User talk:Max2004

Animum stated that the user name promotes a website and that violates a policy that is listed on Wikipedia as a disputed policy citing possible violations of Free Speech. The website CNNfan.com is 100% non-commercial, so there is nothing to promote as it makes no money as a fansite. It does not even run advertisements at all.

So it is clear that the block on the username is NOT related in any way to being rude or inflammatory, unnecessarily long/confusing, or too similar to an existing user, nor does it contain the name of an organization.

It is blocked solely for promoting a fan site which has no revenues at all. Therefore, we would like to move that the complaint be made more certain and definite or that it be dismissed for failure to state a claim. We wish to assert that even if some of what the complainant Animum states is true, that it is not enough to support the claim, and that a suspension is therefore unnecessary.

IMPORTANT: The focus of the CNNfan article has been changed to define the type of fan that a CNNfan is for CNN. The article will use the Trekkie article for fans of Star Trek as a guide. It is a matter of public record in the whois database of domain name registrations that CNNfans have been online at CNNfan.com since January 2004. CNNfans have been publicly recognized by CNN on the web and on TV for years. We are certainly a legitimate fan base and the first of its kind, as we have been emulated.

Please clearly note: After four years, CNNfan.com is FULLY cached in the search engines. We do not need nor want promotion via Wikipedia. Our only goal is public service.

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 70.111.109.84 lifted or expired. Request handled by: Kuru ^talk 22:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm presuming that this is the new account you will be editing with, so I have lifted the autoblock created on your IP. Kuru ^talk 22:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of CNNfan

I have nominated CNNfan, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CNNfan. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Gr1st (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your hard work is about to be deleted from Wikipedia

The article you created, CNNfan is about to be deleted from Wikipedia.

There is an ongoing debate about whether your article should be deleted here:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CNNfan.

The faster your respond, the better chance the article you created can be saved. This is because deletion debates only stay open for a few days, and the first comments are usually the most important.

There are several tools and other editors who can help you keep the page from being deleted forever:

You can list the page up for deletion on Article Rescue Squadron. If you need help listing your page, add a comment on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.
You can request a mentor to help explain to you all of the complex rules that editors use to get a page deleted, here: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond on the deletion page.
When try to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. Don't let these acronyms intimidate you.
Here is a list of your own acronyms you can use yourself: WP:Deletion debate acronyms which may support the page you created being kept.
Acronyms in deletion debates are sometimes incorrectly used, or ignore rules or exceptions.

If your page is deleted, you still have many options available. travb (talk) 00:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CNNfan

I know you are not happy with the deletion, but yelling at harassing the deleting administrator is not the way to go. I am also going to ask you to stop contacting the deleting admin about this issue for the time being so the two of you can cool down. Also, as he mentioned, if you wish to contest the deletion of your article, you can visit Wikipedia:Deletion review and follow the instructions there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Legal threats are unacceptable. This comment will not be tolerated. If you intend to sue the foundation then you are welcome to do so in a Florida court. Threatening to do so on another editor's talk page after they have told you repeatedly to leave them alone will not avail you. If you wish to contest this block you may place the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} on your talk page. Please read the guide to appealing blocks beforehand. Protonk (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Max2004 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Seeking representation by an attorney in an appeal is not a legal threat. Please provide contact information for your legal department. Thank you.

Decline reason:

You are procuring an attorney unless your article gets undeleted. That's about as real a legal threat as they come. WP:NLT has the information you need. — Smashville^talk 14:42, 9 January 2009 (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.

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).

Max2004 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There is no threat of any kind in the statement you used to support your block, which was, "Please don't interpret this as a threat. This is just a very serious matter. Unless this is resolved, I may contact my attourney for representation in the appeal." Therefore, your reason for decline, "You are procuring an attorney unless your article gets undeleted. That's about as real a legal threat as they come." is unconditionally false. Please acknowledge your error by removing this block. Thank you. (Max2004 (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Decline reason:

No, this is a legal threat as we understand it, see WP:NLT. — Sandstein 19:28, 9 January 2009 (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.

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).

Max2004 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please explain where in your own reference WP:NLT you specifically understand "threatening to employ litigation" and/or how any other part whatsoever in your own reference WP:NLT relates to any of my statements in any way? Please be specific, or admit that you were wrong by promptly removing the block. Thank you.

Decline reason:

As you are procuring an attorney for a matter related to Wikipedia, any further contact will have to be run through our legal team. — Smashville^talk 21:44, 9 January 2009 (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.

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).

Max2004 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Thank you "Smashville". No. You are incorrect. A matter that does not even exist yet, can not possibly relate to Wikipedia until it exists. The appeal does not exist yet, so contacting my attourney is an option I "may" consider. I said, "I may contact my attourney for representation in the appeal". Furthermore, I also made it clear, "Please don't interpret this as a threat." and also said,"This is just a very serious matter.". Thank you for referring me to your legal team. In general having attourneys resolve disputes without litigation is a good thing, even if it costs money. Let me make this clear: At no time did I threaten Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

Regardless of your interpretation, the diff provided in the block does indeed meet our definition of a legal threat. If you continue to make unblock appeals, this page will be locked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:23, 9 January 2009 (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.

Comment: This is increasingly looking like a case of a user refusing to get the point. Any further unblock requests that do not include a clear retraction of the previously mentioned legal threat will result in this page being protected from editing. —Travis ^talk 23:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Max2004 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Everything I say or have said is subject to the approval of my attourney. I request this block be promptly voided because of the abuse by those Wikipedia administrators making irrelevant allegations which have no bearing on the subject of the Christmas Eve deletion of the definition of CNNfan followed by the Wikipedia administrator Spartaz language which mocks God and humiliates the Wikipedia user.

Decline reason:

you have yet to retract your legal threat, you stay blocked until you do. And as Travis notes above, this page will now be locked — Jac16888 (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2009 (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.