User talk:AI

"During the trials, the French judges suggested that a firing squad should be used for the military condemned. Nikitchenko fiercely resisted this, arguing that the accused were common criminals who had disgraced their military ethos and tradition."

"I made a mistake by saying there were no gas chambers, I am absolutely without doubt that the Holocaust took place." - David Irving

"During a trial in 1998, German historian Mathias Dahl said his research showed that Gross published five articles between 1955 and 1965 based on research using the preserved brains of children killed because they were deemed handicapped or anti-social." - DOC ACCUSED OF NAZI CLINIC ATROCITIES DIES (Associated Press)

__POV__

Oh boy, he's really gone

I wonder how long he can keep himself away this time? I'm betting AI has this comment removed within 2 weeks and starts editing away again other places here. Anyone care to place a friendly wager?

The over/under line is 2 weeks under -130. --Vivaldi 07:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No way. He's been editing like usual even with the self-professed departure. < 1.5 weeks, I'd say. --Maru (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I WIN! --Vivaldi 01:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

/me shakes his fist. Damn you! Next time I shall win! --Maru (talk) 01:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

STOP VANDALIZING MY TALK PAGE Mr. Korey J. Kruse. I'm done with you. Next target... --AI 09:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right

AI you are absolutley right. The group that runs webopedia attitltue is "My way or the highway." THere is very little open mindedness or respect for honest users. -- Added by User:Toolcase on 21:00, 23 September 2005

Yes, but the Criminal Arb Comm thinks they are right because they are sociopaths. --AI 09:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see that Fred Bauder (arbcomm) is a disbarred lawyer? --AI 11:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Arbitration case

The Arbitration case against you has closed. The result is that:

You are banned from Wikipedia pending the final resolution of all legal disputes with Wikipedia. Any edits you attempt to make until this time, under any account or IP, shall be immediately reverted.
You are instructed to use only this account, and no anonymous IPs. What editing constitutes yours is up to any sysop to decide. If you violate this, any sysop is authorised to ban you for up to a month for one-off offences, and up to a year for repeat offences.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 01:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James D. Forrester is biased and incompetent just like Fred Bauder the disbarred lawyer (conflict of interest). --AI 13:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC for Calton regarding excessive and unjustified reverting

This is User:GordonWatts --- I have trouble with User:Calton, reverting pages, as have you, but I don't know if you are allowed to edit on an RfC page to certify my RfC.

Are you? If so, contact me at Gww1210@aol.com, or by my user page (preferable both) -- Thank you for your swift reply.

PS: I don't act in revenge, but in prevention, the best medicine, and ounce of which is worth a pound of cure.

Gordon Wayne Watts, Lakeland, Florida, USA

I got your message and I hope things worked out for you. --AI 09:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:AI

Can someone please revert my user page to this version, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:AI&oldid=19874829, I like it better but i'm blocked.. Boohoo.. blocked from Wikipedia. :) --AI 11:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious!

I just have to say that I was reading your User page and this talk page right here. It's hilarious! I almost fell out of my seat! So seriously now, you're like 14 right? It's ok if you don't respond right away. I know that you have "indefinitely left Wikipedia" (that one cracks me up too). (unsigned comment by User:70.152.253.173)

14

It's good that you think I am 14. I have indefinitely left Wikipedia, I personally blocked Wikipedia from receiving my contribution (boycott). I'm here, and not here, to destroy Wikipedia until it is reformed or taken over by more responsible persons. :) --AI 19:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so obviously we can all see that you haven't left Wikipedia at all. Especially since you responded to my comment just about 3 hours after I posted it. And I highly doubt that you blocked yourself seeing that you are not an sysop in any way. (unsigned comment by User:70.152.253.173)

Anyway, the only reason that I am here again is to ask for your help. You seem to think that, for one reason or another, Wikipedia is controlled by irresponsible persons. That it needs to be "reformed" before you continue to use it. Well I'm nominating YOU, User:AI, to be one of those very people you wish were in charge of Wikipedia. That's right, I am giving you the opportunity to become the model Wikipedian. To uphold the virtues and morals that must be present for a system like Wikipedia to function. If you can help make Wikipedia a better place, one in which all of it's users are responsible for their actions, it will transform into the ideal site that you dream of. But remember, it starts with you. (unsigned comment by User:70.152.253.173)

No, if you will please understand: It does not start with me.
It starts with Jimbo Wales and the arbitrators and those watching wikipedia's policies. They are more interested in the issue over userboxes than working on disputes over false information. Wikipedia is significantly guarded by imprudent persons and if anyone reading this disagrees, they are either uninformed, inexperienced, biased, or sociopathic.
Wikipedia's policy allows for disinformation. There has been no effective effort to address this unmistakably grave error in fundamental policy. Instead, there is intense effort in whitewashing and excuses on why certain personalities should not be criticized for their contribution of disinformation.
When I address this issue, my concerns are answered with justification and rationalization in support of the flawed policy. When I press the issue further, my effort is largely ignored because wikipedians are busy and unpaid or unaware, and my concern is in "violation" of a specious policy.
Some wikipedians who are aware of my background do not want me here because what I do also exposes the dishonesty and ultimately the crimes of some, and so they muster the support of their associates to find any reason to stop me. The arbitrators in "my" case, specifically Fred Bauder the disbarred lawyer, totally ignored my side of the story and devoted his attention to Mark Sweep. I requested assistance from other administrators, but received no help at all. I saw no reason to continue respect for Wikipedia's arbitration process and the current state of Wikipedia. I raged against the committee and decided I would now dedicate my efforts to destroy this disgraceful "encyclopedia", through legal means of course. The arbitration took my statement as a legal threat instead of understanding that I meant I would break no laws in my efforts. Instead of seeking clarification of my statements, they quickly chose to ban me because that is what served them best in their effort to stop me. James Forrester's notice to my page is evidence of arbitration incompetence. Their actions kind of reminded me of old world justice (and some cases of this "new" world justice) in cases such as John Hess and Joan of Arc.
The arbitrators decision did not work, it only served to blind themselves of what I was up to. There is no evidence whatsoever (even in Nikitchenko's history) of the next phase of my plan but I can tell you it will be in pursuit of the truth and entirely lawful. Efforts to stop me will do nothing for the benefit of Wikipedia. --AI 13:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]