User talk:Neights

Bold textI would say welcome to Wikipedia, but for some reason you seem intent on vandalising the Da Vinci Code page with non-encyclopaedic writing. Please desist or I will ask someone with the authority to block this account. Spenny 11:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the 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 review while you are blocked.

Neights (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock)

---

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)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you abuse this procedure by making too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page as long as you are blocked.

I'm guessing this is related to the block on 121.209.3.142 (talk · contribs). – Luna Santin (talk) 11:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is, I wanted to contact blocker, but has e-mail turned off.

Am I the vandal that removed the links to Peter Smith(judge) page that let you see the da Vinci code's judgement?[1] did I place unsourced unverified FACTs on his page about dan brown committing perjury about linking 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!!!!!!!!!!!

This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the 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 review while you are blocked.

Neights (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock)

---

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)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you abuse this procedure by making too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page as long as you are blocked.

and yes I did write this into The_da_Vinci_Code.

Author is not copyright holder of blade and chalice These copyrights are owned by www.apperlate.com [2] and this artistic expression was copyrighted early 2002 in a file that is available at www.connect.to/pyramids [3] (a word play for connect two pyramids) In this file it also clearly states to merge images together to create a star of David to show hidden pictures or codes. The real author of these copyrights is speculating that the Da Vinci code's author or his researcher(s) had mistaken him for priory of sion's Pierre (Plantard) as his name is also Pierre, while he applied for the one million dollars which was/is offered by the famous skeptic James Randi at www.randi.org while using this code as e.s.p, as the claim must also include a supernatural ability.

BECAUSE IT IS TRUE!!!!!!!!!

Yes I put this one in too!

Lots of linking to the name Pierre, dan brown never looked at HBHG that was about a fraudster Pierre Plantard but links in his book to Pierre Cartier, Pierre Peugeot, St Pierre (PS), Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Pierre Plantard, Victor hugo's Pierre, Pierre L'Enfant, Simple Plan's Pierre, Leonardo di ser Piero(PIERRE), Pierre Jeanniot, Pierre de Coubertin, Pierre(Copyright holder of Code joining blade and chalice), Pierre de Saint-Clair, bottle of Perrier is an anagram of Pierre, Prieuré from Prieuré de Sion is also an anagram of Pierre. Grand-Pere(PIERRE), Hotel Ritz's Pierre, Priory of Sion's Pierre, Henry Lincoln's Pierre, Michael Baigents Pierre, Richard Leigh's Pierre, Pierre De France, Pierre's Dossiers secrets,Rennes le-Chateau's Pierre, Pierre De Cherisey, Pierre and Marie Curie Lived near Silis's Place , Architect's Pierre(monuments and buildings), Grand Master Pierre, Bloodline of Pierre's, Merovingian bloodline of Pierre's, even more but Dan never used HBHG's Pierre? Never once mentions Pierre?

Yes, he does! In picture version if you look closely on map it shows the name Avenue Pierre Semard near Ivry-ser-Seine,and Bérenger Saunière was played by an actor with Pierre in his name, too many to be coincidence! Like Henry Lincolns limp depicted by dan brown's Liegh teabing, must be deliberate.

Without mentioning the archiitect(Pierre) of the Louvre or the pyramid that is in the Louvre is designed by I. M. Pei cause Pierre's page is called PI or the others... But dan brown still had the nerve to REMOVE THE NAME PIERRE PLANTARD FROM THE GRAND MASTER'S LIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WHEN HE BECAME A BELIEVER...

This to at Peter Smith (judge)'s page

Da Vinci Code's perjury matter

Due to the Da Vinci Code's synopsis linking to the name Pierre (HBHG's book was about Pierre Plantard) as discussed at the da Vinci code article here in wikipedia has the author committed perjury? In court he told judge Peter Smith he never used HBHG untill after the synopsis but has links to the name Pierre all the way through the synopsis, did he lie to Peter Smith?

Since you are talking about Jref they are going to close the millon dollar challenge. Not because of you is it? Perhaps you would like to comment on his own site www.randi.org [4].

I thought James Randi stood behind this "VERY MUCH NEEDED" tool to prove his skeptisism point? Why get rid of it? By the way I don't know why James would try to only mention ten years? maybe he forgot to mention the challenge for a smaller amount has been there since the "80"s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.3.142 (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Just explaining my edits regarding copyrights of the blade and chalice(triangles) to stop these vandals from deleting it.

Firstly, these copyrights are artistic expression, as they have mechanical means to show those copyrights. EXPRESSION!! My merging is the same as dan brown's fusing, both are mechanical in wording as a means to express a certain form. So dan brown's? copyrights? that are in a fixed form(his book/ movie) is the only thing copyrightable in his book/movie and are as copyrightable as mine but as I had these in fixed form aswell, and was making money from it 2 years prior TDVC book I'm afraid if you like it or not I own these copyrights and you can check with Austrailian Federal Police or the Attorney General here in Austrailia or check copyright dates with the I.S.P where these files were sent from in early 2002.

So because I'm called fraud-o, which I don't mind at all, I will remind you that I am only pointing out these copyrights and am explaining and verifing only the copyright issue and NOT the information that appears to be look fraudulent in the PI.EXE But I am well aware that I need to explain the following to you, I think I need to explain what else appears to be fraud, as you might misunderstand what all this information about, well it's because these files were made for my claim for the million dollars that is offered by james_randi to prove I am able to solve the reason for the pyramids placement and also prove that the pyramid building cultures are related even though everyone say they cannot!!. and that my files/information that had to be self evident was that way because explaining to them was to come from my extraORDINARY evidence, as with in order to claim the claimant must use an ability such as E.S.P and have extraordianary evidence otherwise you cannot claim for the money, I didn't even want the damn money, I was only there for kicking some respect out of them and they should have took it on the chin, because if they dish it out they should be able to cop it on the chin aswell, again I was only after respect!

They would also able to use my claim and all information as they wish anywhere and for anything they wanted, I didn't like this Idea and made it this way for the reason to let them have it but not really have it, you must understand that I wanted to have it and not let them exploit my copyrights and information where ever they wanted and didn't want this to happen without them looking stupid, in other words I would let them have the crap version but not the good one, as thats mine to keep for myself....

I will also try to explain a little about this file's information as it was made for these sceptics to be able to find a new location to discover from the Easter Island axis information and there was a new location to find as in using Easter Island as East is land as I would have had to explain all this to them anyway, as reasoning would have shown that there were other pyramids there to do this same code on to prove that you see the very same numbers in the Egyptian pyramids and the Mexican pramids which are apparenly not similer to one another at all!!!! The 10% that you "could" win, might look fruadulent but again I will stress that it is not a fraud(read PI.EXE) and evidence, the little money left for me I think is worth all this information that you get from www.apperlate.com and the PI.EXE because it is really worth a lot more. Would you believe that I made it in a digital form as I didn't want to be responsible for any trees that would be cut down making a stupid book!!!!! I had wanted to open www.apperlate.com instead of being told that I never sent any such claims in in the first place and then be called a nutcase and and then suffer the consequence's of my own stupidity untill I could prove the truth using the police and my I.S.P'S So unless anyone has any questions I will just continue to keep undoing vandalism when this information is removed from these pages because if any of you think that these are not my copyrights and belong to dan brown, ring a copyright lawyer and ask! it's really that easy.

                                                Pierre.

Author is not copyright holder of blade and chalice

These copyrights are owned by www.apperlate.com [5] and this artistic expression was copyrighted early 2002 in a file that is available at www.connect.to/pyramids

[6] (a word play for connect two pyramids) In this file it also clearly states to merge images together to create a star of David to show hidden pictures or codes. The real author of these copyrights is speculating that the Da Vinci code's author or his researcher(s) had mistaken him for priory of sion's Pierre (Plantard) as his name is also Pierre, while he applied for the one million dollars which was/is offered by the famous skeptic James Randi at www.randi.org while using this code as e.s.p, as the claim must also include a supernatural ability.

Edit warring

Since no one seems to have tried to calmly talk to you, I am going to.

That paragraph you keep adding doesn't belong on any page in the Wiki, let alone 4, not even your userpages. Not as it is written, anyways. All content about a living person must be sourced by a reliable third party. This is stated in policy at WP:BLP. That file you use as a source doesn't directly claim that Brown doesn't own the copyright and using it to claim that is original research per WP:SYN isn't appropriate either. The burden lies on you, not others to properly reference content. Now, I implore you to stop edit warring with others and attempt to discuss this on a talk page. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 07:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR Warning

You are engaged in an edit war on Criticisms of the Da Vinci Code, as well as on other Dan Brown-related pages. Regardless of the contents of your edit, you are in clear violation of wikipedia's three revert rule. Please stop. Redrocket (talk) 07:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Eh, never mind. Redrocket (talk) 07:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

To DeadEyeArrow: How the hell would a file that was made three years before I even knew about that twit dan brown be in that file for? He never wrote book till almost 2 years after. If I wrote a book before he infringed my copyrights his name and me taking about infringement wouldn't be in it either, after r.fiend posted my article on my NEIGHTS page and told me that that is a good place for it, as is my talk page I pointed out to him "WHAT A GREAT PLACE TO PUT IT INTO SO EVERYONE CAN SEE IT WHILE READING ABOUT THE DA VINCI CODE OR DAN BROWN" no one would put in and search for NEIGHTS and just agreed with him, this is after the fraud and the loony jokes, so you nicely pointing this out to me is just as annoying to me and I did the following , I wrote to Wikipedia copyright division, I think it was to them, since I was cut of without warning as I was replying back to you on my talk page an was cut of from editing when I saved page, and asked what my rights are regarding infringement and asked that I didn't really want to have pages removed but if my "not original" sourced, verifiable information isn't allowed to be in those pages where it promotes my copyrights, I would rather all of it get taken down because I believe that information about that book/movie/author doesn't have that information in it , and it is all lies as it makes everyone who read them think that they belong to him which they do not! So thanks for the chat have got better things to do anyways.

                                    Pierre

Thanks Master of Puppets who just posted on r.fiend's page, thanks! Neights (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC) I woulda posted on your page but some idiot who doesn't ckeck or verify the facts chopped me of from editing!! Like yourself, just engages mouth before putting brain into gear! Neights (talk) 09:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the 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 review while you are blocked.

Neights (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock)

---

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)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you abuse this procedure by making too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page as long as you are blocked.

This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the 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 review while you are blocked.

Neights (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock)

---

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)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you abuse this procedure by making too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page as long as you are blocked.

Although it's very difficult to understand you, I think you are saying that you are the owner of the copyrighted material published by Dan Brown under the title "The Blade and the Chalice." If I'm understanding you correctly, you are further claiming that Mr. Brown has unlawfully claimed your ideas as his own, and is guilty of plaigiarism. Of course, our conflict of interest policy prevents you from adding this information to Wikipedia yourself, but if Mr. Brown has indeed plaigiarised and been found guilty of it in court, that is significant and important information that should be added to the relevant article. Although I'm having trouble fully understanding the situation from reading your comments, I would be glad to add the appropriate information to the article. In order to verify the accuracy of the statement, and to make sure that I am adding the correct information, could you please provide links to three newspaper articles about Brown's plaigiarism of your work? I have your talk page on my watch list, so you can just post them here, and I'll add the appropriate information within 24 hours. Thanks! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that these three newspaper articles should be independent and reliable. --Yamla (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the 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 review while you are blocked.

Neights (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock)

---

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)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you abuse this procedure by making too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page as long as you are blocked.

I appreciate your kind words. Wikipedia has a very firm rule that we only publish material that has already been published by a reliable source, like a newspaper or magazine. When your case against Brown is complete and you have proven in court that he has plaigiarised from you, though, it will be such huge news that there will be thousands of newspapers discussing it, and many editors will race to add the information to the relevant articles. Until then, you should just accept your block and move forward in some other way. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

continues here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:121.209.3.81 [[7]] Neights (talk) 08:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the most interesting thing that I have ever read Neights. Why do you put it on all those other pages? --Juggantic (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)