User talk:Hogfanjax

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Hogfanjax, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

November 2017[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018[edit]

Your recent editing history at Richard Cordray shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Richard Cordray". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 14 May 2018.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 19:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Consumer Financial Protection Bureau". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 14 May 2018.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 19:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 06:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning Richard Cordray, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 06:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

"see you in court"????[edit]

Your recent edits to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Consumer Financial Protection Bureau could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a threat if it is something you are going to do genius and i mean that in the kindest way. IN THIS COUNTRY we can take abusers to court....we can go to court for anything we find illegal or threatening, libelous or slanderous in court. Welcome to the legal system IN America so dont threaten me with your continuing threats.

Block me and prove my point for me, just more threats. is this your normal method of conflict resolution because it sucks really bad.

Hogfanjax

Ping Orangemike NZFC^(talk) 01:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So to put this simply, i felt (MY PERCEPTION) felt threatened whether standard verbiage or not, (it also felt disjointed and purposefully rude), I decided to skip talk with the user who threatened me and undid additions out of spite, through your mediation process which is a normal response to unsafe feeling towards another person in a dispute. Perfectly reasonable, this mediation request was rejected after explanation. I wish to complain to the Chair of Mediation but had to verify an email, which I did. NO email was sent to verify oddly enough, then I received multiple further threats from users in the help section and here. Let's be clear, I am allowed to discuss this with counsel, you cannot deny that right of anyone for any reason. It is also MY sole responsibility, as the process seems flawed and broken. This is how I (once again as in ME) see it and further retaliation only furthers my point and my information to legal counsel. Appreciate the admission above, the words of legal counsel so far have been "this is why they schill for money and I will review the conduct of the policy and process." Sounds pretty bad as it is already dont you think? Well thanks for the background, continued threats, and performing EXACTLY as I thought you might in this conflict resolution process. Experts you are not ladies and gentlemen. My advice is to rethink your process. Reverting additions that are perfectly reasonable and cited with 100% verified documents and reports without discussion and the whim of non-experts in the given field then blocking the process for safe discussion seems unintelligible and obsequious at best, and mean spirited and purposeful at worst. Again I have said my peace and if it means I decide to go to court then see you in court, if legal counsel finds this taxing and not worth the change, then good luck in whatever you choose to do next. I doubt this rises to the level of court as I am also legal counsel. But that in this case is really not relavent. To assuage a legal threat from a review from legal counsel is rude and inappropriate. I felt threatened and libeled in a flawed process. Thats is my perception as stated above, further threats do not help the cause folks. Also just side advice, you have made the process so obfuscated it is almost not worth the time. You may to hire some experts to develop a better conflict resolution, not dispute (note these are different and are perceived differently) process. That is free advice. Take it. Have a nice day ladies and gentlemen. 02:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Hogfanjax (talk)

Hogfanjax (talk) 02:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #21484 was submitted on May 10, 2018 02:44:17. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 02:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]