User talk:Mlorrey

Hi, just wanted to make sure you knew. I have filed a request for comment against you. If you wish to respond, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mlorrey. And I want to urge you to look at and follow the neutrality policy. It'll make your experience here much better, and will produce a better encyclopedia. Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 18:33, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Mediation case opening

FYI, the edit-stalking you and User:Meelar are doing I have requested mediation on.Mlorrey 21:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I reverted a grand total of *two* of your edits prior to your posting this. I don't see any good-faith attempts to resolve the difficultes by other methods, and your edits flagrantly violate our NPOV policy. You cannot simply insert, as fact, criticisms of gun control. Nor does NPOV require that tiny extremist groups be given an undue level of prominence in articles. The article on Dwight Eisenhower doesn't devote half its space to John Birch Society accusations. Firebug 02:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your labelling of the JPFO as 'extremist' clearly demonstrates you are the one violating the NPOV policy.Mlorrey 03:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

Having taken a look, I'm not sure the mediation committee is still active, and I think both you and Firebug misunderstood the purpose. It's supposed to serve as a facilitator of discussions, and can't impose consequences of any sort. Given the accusations you've brought, I think arbitration will be more helpful. I've brought a case there. Yours, Meelar (talk) 04:27, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Just letting you know, I've filed a request for arbitration. You can make your statement at WP:RFAR. Yours, Meelar (talk) 15:13, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

The arbitration case concerning you has been accepted and opened. I apologise for not notifying you when I opened it; I completely forgot. Ambi 06:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

POV dispute

Hey Mike, cool down a bit. Calling people "sockpuppets" when they obviously aren't is not going to help your case, nor seeing everything as a campaign against you. POV disputes are very common on Wikipedia, and there's no need to react vehemently. The deletion proposal is, for all practical purposes, already defeated and the article will stay. When Firebug or someone else objects to a paragraph or removes it, consider it like an opportunity to rewrite it in a less inflammatory way, not as a personal attack. Alfio 08:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: personal attacks

Please remove your borderline threat/personal attack upon me from your home page, Mlorrey. Else, why should I be more concerned about my raising your ire than you about raising mine? --JimWae 22:31, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

Arbitration case

Please don't edit the section in which I present my evidence. You're welcome to add your own evidence in your section as per the top of the page, of course. I've taken the liberty of moving your comment there. Meelar (talk) 16:50, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I understand, but you don't get to present my case either. Please follow the clear instructions on the page and add your evidence in your own section. Thanks, Meelar (talk) 18:31, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Hague Service Convention, etc.

You may wish to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:No_legal_threats. --Tabor 06:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proactionary Principle

Please could you leave the vfd discussion for the above article as an accurate record? There was no need to add your keep vote as the article was kept anyway, and your edits to the discussion have been reverted. -- Francs2000 | Talk 11:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Question re. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mlorrey

Before I vote on the proposed remedies, I want to understand your position with respect to your "injunction" and the other legalistic language you are using. Are you saying that you are intending to use real-world legal processes against Meelar and Firebug? Or are you using these terms to refer to the Wikipedia conflict resolution process? -- sannse (talk) 12:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC) (arbitration committee)

Final decision reached

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mlorrey case. →Raul654 22:36, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing to enforce the decision. Once the legal proceedings you have initiated have been completed, you may regain your editing capabilities by leaving a message here that documents the resolution of the legal proceedings. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I have received your e-mails in which you ask to be unblocked. I will be happy to do this, provided that you document the resolution of the legal proceedings which you purported to have initiated against Meelar and Firebug. If you have not initiated and do not plan to initiate any legal proceedings against either of these two users, please state that and clarify the purpose of your purported injunction. Please note that you may edit this page to respond to this request despite being blocked from editing the remainder of the encyclopedia. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I have repeatedly stated that I never initiated any legal proceedings in any court against Meelar or Firebug, despite their clear abuse of accepted standards of arbitration process. I initiated my injunction just as they were making things up and railroading me through a process without seeking to negotiate or discuss anything, all the while making me look like the bad guy. This episode is a clear example of how NPOV ISN'T, when people act in bad faith and learn to write with NPOV language while pursuing a biased agenda in attempting to suppress facts they dislike. I do not plan on initiating proceedings against anybody provided my own rights begin to be respected, which they have not. The wiki arbitration process violates so many commonly accepted principles of arbitration and jurisprudence I don't know even where to start, but I can start with this ban you put on me: your groups action in banning me for exercising my human rights to legal process is itself a violation of my rights under international legal conventions. Your flawed process allows a small cadre of insiders to suppress individuals they disagree with or whose statements they do not like, and THAT is most definitely, not NPOV, and violates the spirit of wikipedia.Mlorrey 21:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I have received yet another pugnacious e-mail from you asking that the block be lifted. After again reviewing your response above, I decline to remove the block. After further discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, no one else wants to remove the block either. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Rei-pub neohantoni.GIF

Thanks for uploading Image:Rei-pub neohantoni.GIF. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)