User talk:Gary Lorentzen

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. You are, however, encouraged to add appropriate content to the encyclopedia. If you feel the material in question should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. A.J.A. 15:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A.J.A., how does one then go about describing the college or any college or anything? If anything anyone says is 'advertising' to you, then would you please advise me as to how to word a history and description of the college so that you don't keep deleting it? I didn't write an advertisement. It was just the facts. The opinions expressed under criticism and controversy were just that, opinions. I've read the wikipedia pages you suggested, and it is not enlightening as to why my description and history of the college can't be used. If I remove the "...students are challenged to..." statement, will it meet your approval? I will keep posting until your aggressive, prejudiced and rude approach to this is resolved. gary lorentzen

Second Warning

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. A.J.A. 05:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Point of View Policy?? Get serious. Do you consider what is written on the Kepler College page a neutral point of view!? I'm stunned. The agenda on that page is so clear, and the negative tone of it, if you want to talk about 'tone' of the language, is intellectually dishonest at best. OK, I'll ask again, can you suggest language or 'tone' that you would approve? You are trying to create a no win situation here. It seems no matter what language is used, if it is neutral to Kepler College, you'll delete it. If it's negative, you'll allow it. If I wrote something in support of what is already on the page, would that be acceptable? If I agreed with Dr. John Silber or if I suggested that all non-accredited insitutions should be shut down, would that be alright? And thank you for the 2nd level of warning. But like I said, this will not end. I'll take this through the entire process Wikipedia allows, and if necessary I'll do with with my lawyer. Your agenda is clearly to practice censorship, which I cannot allow you to get away with. Gary Lorentzen

3 Revert Rule

If any editor reverts an article three times in one day, that editor may be blocked by an administrator. See WP:3RR. A.J.A. is a bright individual, but s/he is a difficult editor and finds it very difficult to accept that others may have a different set of beliefs; it would seem virtually impossible for him/her to accept different beliefs as being valid. You might also want to appeal to mediation. See WP:DR. Good luck. Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not concerned about A.J.A.'s socalled beliefs or his/her intelligence. I'm concerned about fairness and intellectual honesty. I have a lawyer looking into this nefarious form of censorship practiced here on Wikipedia and especially by A.J.A. to determine whether the editing practices are censorship. If h/she insists on censoring objective, factual information for religious or ideological reasons, there will be repercussions. I will go through the process that Wikipedia has laid out, but if A.J.A. 'wins', as h/she appears to do again and again with information h/she doesn't like (there's a litany of complaints about this person), there are ways to remedy the problem. Gary Lorentzen

WP:NLT

You have been blocked indefinately for making legal threats against another contributor. Please read our policy for more information. Naconkantari 15:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per the request of several editors, I am willing to remove your block if you will please follow our policies on legal threats in the future. Naconkantari 22:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read your policies on legal threats. I made no specific legal threat to anyone. I simply said I have a lawyer examining the Wikipedia editing practices and how it's done to determine whether there's any problem here. I believe there is, when your user/editors can simply stalk sites and delete anything they don't like. I have no plans to sue anyone, I'm simply having certain practices here at Wikipedia examined and watchdogged.

If you want to block me permanently, that's fine, because I'm not alone. A.J.A.'s editing practices will be scrutinized and watchdogged whether I'm on Wikipedia or not. Gary Lorentzen

It's very easy to read what you wrote – a passage that mentions a 'lawyer' and 'repercussions' – as having an air of legal threat about it. Naconkantari has applied our policy reasonably and correctly. If you have specific questions about the legal status of Wikipedia, you should go through the proper channels: contact Brad Patrick, the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, through email, fax, etc. off of Wikipedia.

If you're willing to agree to be civil in the future and avoid any mention of the 'L'-word, there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to be a productive member of the Wikipedia community. I strongly encourage you to accept Naconkantari's offer. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a repeat of his threat. A.J.A. 05:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gary, I don't that we will ever "bump" into one another in editing; I focus on religious articles and float on the Random Article attempting to improve whatever articles pop up. However, WIKI is a public encyclopedia and for it to serve the public we need editors that are capable of bringing their expertise and employing it here. Remember that it is public and no qualifications are required of any editor to make edits, but we do have standards and enforce them. A legal threat, even a mild one, is taken seriously. I suggest you become familiar with WIKI policies. A.J.A. has a difficult time cooperating, but when he breaks policy, report him. Continue to be as overly patient as you have been with him/her; I have tried repeatedly and it is difficult. When he reverts 3 times, report it immediately and he will be blocked for a short period of time initially. If it continues, the periods will become longer. It is unfortunate that adults need to resort to such measures, but it is a public process and WIKI attracts all kinds. A.J.A. is an exception and not the rule. Overlook her/his behavior and please continue to contribute! We need people of your caliber. I apologize for this incident and you are wanted and needed here. Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]