User talk:Ajovitsky

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. how do i sign with a link as Yunshui did? Please be patient with my syntax I have not tried to do this in a long time. [AbbyJo]. Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC) can you please READ this and leave the gist of it up here for 24 hours or email me privately before erasing it this time? I will respond whenever I get email re this page changing and will do so asap. If you have specific objections to my article, then please email me those. I aim to please not to threaten :)[reply]

Trying to update discussion, now that I have more time to focus. 1. I did originally read the State of California one page summary quoting Federal Register, which is public domain. 2. I am a legal writer. I did not make "legal threats," I merely reserved my right to file for defamation of character, as all I have is my reputation, I did not have any intention of personal gain, suing for money, etc. I did view a recent video of your founder commenting on "people who sue us not realizing we're a non profit," yes, of course I realize this. I apologize for any inference that I was implying a threat of any kind, merely pointing out the wrongdoing of accusing me of something I did not do, namely infringing on a copyright that does not exist. 3. I did not read the State of California's copyright claim, but if they have such it only applies to the summary their worker wrote, I can write my own summary of the same source material if I think her summary is lacking in some way. We both quoted the same source material and had similar interpretations. The source has the same words, but is very long and difficult to find unless reader knows where to look, and in what section of it. 4. I tried to write a DIY for parents who are in a bind, from parent to parent, so that someone who is tired after working all day or on a lunch break can put in their wiki browser "revocation" or "parent revocation" and get the instructions. I had to hire a lawyer find out and then point out to Congress that the law was and is still incomplete, as it does not tell the parent HOW to revoke and "a writing" is fairly vague. There is still no revocation form for parents, no official form. There is no official procedure. Schools still retaliate by calling CPS if parents revoke, even though it is their right under federal law, but CPS will not win a case after a parent revokes if CPS is pursuing the parent only for refusing to medicate after revoking and this was my personal experience in 2008, which is how I came to be "very knowledgeable" on this topic. -- a.j. ovitsky aka abby ovitsky and Abby Ovitsky on FaceBook. My federal lawsuits are public record on PACER or you can google me if you like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.22.40 (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored talk page access to this account. It remained indefinitely blocked pending resolution of legal issues. User:Fred Bauder Talk 05:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Parent revocation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parent revocation until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 2012

This 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).

Ajovitsky (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

there is not copyright violation, quoted text is from public domain, namely The Federal Register. The copyright claim was only to a previous summary. If there are any words quoted not from public domain, I will edit those out before re submitting MY article. No "threats" were made, this is a misunderstanding. I am a LEGAL WRITER, I need to protect my reputation, and being accused of violating a copyright implies I copied my text, and passed it off as my own, I need to stop that here and now. I would appreciate being unblocked and having both my accounts merged, as I am not trying to hide there is only one me and I use wiki all the time, gratefully. The blocking was very knee jerk, nobody checked my claims then and hopefully you can now check SOURCE IS PUBLIC DOMAIN. It is quite possible you did not SEE my objection last year due only to my sloppy syntax and not having it display in the proper place for you to READ, if so, my apologies.

Decline reason:

Legal threat not withdrawn. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. Hut 8.5 09:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reblocked this editor indefinitely on the basis of disruptive editing and removed his ability to edit his user and talk pages. However justified this user's complaints may be regarding the issues which he has raised in his editing here, Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum for them. Other venues should be used. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]