Tcccfriends

Vandalizing the Upland entry

Whether or not medical marijuana is a local political issue, it is irrelevant regardless. Local current events do not belong in an encyclopedia article unless they lead to some greater significance. As of yet, this ban's impact is too early to determine. Furthermore, it is uncited. Please stop vandalizing the page. jer the linear 00:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It is irrelevant to you perhaps, but to hundreds of people, it is extremely relevant. Please stop imposing your values here. And just for your information, it will lead to a greater significance, very soon. Stop wallowing in your denial. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tcccfriends (talk • contribs) 5 July 2007.

Please indicate exactly what the significance has been, cite your source, and describe how it is specific to Upland and the other cities whose pages you are vandalizing. Until you can do that, please follow the rules of Wikipedia and stop adding non-encyclopedic information to articles in order to push your pet-project.jer the linear 06:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The Daily Bulletin article, 03/23/2007. The significance is that Ontario City Council banned Medical Marijuana, which is legal in the state of California. Thereby refusing to accept California law. It is noteworthy. Whether you as an individual believes that or not. If you feel you it is important enough to notify whoever regulates Wikipedia, please feel free to do so. It will give you another chance to use the word vandalize again. This is not a pet project. Hundreds of Medical Marijuana patients are being denied medicine they are legally entitled to have. The Ontario City Council is denying all of us our basic civil rights. Denying medicine to the sick and dying. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tcccfriends (talk • contribs) 6 July 2007.

I've been watching the events going on in the Ontario, California article, and I have to say, Tcccfriends, I agree with Jerdobias that the decision of the council isn't of great significance; it is, for now, a minor local political issue. First of all, for any statement, you must specifically cite where you get your information in the articles of Upland, California, Claremont, California, and Ontario, California.

Second, from your comments and from your contributing history, it's clear that you are not speaking from a neutral point of view, and instead leading a pro-marijauna campaign. You are bordering on vandalism with your constant reverts and re-additions to those articles. The appropriate administrators will be notified if you continue. --theSpectator _talk 08:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

All entries are derived from the Daily Bulletin, or the Claremont Courier. If you so desire, we can provide dates and which publication provided the information posted here. If the Claremont City Council is in the process of deciding whether or not to allow a Medical Marijuana Dispensary in their town right now, how does that not fit into Local Politics? We are not pro-marijuana, we are pro Medical Marijuana. It is your words that show the reason you are attacking us. You both clearly show your bias. Please, go ahead and notify the appropriate administrators. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tcccfriends (talk • contribs) 6 July 2007.

The fact that Jerdobias continues to remove the local politics concerning Medical Marijuana shows that neither he or you are neutral on this whatsoever. Please, alert the authorities. It is not your place to decide what is significant to others. Again, please alert the proper authorities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tcccfriends (talk • contribs) 6 July 2007.

I'm pro-medical marijuana. If you want to see my "biases," look at my userpage. You'd see I support a political party that is inline with your views on medical marijuana. HOWEVER, I'm not going to let wikipedia entries be flooded with my personal views, or your personal views, regardless if I agree or not. Just because it is a local political issue does not make it encyclopedic information. You're ignoring our argument. The fact that I'm reverting your vandalism doesn't show a non-neutral point of view on my part, it shows the opposite, and shows that I am committed to upholding Wikipedia standards. You've cited a source (well, actually, you've just named local papers), but regardless of the legitimacy of your claims, which really I don't even doubt, you've failed to point out the significance. It is, as was stated, a minor local political issue. Please refrain from turning this into a ridiculous edit war. jer the linear 09:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Now, let me see if I have this correct. You both consider it a, "a minor local political issue". But it doesn't fit into your viewpoint as significant. So we are all to bow down to you folks that have anointed yourselves as the local wikipedia police? The local paper has reversed it's position and is calling for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries to be opened through out the area, The Claremont City Council is considering overturning it's own ban on them, people are speaking out and protesting in several different places, and often. Just what does it take for you to consider it worthy? Do you even live in this area?

While I'll admit we are the obvious wikipedia experts you 2 want to be, until we are notified by someone with authority to stop, we will continue. And speaking of editing wars, it sounds like you have had more than a few, should I be surprised officer sir? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tcccfriends (talk • contribs) 6 July 2007.

you are more than welcome to check my contributions pages to verify that i haven not had "more than a few" editing wars. You have still failed to cite the significance of this ban, the burden of proof lies on you. You have mot stated why this is encyclopedic information. Millions of local political issues go on (and are highly contested) in millions of cities everyday, but we don't put these issues in Wikipedia. I understand you feel passionate about the issue, but again - that doesn't make it encyclopedic. As far as us not seeing significance, it is impossible to know how it will be significant, as it is way too early to see it's impact. Again, you're ignoring our point. jer the linear 21:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

To you, it's hard to see the impact or significance. Local politicians refusing to honor laws that were voted into existence by it's own citizens. Politicians refusing access to dying and sick of medicine. Now, I just checked George W. Bush in wikipedia, and there are several instances where the same kind of things are listed all over that entry. What makes it different when it concerns Claremont, Ontario or Upland? Just because this is local impact and national impact does not lessen the impact does it? I'm not ignoring your point, you are ignoring mine that it is not important by your standards. Wont future generations want to know that local governments refused medicine to it's own citizens? It does have impact, just because it does not influence your life does not mean it is not affecting hundreds of sick people here. Now, if it is important enough to you, I will learn how to reference the material. But again, if you want to call the attention of the authorities to this, I do not have a problem with it. But ask yourself 1 question, would it be noteworthy if they medicine they denied their local citizens be were anything other than Medical Marijuana? Would it be noteworthy if they would not allow penicillin or insulin to be sold within city limits? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tcccfriends (talk • contribs) 6 July 2007.

no, it would not be noteworthy. as far as notifying "authorities," this is a community run project. we are ALL the authorities. Wikipedia uses consensus to make decisions. you do not have consensus. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jerdobias (talk • contribs) 6 July 2007.

"The appropriate administrators will be notified if you continue. --theSpectator" So then this was an idle threat than was it? Incredibly classy. So what, denying medicine isn't noteworthy. What incredible act of inhumanity has to be done to rate noteworthiness with you? Does it have to be on a nazi scale? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcccfriends (talk • contribs) 6 July 2007

I'm not theSpectator, I won't speak on his behalf. When all else fails, compare whoever you're trying to argue with to Hitler and/or the Nazis. That'll prove your point. Regardless, it's only illegal to grow and distribute it in these cities, not to posses it with the appropriate prescription. No one is denying them the medicine, there are plenty of places where it is still legal. This does not violate state law. if the city doesn't want to allow it for some absurd reason, then that's the cities right (not to mention that technically, the state law is violating federal law). Regardless, this is not encyclopedic information. jer the linear 04:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

After reading your last post, I would really have to say I really don't feel you are intelligent to make any judgement calls here. First, if you actually read what I wrote, I asked to what nazi scale would someone have to do something to achieve what you think has significant impact. Such as the holocaust, things of that nature. But apparently, you are so defensive, you assumed i was speaking about you. Please try to keep up. Secondly, your inane comments about Medical Marijuana are so incredibly incorrect, it pains me to have to explain them to you, but let's have a go anyway, shall we? If you think not being able to grow is no inconvenience, possibly you aren't aware as to how much medical grade Cannabis costs. Are you aware most Medical Marijuana patients are on disability? It doesn't pay as much as you would think. Medical Cannabis is covered by no insurance billing. So growing is imperative to a lot of patients. Also, did you know that seriously ill, or injured people have trouble traveling? So going to where the Medicine is not as easy as you would portray it to be. I guess you didn't think about that, did you? For someone who supposedly supports Medical Marijuana, you sound like someone who does not. I think you are only rejecting my entries on a purely political basis. Once again whether or not you feel it is worthy that it is worthy or not is immaterial. I feel you have shown that your lack of information on this matter should really keep you from making any more judgments. And just out of curiosity, how far do you think a person with advanced cancer should have to travel. 50 miles both way? 100? How far would you say a seriously ill person should be forced to commute? How about someone with MS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcccfriends (talk • contribs) 7 July 2007

your arguments in favor of medical marijuana do not change the fact that this is not encyclopedic information. you don't have to convince me of your politics, you have to convince me (and the multiple other people editing your vandalism) of it's significance. If this pet issue is so important to you, start your own protest website... but stop vandalizing this one. jer the linear 09:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

nothing will ever convince you that you have not got clue one, so I guess it will just continue on in this manner. Continue on mr. policeman sir. And the rest of your mind police as well. You love that word vandalism don't you? I guess that's a buzz word here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcccfriends (talk • contribs) 7 July 2007

Thank you for the information concerning the signature portion of wikipedia, I appreciate it very much.

TheSpectator, you sure are one for throwing threats around. You just have to love keyboard heroes. Are you going to have Jerdobias blocked for the same thing or just me?Jerdobias, you amaze me. You automatically assume that the people who have removed my edits are doing it because they agree with you. It never even crossed your mind that some of the cowards that remove them might be associated with the city the information is in? No, you automatically assume it is people agreeing with you. You can't prove it, but you say it as if it were gospel. That's just a little bit on the pathetic side don't you think? Tcccfriends 22:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Now take this coward. IP 71.110.251.100. The only thing this "person" has ever done is removed the local politics information from Claremont, Ontario and Upland. He, she or it has never contributed anything at all. Merely taken away my Information. Now, where I came from, we call that a troll. Congratulations, you now brag about trolls agreeing with you. You must be very proud. Or I guess if you don't want to be known as king of the trolls, you could say this thing removed it every time because they don't want these 3 cities names to be associated with Medical Marijuana. But if you insist on being king of the trolls, I understand. Tcccfriends 23:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sign your posts on talk pages

As a courtesy to other users, please learn to sign your posts on talk pages. At the end of your comments, simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. See WP:SIG for more information. —Whoville 16:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC) Thanks Who. Tcccfriends 23:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Three Revert Rule

Please be aware of the 3RR rule: Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. If you make more than 3 reverts to the same article within a 24 hour time frame (as you have previously), you will get blocked. You qualify for 3RR now but I'm not reporting you because it is required to alert you of the rule first. Read the rule carefully and do not revert that article again or you'll be blocked. --theSpectator _talk 18:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about never editing it again since I don't think you actually have the power to threaten me or order me about. But, wow, and I mean this, Thank you for being you. Tcccfriends 23:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

First, no, I am not threatening you. It's a warning, just like many other warnings for disruptive edits at Wikipedia.

Second, yes, I do not have any power over you; I am merely another user here at Wikipedia. But, as a user to Wikipedia, I do have the right to report disruptive edits, which include edit warring, as you have Jerdobias have engaged in. It does not matter who it is, who I am, or how long either of us have been here. When policy is broken, it needs to be reported and action may be taken. And though I cannot block anyone, others can if they feel that disruptive edits were made.

Lastly, it's obvious there is a dispute over the inclusion of medical marijuana in the articles of Ontario, California, Upland, California, and Claremont, California. Here is Wikipedia's policy on disputes: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. The first step of communication clearly isn't working here. The second step of taking time off would be helpful. Perhaps, lastly, there should be a request for comment on these disputes from an outside party. --theSpectator _talk 02:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with an outside party. My intention here was never to engage in any kind of hostility. But both you and Jerdobias both came on rather strong from the very beginning. I am not the kind of person that takes lightly to that. Yes, there is a dispute over the inclusion to these 3 cities. To say that local governments are withholding legal medicine from their own citizens who voted for it because 5 or 6 local businesspeople just don't want to, is worthy of inclusion is an understatement. In my opinion and 72% of all Americans. Please notify whomever is the proper person that needs to help us come to an understanding here. If they say it shouldn't be there, I will abide by their decision, and I will not include that information again. Or, do what you consider to be vandalism. Tcccfriends 04:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

I have placed a request for comment under the Politics section regarding the issue of including the city blocks to medical marijuana dispensaries. The full RfC discussion is on the city of Ontario's talk page (since there was a related comment there). Please feel free to add your comments. Hopefully a third party can help with input. --theSpectator _talk 20:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Tcccfriends, you stated on the Ontario, California talk page when we started this RfC process, whatever decision was made, that you "will abide by it." However, you have not gained a consensus, and it does not look like you will. Since Wikipedia is built on consensus, the decision thus far is to NOT include this information. However, you are still vandalizing pages with your edits. I'm sure we would all appreciate you sticking by your word, and abiding by the decision NOT to include this minor local political issue. jer the linear 01:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I am waiting for a third party. not a sock puppet like yourself with a couple of nicks. Now, if you wish, I could contact a few people and have a consensus. Is that how you would like it?Tcccfriends 03:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the only account i have posted anything under. Look at the Contributions pages of the other people and you can clearly see they are not me. They're obviously third parties that came due to theSpectator's RfC. Don't use your misunderstanding of Wikipedia as an excuse to lie to us. Follow your word, abide by the decision. jer the linear 03:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is there a jerdobias and a jer the linear?Tcccfriends 08:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I already asnwered this, but i will repeat it here. Apparently you don't have a solid understanding of how wikipedia signatures work. I'll be happy to explain. jer the linear is my signature. it is the SAME account as Jerdobias. It is not a second account pretending to be a different person. Therefore, it is not a sockpuppet. In fact, my signature, as do ALL of our signatures, actually WikiLinks to my userpage, to help ease the confusion. Glad I could clear that up. jer the linear 07:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You did not answer my question. Do you want me to have a group of my friends to register so there will be a consensus or not? Answer up sock puppet.Tcccfriends 02:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The only way you can get consensus is through cheating like that? No, I'd rather do this the legitimate way. I'm sorry you can't get consensus. Please stick to your word and abide by the legitimate decision. Again, I'm clearly not a sockpuppet, so your poor excuse at an insult is moot. It just makes you look bad sense you don't have an understanding of the term. jer the linear 07:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing a sock puppet(and trust me, I know what it means, and you sure do fit Mr. 2 names at least) says has any validity or interest to me. I would merely be following the rules. I don't understand why you would say that was cheating. Maybe you need to go spend some more time with a dead OS.Tcccfriends 07:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Fit two names? Jerdobias is the only acct I have. Please tell me what the other account is. Again, there is a difference between an account and a signature. Anyone can edit how their signature displays through their preferences page. That is not sockpuppeting. Again, you are misusing the phrase.

(Fixed spacing, by the way; please be sure to have a space between a previous comment and your own.) Jerdobias is not a sockpuppet, and he only has one account. He simply has a customized signature. See WP:SIG for information on customized signatures. If you believe there are two accounts, provide links for both accounts. As jer has stated before, so far the RfC comments have shown that there isn't a current need for the information regarding the ban on medical marijuana. So for now, refrain from adding that information, as it contributes to edit warring.

Tccc, I also suggest you read for your own information: Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. --theSpectator _talk 16:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I wont do it anymore. But I have to say, the snob factor I'm dealing with here is of a massive magnitude. I will repeat you are both dead wrong, and I hope it comes back and bites both of you on you extremely up tight asses. I'll stick to my word, while both of you will stick to your chairs by the afore mentioned tight sphincters.Tcccfriends 18:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

When your own comments are unnecessarily abrasive and falsely accusatory, and your actions are disruptive and against Wiki Policy, is it any wonder why you’re not receiving the best welcoming? Thank you for doing at least one reasonable thing, and agreeing to not edit the article anymore. Even though, since you're blocked from editing it anyway, it doesn't matter.jer the linear 19:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I bet that makes your little peepee stand up tall doesn't it little man? Gloating is not nice, but it does show your true immature nature.Tcccfriends 19:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope you realize the the irony of calling me immature directly after your inane comment. Grow up, move on. jer the linear 20:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You are a prime example of a poser. You will eventually see this about yourself, and learn to despise yourself to the very core.Tcccfriends 01:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Editing Others' Comments

It is unnacceptable behavior to edit another individual's comments on talk pages. Please see WP:TALK, which specifically states

Never edit someone's words to change their meaning. Editing others' comments is not allowed.

. For more information, WP:TALK discusses this policy in detail.

Blocked
You have been blocked for misbehaviour for a period of time. To contest this block, add the text {{unblock}} on this page, along with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.

Daniel Case 02:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Case 02:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)