User talk:Rex071404/archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. User talk:Rex071404/archive1
2. User talk:Rex071404/archive2
3. User talk:Rex071404/archive3

Effective 11.03.2004, all previous talk page information has been archived. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 17:59, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

thanks for the info, i had missed that. have you seen the onion? 'in the news' 6th item. cheers. Wolfman 14:06, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For the benefit of those who missed it, Wolfman is referring to this funny spoof headline: "Despite Republican Victory, Bush Supporter Has Tiny, Tiny Penis"

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 15:38, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Evidence in arbitration proceeding 2 The arbitration matter of Rex071404 is closed 3 Article Licensing 4 Re grim Arbitrators 5 Notice of another Request for Arbitration 6 ArbCom case

[edit] Evidence in arbitration proceeding

In response to your bad-faith demands for "more proof", I've commented on a couple of them, and I've called the whole hilarious collection to the attention of the Arbitration Committee, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence#Misconduct as anonymous IP 216.153.214.94. I will not be responding further. JamesMLane 06:52, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The arbitration matter of Rex071404 is closed

Excerpt:

2) Rex071404, Bkonrad and others who have committed petty offenses are admonished to consult Wikipedia:Wikiquette and to conform their edits to that standard.

Passed 6 to 0

3) Rex071404 is banned for 4 months from editing Wikipedia articles which concern United States politics.

Passed 6 to 0

4.1) Rex071404 is banned from reverting any article for six months.

Passed 5 to 0 with 1 abstain

5) In view of his demonstrated deficiencies in engaging in and interpreting the results of research Rex071404 is required to cite a relevant authority, either by footnote or by comment embedded in the text, which supports every [disputed] edit he makes.

Passed 5 to 1

For principles, findings of fact, and enforcement see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404#Final decision. --mav 05:06, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] Re grim Arbitrators

Barnstar awarded to Rex071404 by WikiUser 19:52, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

for extreme patience in the face of group hassle.

(I was meaning to award this for 3 months before I did get round to it. Now I am restoring the edit that user "Neutrality" wrongly deleted.)

(READERS please note. Admin "Neutrality" has blocked me for the period of "infinitely" in the past for awarding user Rex071404 a Barnstar. He has no right as: users can award Barnstars to who they want; Opinions and comments on The Arbitration Committee are not only not banned but encouraged- see any talk pages of ArbCom related pages- including mild, cheerful ones like mine above; Having opinions on arbcom cases is not banned. "Neutrality" does not have the right to edit other users' talk pages as if they're his own. It's up to the user if they want to remove the Barnstar. SO WOULD any helpful Admin who sees "Neutrality" blocking me in this way in the future please unblock me. Thanks.)WikiUser 20:43, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Notice of another Request for Arbitration

In light of your multiple offenses since returning from your four-month partial block, I am beginning another arbitration proceeding; see Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration. JamesMLane 05:21, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom case

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 3 is now open. Please add evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 3/Evidence. --mav 02:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)