pierre Plantard) but dan said that he didn't use it untill after synopsis,OBVIOUSLY LIED TO THE JUDGE DIDN'T HE?...........Imagine trying to put APPERLATE into this wikipedia with these vandals and most of them are administrators who have the ability to check and to verify what I said regards to linking to over 20+ Pierres in the synopsis, and then pointing out in page 202 to 220 in judgement that even the judge himself DID NOT BELIEVE dan browns ANSWERS THAT HE GAVE TO HIM, AND IF I CANNOT PUT THIS ON HIS PAGE, WHO'S PAGE COULD I POSSIBLY PUT IT ON? AND I AM STILL BLOCKED FROM EDITING WIKI!!!!!!!!!!!"

Decline reason: "As far as I can tell from the block log, you are not directly blocked. Your edits from that other IP were not appropriate, and shared with this unblock request a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. I do not think unblocking would be wise, since it appears that you plan, if unblocked, to continue editing inappropriately. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "Do you remove links to authors books The Holy Blood Holy Grail ? NO! Do you remove links about Lewis Perdue's books? NO! Do you have articles about their copyright issues? YES! Have you even rang or enquired about the mentioned copyrights? NO! I was editing my own page just like last time I was cut off. I made more undo's yesterday and wasn't cut off, why is today different? this isn't a textual infringement! and is similiar in a artistic work is it not? the article that keeps getting removed is short and to the point! In fact it cannot be shorter, If you can make it the same and just as direct I would like to see it! You are using double standards, not even allowing me to show my copyrights like as you do to the several other authors that have been bitted by this dan brown!! The person who cut me off for defending myself didn't look at anything otherwise he would cut these vandals off who are showing their true colours and shine why they are actually deleting my posts for, but can continue."

Decline reason: "reason — you obviously need to cool off some more. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "So other editors that don't even bother to look *AND SAY SO THEMSELVES ON ADMIN PAGES* at the copyrights that are being infringed can just delete info on these pages that they have been given all the links to prove(copyrights) can just call this info crazy, and fraud and just delete it with speculation? Do you see any of them deleting HBHG which shows the authors infringement and links to their books which is on every page that I put mine on? NO YOU DON'T! Need to cool off huh! this is a walk in the park, if anyone of you tells me if I wrote a book getting permission from say, Lewis Perdue, which happens to be the same story/plot and then use Henry Lincolns BBC story's THAT FAILS TO MENTION PIERRE PLANTARD and hide and Place Pierre's all through it and use my own copyrights that connect a blade and chalice together but will be called a triangle and an upside down triangle and show on it the last supper to show hidden pictures that look like they join at the hips,(Jesus's blue, joining John's blue garments and red to red and that) SHOW THE BLADE AND CHALICE APART AND THEN FUSE THEM TOGETHER, and don't use HBHG but everything from it, and then call it fiction, that would be ok by all of you would it? NO, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD! because it would be an excact copy of The Da Vinci Code by that idiot dan brown and in your hearts would feel ok with that? While im pretending to write it, I think I wouldn't send it to randomhouse because all information that I would put in it will turn up in a book 20 years down the track with not even a word of credit but WOULD HAVE EDITED AND PUBLISHED MINE JUST LIKE HBHG, THEY PROBABLY WOULDN'T RECGOGNIZE THE SIMILARITIES OR COPYRIGHTS IN THEIR "NEW BOOK" WITH MY COPYRIGHTS IN IT DOWN THE TRACK EITHER LIKE THEY DO TO HBHG'S BOOK,"NO SIMILER STORY" THEY WOULD SAY!!!! BUT WOULD USE EVERYTHING FROM IT... FOR @#$%S SAKE, Since they are my copyrights I am allowed to use it, am I not? is everyone listening? I can see you all of you saying "yup they are your copyrights go right ahead write that book" When I said these copyrights about the blade and chalice are NOT dan brown's and am only pointing that out with my article about these copyrights that DO NOT belong to him and is all provable!! I WON'T EVEN TRY TO EXPLAIN PI.EXE TO YOU!!! Even if I change picture to a different one by another artist in my book that would still be ok aswell to use this blade chalice then star as to connect the pictures ?? NO! AGAIN IT WOULDN'T!! IF ONE OF YOU SAY I CAN DO THIS, YOU NEED THERAPY!!! As wikipedia says you can not copyright idea's or facts it's how you express them which makes all the difference, it even say's that on Wikipedia's own pages, so If your not all ok with this, then you may aswell keep blocking me because if unblocked I will continue to place that same short as piece of information on those pages untill all you admin's understand what it's about and have to verify it from the link's I have given to prove what I cite and what I am pointing out to you untill all of you understand it unless of course Wikipedia leaves this in them pages that promote my copyrights, I don't want to but I will try to remove anything that even sniff's at pointing towards these copyrights that are in the book/movie THE DA VINCI CODE, because it infringes my copyrights, OK!!!!! LovePierre."

Decline reason: "Please follow FisherQueen's instructions below. — Yamla (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "Blocked for warring? I was undoing vandalism from bias editors that don't bother looking into anything and make up crap to justify themselves and can clearly see the dates of copyrights, do they go around the internet of ohter peoples copyrighted material and call the dating of their copyrights fraud ?............ and I am blocked for untruth? Now there's a !@#$%ing reason If I may say so myself that counts in this situation, all I am doing is showing excact copyrights that are dated almost 2 years prior dan brown's that are not his and i get called a fraud!!!! Do you think an Australian I.S.P would allow my pages that I link here to dish up fraud? Think about this, In Oz It's a federal offence even to accuse anybody of plagiarism let alone use someone else's copyrights and say they don't belong to another person. Where do you think I live on Gilligan's Island? Do you see my I.S.P chopping me or my internet off? Report this to the Australian Federal Police if you think I'm a fraud, that is where I told you to check by the way regarding these copyrights and then you don't believe the dates that are on them? /@#$ ftp my bloody pages and see If they were there before that phiking Idiots book, easy to prove! Do you not see the world trade towers on apperlate's page when you merge/fuse the blade and chalice or what ever you want to call it? cross your eye's together to make both stars come together to make ABARACADABARA!to see hidden images/and this page was from 2002 as it was made to be seen with PI.EXE, if you use a good paint program and zoom into the white part it reads "tribute 911" this can just be seen with out program if you look at it because thats when I started to make it!! The only person that can see my problem here in Wikipedia is the only one that takes me seriously if you haven't noticed, not that I don't like the abuse from others, I understand your comments! Im afraid I would do the same thing she is having a little trouble understanding that dan isn't that smart to do this himself and needed help but Thankyou FisherQueen! all my wierd ass mates down at the bus stop seem to like you, pitty you don't work here in Oz at the S.A residential tenancies tribunal as a mediator though(I didn't use caps for a reason) for case:RT05/2104, Where I was thrown out of my home accused of not paying rent, I Have all receipts to prove I paid even more but I got thrown out for not paying rent and given 30 day notice, I e-mailed them also calling them Bias pricks and giving all my reciept's again that are from an online payment system DEFT.COM.AU to be told,"just because we take the evidence from the land agent, thats our rights"!!!! sound familiar here? **They also think they know other things about me** but I am almost certain a person like you would have at least have had the brains to look into it properly and be fair in your judgement! So being blocked by four or five admins for reasons that are similiar, this is the same isn't it it's all verifiable and what evidence is there? like "I" was told "I" never paid rent and "I" show my reciepts that is the ONLY evidence because why would there be ANY evidence from ANYONE EXCEPT ME, "I" AM THE ONE WHO HAS TO PROVE I PAID THE DAMN RENT?!!!!!/// so just as a tribunal is just a medium to resolve the tenants and the land agents dispute I want those administrators to actually show me with proof that my documents are fraud as I have already shown them to be the same copyrights and where you can go to check them and the dates. So don't make this same mistake as the S.A residential tenancies tribunal and try to tell one month after not to go this time that I was given thirty days to pay and I didn't pay so your out!!!!, Do you think I went to that one? I walked out and spat the dummy after judgement of the first one saying,"your judgement is crap!!!" STUPID BASTARDS or BITCH in that case !!!! So look into my copyrights and you will see that these same copyrights do NOT belong to dan brown which again should be in these articles, am I correct or not? The plagiarism or the Pierre Plantard dipiction remember I have not at all tried or put anything like that into these articles at the moment, so the copyrights being someone else's is provable, cited and deserves to be in therelike all the rest of it that is there and is relavent to the article. As for three articles from a news service, maybe if someone like her worked at one of the 10 or 15 that I have sent this information to, there could possibly be an article about this aswell, but I am only using copyright information here in Wikipedia and nothing else. I am going on about a visual infringement and copyright ownership only which is all proved and If I do give notice to Wikipedia because they seem to be ignoring me aswell they would also recgognize it like these editors do and would have to by law remove anything that promotes these copyrights because its not a textual infringement and because it's provable with JUST A LOOK TO SEE IF IT'S EVEN REMOTELY THE SAME AND IT IS. The dates of copyrights more or less proves ownership, the courts would come into it afterwards yes, but it has to be pulled down A.S.A.P if Wikipedia are given a DMCA notice, and this "IS" why editors find me to be fraudulent is it not? they can even see the similarities of the same work and tell the truth as they are the ones that are calling the shots, and I am glad to cop it because it proves my point!!!! I haven't got reply back yet from anyone I sent e-mails to, and want to advise you this time not be short in your checking and spend at least as much time on it as it took me to write this letter, because If this doesn't end up in those articles I "will" give a DMCA take down to Wikipedia and this is a serious problem and shouldn't be taken lightly without spending at least some time looking into it, unlike you did the first time you blocked me for warring? and untruth?. Pierre."

Decline reason: "You are clearly unwilling to follow the instructions we gave you and you are now resorting to legal threats. As per WP:NLT, you will remain blocked and I have protected this page against further abuse. — Yamla (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.