Template:Sharedip I feel that the edits you made to Missy Elliott conflict with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Unless you reword your edits, I will have to place an NPOV tag on the page. Mike H 17:52, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

Oh God...I don't care, do that then. I've been creating, editing, updating, and adding detail to articles at Wikipedia for almost a year and 1/2 now. Since I've never created a user name, I've done so under a myriad of different I.P. addresses. In EVERYTHING I've written I've done so NEUTRALLY. What is the point of an encyclopedia if it's going to be a message board? My contributions are ALWAYS about getting the facts across in as detailed and clear a way as possible, so that those who know nothing about the topic can read the article on the topic and come to fully understand it through it and its links.

How did I violate NPOV? Why would I want to? Honestly, from what I wrote and the way in which I did it, I cannot even figure out whether you think I was too PRO-Elliott or too ANTI-Elliott. I mean, I know I was neither.

Like I said, I really don't care if you place a NPOV tag, or if you edit the article yourself (afterall, isn't that the point of this site?). Why must I do it when I'm happy with what I've written and don't find it the least bit biased in ANY direction? An example of a specific sentence that you find biased would have been helpful, at the very least...

There is no need to get defensive. I was just pointing out that the language seemed very flowery. The same was pointed out to me when I started writing soap opera articles. The edits were just very liberal on "successful" and words of the like; the adjectives seemed too biased for the article. Sure, she was successful, but we don't have to say it every time an album is mentioned.

Well, what I try to do is be as positive as possible. I don't consider that "biased" though. I definitely talk about the negative too. Basically, Missy's most recent album was not a pop success. But, with all the different musical genres that exist these days, especially as far as hip-hop is concerned, it's sort of impossible for a rap song--especially a new single by someone of Missy's stature--NOT to become a hit, at least on urban radio. That's what happened with Missy's newest CD and its singles. They were hits because they were played a lot on rap radio, even though mainstream America has definitely not heard them like "Work It", "The Rain", "Minute Man", etc were heard. (And I did state that in the article.) As a rap and pop music fan, I know I'm really not exaggerating when I say that "Work It" was quite possibly the biggest, more well-known single (of ANY genre of music) in 2002. It won the most VMA's. It was played more on MTV2 during 2002 and 2003 than any other video. The song was everywhere and became a pop culture phenomenon. And I hated the song too because it was just overkilled. But you couldn't escape it. It was the exact same way with "Get Ur Freak On" in 2001. MTV2 played it at least every hour and it was ALL OVER the radio for months. It also had the most VMA nominations that year. So, I feel like I actually have to hold myself back about just how successful these songs and albums were, critically AND commercially. Like I said, anyone who listens to rap knows it. I honestly don't see how the article would be fair and factual if the information about the successes was taken out because it would seem to imply that "Work It", "Minute Man", & "Get Your Freak On" were only minor hits, on the same level as Missy's singles from her 1st, 2nd, and 5th albums. That's totally not the case. BTW, most legitimate news articles try to be more positive (towards everyone & everything) to avoid bias. That's how I write at Wiki. So, even if I hate "Work It" or whatever else I'm writing about, I try to portray it in a positive, neutal light. IMO, it's good to explain the positive so that it doesn't look like you're bashing, or being biased the other way, when you explain the negative. I'm sure Missy will have more negatives coming up in her career, being that she hasn't had a pop hit in almost two years...

Personally, I don't want to edit it because I don't know enough about Missy Elliott to write it correctly. That's why I was pointing it out to you. Again, there is no need to get an attitude. I pointed it out for a reason and it wasn't to cut you down. Mike H 18:08, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

OK, sorry if you interpretted what I read as having an "attitude". I didn't mean this. I've just gotten some ridiculous comments here about things being NPOV and I assumed this was another one because I honestly DID NOT set out to make Missy appear perfect. I wanna let you know, I provided most of the details about the earlier Missy singles as well, and those that weren't known hits weren't known hits. I didn't try to make them out to be. But, the singles off of Elliott's 3rd and 4th albums were just ridiculously successful. I wish I knew what kind of music you listen to so I could offer a comparison. Do you remember when Santana made his comeback a few years ago? Remember how you couldn't escape his 2 songs? That's how the string of Missy songs from 2001 to 2002 were. They were literally multiple week #1's.

BTW, I was also a little annoyed since you edited out a question that I asked to someone else BEFORE he could even answer me. I still wanna know why info about "Back In The Day" is on a Missy Elliott page. The question was placed on SOMEONE ELSE's user page and directed at him. It's not your place to interfere in my conversation with someone else before he even has a chance to read what I said, let alone to respond.

For one, you cleared his user page and put the question there. For someone who's been here a year and a half, you should know that this is a no-no. Post on the talk page, don't clear someone's information. Get annoyed all you want, but you obviously do not know, sufficiently, how things work around here. Mike H 18:38, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

NOW who's being "defensive"! Children! Look, this is Wikipedia. There are so set "rules". Wow...I deleted the guy's page! Big whoop-dee-doo! If it wasn't meant to be changeable, I wouldn't have been ABLE to change it. Do I expect him to leave my question there permanently? Hells no! But, do I want to get his attention so that I can get an answer to an important question (before I just proceed to delete his irrelevant info, which I feel MIGHT be there for some kind of reason)? OF COURSE! What if he had a legit reason for posting that there? Or, maybe, he made a mistake and thought he was creating a new page rather than interfering with Elliott's article. Who knows? All I do know is that I will let HIM explain HIMSELF before I delete something that he obviously took time to write. You're acting as if my "deleting" his page has done something irrevocable and that whatever he had on that page will no longer be available for anyone to read. He probably would have had my question read within five minutes and would have responded and reverted his OWN page HIMSELF, but you didn't even give things that much chance. What do you--follow me around on Wiki or something? How you even knew (or why you'd care) what I edited on Missy's page AND somehow also knew that I'd asked someone else a question is beyond me. And, no, I never claimed to "sufficiently know" how things "work" around here. The only rule I know is that there are no rules.

This isn't going anywhere. Mike H 19:12, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Yes of course it's possible to delete someone's page, but it's considered bad manners round here, and often considered to be vandalism - which is against the rules (yes, I'm afraid there certainly are rules on Wikipedia). It's possible to do many things in life that are not actually a good idea :) It is also better to use the talk page because it will cause a notice to appear for the other user to let them know there is a message waiting for them, it's actually more likely to get their attention (and in a way that will be seen as less confrontational). Regards -- sannse (talk) 19:38, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OK, but I didn't know how to do that. I don't come here to chit-chat really. I come here to read and write articles. I don't use the "user" pages other than to ask questions and talk about ways to resolve issues directly relating to the encyclopedia that we're all here to work on. I clicked on Hyacinth's name, I saw this long-ass page full of stuff that I didn't care about, stuff that was obviously placed there by him for other people who do care to read about him. So, I assumed the best way to let him see me teeny-tiny one-line question would be to make it THE focus of that page; whatever he wanted to keep on his page would always be retrievable in the future once our issue was resolved. It bothered me that this Mike guy took it upon himself to police my and Hyacinth's communication simply because he didn't like some of the wording I used to literally describe Missy Elliott's successes. As for vandalism, it's when someone goes around intentionally screwing up legitimate articles for the hell of it, the same way real-life vandalism is intentionally ruining others' property just for the hell of it. I wasn't vandalising anything because I had a reason for wanting to get Hyacinth's attention. Also, how come you two are allowed to "vandalise" MY user page, but no one's allowed to "vandalise" Hyacinth's? Just because he has years of personal info and conversations on it, it doesn't make it any more or less acceptable.

For one, the Missy Elliott issue and the Hyacinth issue are two separate ones for me. You have grievances with him that combine the two, but I do not. And another, your user page is not vandalized. There isn't anything there. Mike H 19:55, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

No, you're obviously confused. The whole reason why Hyacinth got involved in this in the first place is because he posted a section called "Back In The Day" on Missy Elliott's page. It seemingly has NOTHING to do with Elliott, but I asked him why he posted it. I'm still waiting for his answer. YOUR Missy Elliott issue with ME is different from MY Missy Elliott issue with Hyacinth, yes, which is why I don't understand WHY you'd keep erasing my questions to Hyacinth when you plainly admit that it has nothing to do with you. I don't know what you mean when you say I have "grievances" with Hyacinth about TWO issues, when I've never even spoken to the guy. The only "grievance" I have is with your butting in to my conversation with Hyacinth. You're entitled to believe whatever you want to believe about Missy Elliot--I don't care and I never did. Why you're follow me around, though, is a cause for concern, I think. At any rate, like I said, you seem to be horribly confused over what's going on and it's probably best if you'd just leave the situation alone. I don't even KNOW Hyacinth.

I can understand your confusion with the system if you are not used to using the talk pages. hopefully you will know now how they work. I understand your intent was not to vandalise, that you just weren't aware of how it would appear. Mike was just doing the usual thing of fixing the user page, sadly we have to do this a lot when people clear user pages who do have intent to vandalise.

This page is your "talk page", not your "user page" (it says "user talk" at the top of the page) - that's why we are using it to discuss this. In the same way, to talk to Hyacinth you can use his talk page (but not his user page) that's considered the polite place to discuss things.

If you create an account you will have a user page as well as a talk page - then you will be able to put any information about yourself there you want to, and we will have a consistent talk page to communicate with you. I hope I've explained this well, please let me knnow if not :)

Don't worry about Hyacinth missing your question, although it's a long page regular users check their talk pages regularly, so he is sure to see it where it is. Regards -- sannse (talk) 20:06, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I do believe you're stretching a lot of this out of proportion. I know I hate it when this is said to me, but the best thing to do is just calm down. Believe it or not, my "butting in" stems from good intentions. Mike H 22:22, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

The thing that irritates me is that you keep missing the point. I'm not bothered by what you said about the edits I made to the Missy Elliott article. That's fine. I don't believe anything I wrote was not NPOV, but I don't mind that you let me know that others might not find it so. Being familiar with hip-hop music and their mainstream successes in America, I GUARANTEE you that I really didn't blow anything out of proportion in the Missy article and that, if anything, I held back from listing all the specific successes that each of her three or four big '01-'02 videos had because it would be a little ridiculous. But, the fact of the matter is that ANYONE who listens to hip-hop can vouch for what I've said about those songs. They were literally four of the biggest rap crossover songs of 2001 and 2002, akin to how Eminem was in his heydey, how 50 Cent was last year, or how Outkast was just last fall. It was one of those things where you seemingly hear the song every time you turn the radio on and you just want the song to go away. Missy's four biggest singles were played MORE OFTEN than that Celine Dion Titanic song. I was just trying to get that across in the article without specifically listing all this stuff, which, IMO, would sound a bit biased and overblown. But, like I said, I don't have a problem with your checking to make sure I wasn't exaggerating anything or that I wasn't some crazed Missy Elliott fan who's out to make her look bigger than she really is. The fact of the matter is that she really was THAT BIG in 2001 and 2002.

OK, so that's all not a problem with me; I don't mind that stuff. What annoyed me most about you is how you butted in to my conversation with Hyacinth before he could post his response. What happened is that Hyacinth posted what appears to be irrelevant and off-topic information on Missy's page. This can be verified by checking Missy's page history. I'm trying to ascertain why he would post what seems to be TRUE "vandalism" (though it may not be) to the Missy page. Why you'd butt into THAT conversation is something I don't understand and explains why I got annoyed with you.

I also don't like to be lectured. I was not lying about being here since around Feb of 2003. No, I never made a name just because I feel that it's not important. I can offer valid contributions whether I have a name or just an I.P. address; it doesn't matter to me one way or the other. Just because I don't have a name and don't necessarily do things in the way they're "supposed to" be done (even though, really, ANYTHING goes at this place--we can all edit ANYTHING we want to for a reason), doesn't give you or anyone else the right to force your ways on me. I understand that there have to be SOME rules. Taking active action against the REAL vandals makes sense. Those who'd use this project to cause chaos don't belong here and the revert option is useful in stopping them. But, nothing gives anyone the right to undo someone else's work when it's NOT vandalism. As I said, I fully expected Hyacinth to undo my changes, removing my question, once he read and answered it. I didn't expect that someone else would actively try to prevent my question from being seen or answered....

I understand that you didn't mean for your reaction to get this much attention. However, that's what user talk pages are for. I think that point is really non-negotiable, no matter what your feelings are. Whatever things you feel I "butted into"...I really didn't mean to, and I apologize...? I feel like I'm being backed into a corner, and for not much of a good reason. Mike H 02:28, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

It's OK, no hard feelings. I didn't mean to come across as having an attitude either. I just wanted to explain what was going on from my P.O.V.; just, based on my experience here, there are some stubborn people who seem to go out of the way to create trouble. I guess I sort of assumed you were one of them, and you probably assumed I was some sort of vandal or someone who's out to ruin the Wikipedia or something. Just, that's the LAST thing I want to come across as being because I've honestly put a lot of work into a lot of different areas of this project (and I've learned tons of stuff from reading articles here too), under five or six different I.P. addresses. Sorry, I know I keep rambling every time I write. But, now, I'm sort of worried that people who might read THIS page will only see the top few postings and thing we're BOTH assholes or something like that. And, no, I don't mean to back you into a corner or anything. I've felt that way too, like you were singling me out to nit-pick how I was doing things wrong or something because it just seemed odd that the person who deleted what I posted to the Hyacinth page would be the same person who commented on something being not NPOV, within a few minutes of each other. And, I still don't get why you were trying to claim I had personal grievances with Hyacinth. I'm finding this whole discussion very confusing, is all. Again, sorry if I came across as hostile, but even though I've been here for a year and 1/2, there's still areas of Wikipedia that I've never needed to make use of and didn't realize that there were understood rules about.

I did not mean to imply that you had personal grievances with him. When I used "grievances," I meant the "back in the day" edits; nothing more. Mike H 20:06, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

You said, paraphrased: "I had grievances with Hyacinth regarding two separate issues, one of which involved you and the other of which did not. However, both the issues that I had with Hyacinth were related only because I was making them related". Don't ask me what any of that has to do with his edit to the Missy Elliot page.

Anon, first, why don't you just creat an account? This would have allowed people to evaluate your current statements against the full body of your work. To be blunt, it's true: currently you come across as a grouchy crank. I find it hard to believe you have been here for a year and a half but do not know how to leave a message for another user, or how to discuss issues calmly.

What should my "full body of work" matter? Unlike SOME here, I contribute NOT to brag that I've done "this one, this one, that one"; I contribute in order to make the project more detailed, informative, and thorough. You should try it sometime. I come across as cranky? So what. Mike comes across as a busybody and you (whoever you are; isn't it a little bit contradictory for you to call me "Anon" and tell me that I should create an account when you yourself are anonymous!) come across as a stupid tool. I don't give a flying fuck that you, whoever you are, "find it hard to believe" that I've been here for a year and 1/2. I know I have been. Must I go back and list you ALL the I.P. addresses that I've updated the Wikipedia under just so that I can justify myself to you?! As I said (learn to read!), I've never had any need to contact anyone before. When I wanna chit-chat, that's what my FRIENDS are for--not random strangers at the Wikipedia. When I'm at Wikipedia, I'm here to read and/or write articles. So sue me for actually using the site as it's MEANT to be used, thus having no real reason to have utilised people's talk pages before!

Secondly, blanking my user page is unacceptably rude vandalism. i.e.: IT IS NOT OKAY. Please do not do it again, or I will interpret it as a personal attack.

OMG! So, you're Hyacinth? How nice of you for letting me know! WOW! A "personal attack"! What a fucking tool! Why the fuck would I have any REASON for "blanking your user page" since you've PRESUMABLY answered my question in this posting, you moron?!

Thirdly, did you not recognize "Back in the Day" as a song title, and information under it as lyrics from the song? If you missed this, that is what it is. You are correct that it needs context (what is this crap?), but not that is is completely unrelated to Missy or vandalism. Thanks. 21:55, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what you're on, pal, but it's OBVIOUSLY not song lyrics. It's a list of random crap! I'm deleting it now since you've failed to explain. It must have been vandalism!

Contents

1 IP address 2 Block 3 My talk page 4 Missy Elliott 1 Comment to all on the Crusade against me: 2 Note to Guanaco

IP address

By editing Wikipedia without a username, you are making your IP address public. Do not continue to remove your listing from Wikipedia:Requests for comment, or you will be blocked from editing. Guanaco 02:18, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Don't delete other people's comments from discussions. That's a real good way of getting blocked from editing. RickK 06:24, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

I don't remove comments. I've replied to basically everything that they've said to me, and I've used Wiki common-proprty law, American law, international law, logic, and common sense to back up everything I've said and done, and to dispute, prove wrong, or rebut every claim this group has made against me.

They, on the other hand, have been the ones deleting MY comments from a discussion ABOUT me, most of which is slander and libel, if not harassment or defamation of character. In removing my comments and dictating to me what I can and cannot post, they have also employed Unconstitutional censorship against me (not to mention unjustified, Unconstitutional, and unilateral bannings carried out against me not once, but twice, by Guanaco--a clear abuse of his privileges), while their false claims have been given the chance to permeate certain User Pages, including mine--without my even being able to defend myself.

Now that I have had the chance to defend myself, I've realized that I'm not the only one who's been harassed by Guanaco within the past weeks. There have been several of us! In defending myself, I've also proven that Guanaco and his pals don't have the slightest ground to stand on. They delete my comments because they can't respond to them truthfully. I have no reason to delete their comments, except for the ones which are libelous and therefore violate not only Wiki standards but also American law. Even though I delete such comments, I explain my reasoning for doing so and always manage to refute the libelous claims anyways; I wouldn't want people to get the wrong impression of me after having read words written by frauds.68.36.175.254 06:38, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You deleted a comment by AndyL here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_comment%2FUser%3A68.36.175.254&diff=4449918&oldid=4449904). RickK 06:42, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, you're right. I forgot about that. His comment added nothing to the discussion. Instead, it was a racist remark that suggested favoring people who use screen names over those who don't. I see no need to use stupid names. As I've said before, I don't come here to talk to people (though, you'd never know it since it's all I've been doing lately, thanks to the P.I.T.A.'s, Hyacinth and Guanaco...), I come here to read and help write an encyclopedia. Can I not do that "anonymously" (not that an I.P. address is actually anonymous--in a way, it's more revealing of things about me than you guys' names are) as well as you can do it because you've got a login name? Hell no! As I said, only racists think otherwise, and that Andy dude was butting in to something that didn't concern him. He made a racist comment about I.P. addresses, and the next day, I'm banned. Coincidence? I don't think so! What I do think is that the general Wiki community needs to address its racism problem against people who post thru I.P. addresses! We're not somehow inferior to any of the rest of you--to treat us the way that folks like Guanaco and that Andy treat us is wrong! Blacks wouldn't tolerate such treatment, Arabs wouldn't, gays wouldn't, women wouldn't, so why should we? This is the LAST place where intolerance should be tolerated!172.158.197.104 07:05, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

BTW, some come-twat decided to unilaterally ban me once again because he's not happy with the fact that I'm a practicing lawyer and not afraid to use my full knowledge of the law to stand up for my rights! Sucks to be him, since he's just escalated the conflict to yet ANOTHER level--and his banning me proves futile as ever! AOL has millions of untapped I.P. addresses. Let's see him single-handedly ban them all! THIS IS WAR!! 172.158.197.104 07:07, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Block

I have blocked you for 24 hours for violating several Wikipedia policies, in particular, making legal threats. I strongly suggest you get a username and conduct yourself in a more casual manner if you want to get your way. If you need help or have any questions, please e-mail me, or contact the AMA --H. CHENEY 07:20, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Are you threatening a lawyer, DICK? Not a good idea! I reserve my legal right to utilize my professional skills to their fullest extent if need be. I am not making "threats"; rather, I am using my knowledge of the law to expose your crimes. Nevertheless, being a lawyer, I know that I've got the grounds, as well as the legal rights, to sue a select few members into the ground, as well as to charge them with various crimes, including most prominantly a violation of my Constitutional rights, as you've just attempted. What is your justification for the blocking? Nothing?! Well, where I come from, that's not playing fair. I might have to remedy that. Again, take my legal knowledge and my professional skills as "threats" if you must. But, I kid you not, "threats" is not what they are. They're very, very real possibilities and they're looking ever more likely with each passing conversation I have with your ilk! REGARDLESS OF WHAT WIKIPEDIA THINKS IT CAN FORCE PEOPLE TO DO:

NO PRIVATE ORGANIZATION CAN REMOVE A PERSON'S RIGHT TO LEGALLY DEFEND HIMSELF IN A COURT OF LAW--IF WIKIPEDIA IS ENDORSING SUCH A POLICY, WHEREBY AMERICAN LAW IS DISGARDED, WIKIPEDIA IS COMMITTING AN ACT OF TREASON! IN SUCH TROUBLING TIMES, TREASON AND TERRORISM GOES HAND-IN-HAND. SO, "MR CHENEY", ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT WIKIPEDIA IS READY TO BE BRANDED A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION FOR ATTEMPTING TO BLOCK LEGAL AMERICAN CITIZENS FROM EXERCISING THEIR LEGAL AMERICAN (AND INTERNATIONAL) RIGHTS?

Of course you have rights to take legal action against Wikipedia (although I don't recommend it).

I've never lost a case yet.

No one is saying that you don't.

I've been "banned" because I'm not allowed to make "legal threats" apparently. I didn't know I was living in China!

But we also have rights to stop you using the service provided by this private organisation.

My issues are not with the organization, which serves an incredible purpose and used to be one of my favorite websites to spend time at and to put effort into. A handful of zealots have changed that for me, and I don't have to cater to their or your threats. If this private organization were to ban me because I exercised my right to press charges against individuals who have libelled me, I would have no choice but to press charges, also, against the organization. However, at present, I have no reason to be hostile towards the organization, except in that it gives certain people an unfair bias over others. Why would I sue a corporation that, as of yet, has done nothing to me?

If you threaten to sue us then why would we want you to take part in this project?

Define "us". Have I threatened to sue you?

To use the common analogy - Wikipedia is not a public park, it is someone's living room. You are threatening us - fine - but if you do so, don't expect us to welcome you in to the front room.

Nope. I am "threatening" certain other bad-apples that have been allowed into your living room. I am a gracious guest of yours, the others, however, seek to create trouble with all the other people in the house. It wouldn't be prudent for a hostess to side with one of her guests (the one making all the trouble) at the expense of her relationship with her other guests.

The "edit this page" link is there and available to anyone, but the block link is also available if needed. If you would like to discuss any of the issues raised here privately, my e-mail link is active. Please feel free to mail me. Regards -- sannse (talk) 17:21, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't have an email address--I'm just an I.P. address; I don't have a login name. There is no "block" link available to me. Even if there was, I wouldn't use it because I'm in no position to censor others for writing something with which I disagree.152.163.252.101 20:36, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Unless you only access the Internet at a library or something (which is highly rare considering you say you're a lawyer), you have to have an email address. It kinda comes with having an Internet Service Provider. Just sayin'. Mike H 00:41, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

Well, OF COURSE I have an email address. I meant that at this site I don't have an associated email address (which you need to talk privately, it seems), as I don't have an associated login name. I don't see the necessity in either.68.36.175.254 16:26, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My talk page

Please do not state or imply on my talk page that users are "stupid" requiring you to be "more patient" since they are from other, less culturally developed, "parts of the country," than you. Hyacinth 20:50, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Tough, but people from NJ, people just are more, I guess, normal and cultured than the rest of you! You might think it's OK to give people crap, but we don't take crap! We also understand sarcasm--why you crazy Californians and Alabamese and everything else hick-ish don't understand this concept, who knows? But don't blame me for your lack of culture and understanding!

And Mike is obviously slow...not Forest Gump level, but almost! See his above comment! I had thought he was just a wise-ass, but he's just really that clueless. You gotta feel bad for the kid!

Missy Elliott

Actually, the explination was in the Missy Elliott article all along: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Missy_Elliott&oldid=4072997. You must not have read the entire article. Hyacinth 20:53, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reinstate my comment--you know it was there and you know that what it said was of legitimacy! I will not cave to your extortion any longer! David Wiseass get get his fat ass on a plane and meet me in Trenton--I'm through with him!

Comment to all on the Crusade against me:

Call off your pal, David, or I will take a paid "business trip" to my state capital, Trenton, tomorrow. I will coordinate the legal effort--against all of you who have used harassment and manipulation for your own personal gain--between the state courthouse in my county seat, Newark, and the courthouse in my capital city, Trenton, as well as get a select bunch of prominent lawyers from each of the two counties' branches of my firm, and some of my law professors from Princeton involved with the situation. Together, we will corroborate all' the evidence that has been submitted to this site by all who have been involved in this discussion or in the prevention of my furthering the discussion (namely, my "blockers": David, Guanaco, RikRok). Our next move is to contact our associates in the D.C. area and to get their opinion on whether or not we should bring any/all of the civil/criminal charges before a national court (the criminal Constitutional extortion issue would likely have to be settled by the Supreme Court). How far my parters and I decide to run with this overwhelming violation of legality is up to the collective yous.

Note to Guanaco

Don't you dare "revert", my page, removing my information from my page, bastard! When I asked Hyacinth a question on his page, it was dubbed "an attack". So, what is your deliberate removal of a certain group of my comments? "Vandalism", "trolling", "attacking", "harassment", "censorship", "extortion", "treason", all of the above? We will see! Your made-up terms are meaningless, but the government will decide which laws you have broken and contunue to break:

Message from Guanaco to me:

"You have attempted to edit a page, either by clicking the "Edit" tab or by following a red link.

Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Guanaco."

Did I entitle you to ban me? Your futile attempts at driving me away and impressing your peers only make me angrier by the day and build more legal evidence (as if we needed more) against you!

"The reason given is this: vandalism and legal threats"

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH "LEGAL THREATS" AND WHAT DID I VANDALISE? ANSWER ME, YOU FUCKTARD! You think you can make up your own rules and recreate American law as you think it should be! Tough shit...in this country we have the right to take dicks like you to court! Don't like it? Move to Iran! They don't take to kindly to people standing up for themselves over there--maybe Mohammad will even take you in as his personal sex wench, if you're lucky!172.145.197.73 05:44, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The first ammendment does not give you the right to order people to leave what you say on a website that you do not own. --NoPetrol 20:51, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

If you continue to leave personal attacks and abusive comments on talk pages you may be blocked from editing this site. BCorr|Брайен 16:01, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As if I'd be "attacking" people had they not done so first to me, the least of which is the banning and censoring of my comments! Take your empty, uninformed threats elsewhere, please. ("Threatening" someone is a violation of Wiki standards, BTW.)205.188.116.13 17:41, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Please do not blank talk pages or insult other users. This is your last warning. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:04, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)

---

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user who has not created an account yet or who does not use it. We therefore have to use the numerical IP address to identify him/her. Such an IP address can be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user and feel that irrelevant comments have been directed at you, please create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users.