User talk:Rattler2

Odd sentence in "Criticism"

Please my question here: Talk:Patent#Odd_sentence_in_.22Criticism.22. Thank you --Edcolins (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fraberj for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. -FrankTobia (talk) 12:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hacker

Charles Michael, I would be fascinated to know what your definiton of an hacker is and to know why you think I fit that definition. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See your answer below here. Further, your use of the word "an" is incorrect (at least here in Wikipedia's United States). Rattler2 (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I now have the address of your house and will be taking that in the law suit, and any cars or anything else I can get interrogatories on. You want to skrew around with me you piece of sh!t? Just wait. You have 24 hours to remove that lower paragraph or I WILL SUE YOU AND WIKIPEDIA FOR LIBEL AND DESECRATION OF CHARACTER IN THE COURT OF APPROPRIATE JURISDICTION Rattler2 (talk) 09:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Thank you for telling us in advance that you are Rattler2. So we block you. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you guys (I would guess hackers, err... make that thieves) block me? For what? Oh right, self-defense. Self-defense against the self-defender of the hijacked article Independent Operability, hijacked and supplanted by open source thieves, no doubt about that... first blood corruptly taken in this flame war coming from your quarter. No doubt you and yours who are destructive. You didn't block the hijacker of my article William R. Buckley for threatening to sue me did you? Just gave him a warning, effectively nothing... oh right, you're selectively destructive too. Selectivity based on the most destruction towards the most number of people possible while championing causes that look like your are going about constructive activity.

The thief would always like to redefine the word "thief", and so would the "hacker" but I know one when I see one and so do many others. Further the "hack" I saw was two different depictions being displayed of F-Units to different people than me. Mine looking favorable to me and the other of what was being displayed to everyone else being not favorable, this after the buffer was purged. That would be a "hack" in my dictionary. Then I go to see who RHaworth is who was doing heavy deleting at that time and I see a crazy, greasy, scary face there with written comments about things being "hacked about". Does that satisfy your feinted curiosity? I didn't think so. See you around. Rattler2 (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot, "Yamla" told me she didn't see the greasy scary face on RHaworth's user page and cited that for a reason to uphold the block of my "legal threat" of calling Prince William County Police and FBI. There you go again!Rattler2 (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2008 (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).

Rattler2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

your reason here

Decline reason:

Per this, you admit that you and Fraberj are the same person. Therefore you have been blocked for sockpuppetry. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2008 (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.

Evidence in my deffense:

Evidence against me for this block is not only weak, badly drafted, with errors it is bias abject nonsense from patent haters and you/they know it. So you guys (I would guess hackers, err... make that thieves) block me? For what? Oh right, self-defense. Self-defense against the self-defender of the hijacked article Independent Operability, hijacked and supplanted by open source thieves, no doubt about that... first blood corruptly taken in this flame war coming from your quarter. No doubt you and yours who are clearly destructive. You didn't block the hijacker of my article William R. Buckley for threatening to sue me did you? Just gave him a warning, effectively nothing... oh right, you're selectively destructive too. Selectivity based on the most destruction towards the most number of people possible while championing causes that look like your are going about constructive activity. Typical media zombie merchanting of chaos. Well, you should send me a check because you got plenty of chaos out of me back in your face to market, but you fools give it away.

The thief would always like to redefine the word "thief", and so would the "hacker" but I know one when I see one and so do many others. Further the "hack" I saw was two different depictions being displayed of the F-Units article to different people than me. Mine looking favorable to me and the other of what was being displayed to everyone else being not favorable, this after the buffer was purged. That would be a "hack" in my dictionary. Then I go to see who RHaworth is who was doing heavy deleting at that time and I see a crazy, greasy, scary face there with written comments about things being "hacked about".

After above "Yamla" the first line blocker in this case told me, in the email to me that she didn't see the greasy scary face on RHaworth's user page and cited that for a reason to uphold the block of my "legal threat" of calling Prince William County Police and FBI. This was a lie. That aside, check your own "legal threat" page: "Reasonable" actions done in good faith do not warrant such outrageous actions. I believe I was taunted to do this by those knowing the proper response I took would be useable to contort and construe into a "legal threat" which fired off the flame war. Further, someone as I fighting continuing lies in a biographical attack and writing on other players in the field does not constitute "self promotion". You guys are simply editorializing boobs, cited by another editor of your own kind. I should be able to say anything I want in a talk page without having to be worrying about mechanized strategic blocks from core Wikipedia principles. I can't even get interested enough to get serious about learning footnotes because this dinosaur will soon crash and burn, however it has been morbidly and comicaly amusing.

Talk amongst yourselves, because the only people you are fooling are yourselves. Just look! The last paragraph in F-Units remains completely unsourced, made up and a total lie and viciously protected by a maliciousely bias cabal of needling weirdos who are atracted to this place in droves. The Collins self-replicator does exist stolen by Cornell who made it as well, look at the video of it [1] Also an "editor" (something I am less of than someone fighting a vicious biographical attack) completely made it up and my blocks were all provoked and strategically timed to assist in furthering sustasining the continuing patterned libel. Do you really think you are fooling anyone else but yourselves with this abject lunacy?Rattler2 (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, my site linked to Wikipedia was destroyed as of now, coincidence? Not likely. Same thing happened last time RHaworth and cabal were fighting with me over this (my MySpace site was deleted in last flame war). Rattler2 (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DanielCase: If somebody smashesh you in the teeth you smash them back in self defense. Then you pound their face into hamburger on the ground so they never have the ability to do it again. I was blocked wrongfully for reporting a hack and a victim of malicious lies. Wikipedia wants to smash me in the face you F@cking g@d d@mn pigs well see what happens!@#$%^&&*(*()!

You have 24 hours to remove that lower paragraph or I WILL SUE YOU AND WIKIPEDIA FOR LIBEL AND DESECRATION OF CHARACTER IN THE COURT OF APPROPRIATE JURISDICTION.