User talk:Audriust

The owner of this account is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts.

(Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets)

I did not and do not use more than one account, you can remove your "suspicions". In the past 5 years I moved 2 or 3 times, therefore an IP address could be different, but it was within NC or SC (Carolinas). Any other user is not me and not associated with me and any kind of accusations like that either be removed or will be legally challenged for libel and damages. And if you want to know - yes I did post "commercial links" for 2 domains and I learned my lesson. Now you should remove the unfair accusations A.S.A.P. Audriust (talk) 04:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Howdy, Audriust, Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions, you seem to be off to a good

Community Portal. If you have any more questions after that, feel free to ask me directly on my user talk page

.

Additional tips

Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!

For Wikipedia policies and guidelines see The Five Pillars of Wikipedia and What Wikipedia is not.
Find everything in the
Directory
.
If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
Introduce yourself at the new user log.
If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the
Community Portal
.
If you have edits from before creating an account try this.
To
Copyright tags
.
Please
talk pages using four tildes
(~~~~), this will automatically produce your name and the date.

Be Bold!!

You can find me at my user page or talk page for any questions. Happy editing, and we'll see ya 'round.

Jo e I 13:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Audriust, we are sorry for the inconvenience of the theft of your images, as --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk) has stated we will try and find your banknotes and credit them to you. But if you find any notes not credited please post on this page Talk:Gallery of banknotes, and we will correct it as soon as possible. Thankyou Enlil Ninlil 04:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not and do not use more than one account, you can remove your "suspicions". In the past 5 years I moved 2 or 3 times, therefore an IP address could be different, but it was within NC or SC (Carolinas). Any other user is not me and not associated with me and any kind of accusations like that either be removed or will be legally challenged for libel and damages. And if you want to know - yes I did post "commercial links" for 2 domains and I learned my lesson. Now you should remove the unfair accusations A.S.A.P. Audriust (talk) 04:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming Adsense Related

Accounts

This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent insertion of spam, commercial content, and/or links is prohibited under policy. Any further spamming may result in your account and/or your IP address being blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please stop. If you continue to use Wikipedia to advertise you will be blocked from editing.
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
and you must always:
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see

Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. --Hu12 (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

ATTENTION!

Most of these IP addresses are not mine and I never posted from them, except one. I do not know any of the people who posted from all of these IPs (except one which is mine) and I never am or was associated with them in any way. I do not practice asking someone else to post links for me, although it probably is happening all the time, so how can you delete posts only if IP address is same or is located nearby the website's IP? That's wrong. Because someone who's at X IP could ask someone in India or Australia to post their link for them. In my case I never practice this and I demand removal of this defamatory post and listing of my sites that have nothing to do with spamming. These websites you listed are not spammers and never spam. I understand that the first two websites in the list were posted on wikipedia, but then again, the same IP address can have a population of hundreds thousand, millions or tens of millions and you can't use such criteria. You are clearly using double standards, - you allow coin site to post a link where most than 60% of the page is Google Ads and Ebay listings for sale, yet the innocent sites in that listing never spam or never were posted on wikipedia and you included them in your defamatory listing. Be careful what you post cause you will be legally responsible for public defamation and damages. I demand immediate removal of the defamatory post, except the ones that you have a clear proof and evidence of spamming. I also suspect (just like you suspect) that this is because someone on Wikipedia was posting my stolen images without providing proper credits and since then I feel I'm getting unfair accusations of spamming from IP addresses that I never lived in nor I am associated with neither there any friends of mine at those addresses and public defamation from Wikipedia. Once again. BE CAREFUL WHO YOU PUBLICALLY DEFAMATE! Audriust (talk) 22:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments posted on "Talk" pasge of
Immovable property
article

I suggest that you go there to see my response to the changes in "your" article, now that you have claimed authorship of an article writen under an anonymous ISP.

Viva-Verdi (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I note from above that you have already been warned about adding commercial links, etc. so I shall check them out and see if they meet the proper criteria.

Viva-Verdi (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of external links

Whatever your past history, please stop removing external links, as you did to several currency articles.
Dove1950 (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viva-Verdi, The Misspeller

Viva-Verdi, whoever you are, go back to school, cause you misspell like a drunkard. Shame on you. You should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia! Audriust (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ImmovableProperty.co.za commercial link under "References" has slipped through Viva-Verdi's fingers?

I wonder why Wikipedia has Double Standards? When I posted a link to www.immovableproperty.com/ in the past, it was immediately deleted. It contained important and educational Q&A (FAQ). Now the www.immovableproperty.co.za/ link under "References" from South Africa does not have any useful nor educational contents in it, just a "For Sale" or "Coming Soon" page; apparently the author is either selling the domain or advertising and taking subscriptions. There is a section "External Links" yet the South African page is listed separately "References". What kind of "reference" that website is, with no contents? How come it is not deleted from Wikipedia? Is Wikipedia run by kids? I demand answers. Audriust (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to

Immovable property, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Are you blind? You are posting right UNDER my post that received no answer. Here it is again:

I wonder why Wikipedia has Double Standards? When I posted a link to www.immovableproperty.com/ in the past, it was immediately deleted. It contained important and educational Q&A (FAQ). Now the www.immovableproperty.co.za/ link under "References" from South Africa does not have any useful nor educational contents in it, just a "For Sale" or "Coming Soon" page; apparently the author is either selling the domain or advertising and taking subscriptions. There is a section "External Links" yet the South African page is listed separately "References". What kind of "reference" that website is, with no contents? How come it is not deleted from Wikipedia? Is Wikipedia run by kids? I demand answers. Audriust (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)Audriust (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the link. You could have done the same?Theroadislong (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you just woke up? That's what I was doing! And it was called vandalism. What is vandalism: adding a commercial link or removing it? Did you read my post in the "Talk"? Lift up your eyes and read. Audriust (talk) 14:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalizing my contributions can't get the vandals blocked? When you remove a legitimate link to a legitimate website (weather forecasts, warning people on incoming health risks), you must include a detailed and sufficient explanation on why it was removed. I do not legal threats, I am protecting my rights to a free speech. There is no such thing as "chemtrails conspiracy theory" because this is how controlled media wants us to see it, but when you look UP (yes, UP!) into the sky, what you see is what you get - chemtrails and those are documented even in government documents. The link I posted is not illegal, it is not prohibited by any laws. The website I posted is not commercial, it is informational website about possible weather and related health hazards. Vandalizing my legitimate contribution may have legal consequences. This is not a legal threat. It is a note, and I am protecting my rights by posting so. Also, if I'm blocked I will challenge your decision appropriately. This is a note, not a threat. I do not ever threaten anyone. Stating that my note is a threat, again, may be challenged, and this is again, a note. Therefore please restore my contribution and issue a warning to the vandals who vandalized my contribution 2 or 3 times now.

Hi Audriust. I understand that you are very concerned with protecting free speech, however, Wikipedia is a private website and claims of free speech violations don't go very far. Also, your post to Acroterion's talk page here is very much a legal threat, more specifically "Vandalising my contribution is illegal and I will take it to court when necessary.". Legal threats have a very negative effect of the collaborative environment here. Lastly, it is not up to users reverting you to have to explain to you why they are removing the info. The burden of proof lies with you to explain why it should be included. The standard dispute resolution model used here is

Bold-Revert-Discuss. That essay should provide you with a very good explanation on how to procede from here. Ish dar ian 22:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:No legal threats

Do not issue legal threats on Wikipedia pages, as you did here. Doing so may get you blocked. Please see WP:No legal threats for details. Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats and freedom of speech

Hi, Audriust,I saw your post at

there is no "right to free speech" as such on Wikipedia

. You see, the right to free speech as normally understood in the United States means, more or less, that the government cannot restrict what you say. But Wikipedia is not a government site or enterprise; it is a privately-run website, and it is not obligated to host anything it doesn't want to. Thus, saying the removal of your contributions is a violation of your right to free speech is not correct.

Moreover, threatening to take issues to court is strongly frowned upon at Wikipedia, and will usually lead to your account being blocked until the threat is retracted. A block like this isn't intended to be punitive; it's intended to limit the damage that a legal threat can do, to Wikipedia, the community, and the accuser. Legal threats like that create a "chilling effect" that discourages the free editing of Wikipedia, and legal issues are complex enough without the accuser editing further and muddying the issue even more. So, I'd ask that you retract your threat to Acroterion; if you stand by it, you will probably get blocked until either it is retracted or the legal issue is resolved.

Finally, Acroterion wasn't vandalizing; they were right to remove the link. On Wikipedia, we have very specific rules about what external links should and should not be included in Wikipedia articles, as detailed by

the external link policy, and I'm afraid that your link doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. So, please don't keep re-adding it; it really shouldn't be on the article. If you have any questions on any of this, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Thanks. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Furthermore if someone reverts one of your edits, for any reason, it is considered very disruptive to just repeat the edit.

dispute resolution process instead, which starts with discussing the issue on the article's talk page. Hut 8.5 20:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

In case there's any doubt, you've been blocked from editing until such time you acknowledge the excellent explanation provided above, and retract any and all threats of legal action. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I got it now. I didn't know you were a PRIVATE company with tight censorship, not open to alternative media or even open for truth. I thought Wikipedia was a PUBLIC place to share info openly. Sorry! I promise to never come here again as I do not like to read biased mainstream controlled media articles. You can keep me Blocked, it's okay! cheers! :-)