User talk:Namescases

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Namescases, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Firsfron of Ronchester 16:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Fidel Castro

Yeah, looks like you won't be getting any apology for your dubious source —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpliii (talk • contribs) 04:37, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious tag on Robert E. Murray article

I've started a discussion about the "dubious" tag you added to the page on Robert E. Murray. You might wish to read the talk page. — Scartol • Talk 22:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Your repeated demands for an apology and threats of reporting users to ArbCom and RfC are disruptive and could be viewed as abusive. Please review the policy on civility and refrain from making disruptive comments. Thank you. --Ginkgo100talk 23:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree that asking for an apology in one eventuality is disruptive or abusive, and an RfC is an appropriate next step. If anything, your demands that I refrain while threatening me with an abuse complaint are worse. But rather than make destructive threats, I will take the high ground and let this message stand. --Namescases 00:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't threaten you with anything. I just asked you politely to be polite yourself. --Ginkgo100talk 02:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
An Rfc would be entirely inappropriate and it wouldnt be just Ginkgo100 who would see that as disruptive. When editors just follow policy in an uncontroversial way then threats of Rfc or arbcom could indeed be considered disruptive, SqueakBox 03:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

Here is a list of useful links that I have compiled:

[edit] Apology

Looks like it should be ont he other foot, ie you owe us an apology, cos his death has absolutely not been announced still, SqueakBox 21:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trolling

This edit [1] is trolling. Please do not do this again. Guy (Help!) 16:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, it is not trolling. That is a list of encyclopedias, and no matter how hard the Wikipedia cabal stops their feet, it warrants inclusion in that list. I know you try really, really, really hard to get rid of ED from the Internet, but it has a place on that article. If you truly don't want it listed on a list of encyclopedias, then you may have to delete the article.
Second, your tone is most unwelcome. Between this and your unwarranted reversion of my edits to Web of trust (removing links to very unstable/down websites does not violate the original research rule on any sane planet), I daresay that you suddenly have a vendetta against me. It is alarming and disconcerting, so I ask that you kindly refrain from posting to my talk page unless you wish to apologize. --Namescases (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "Certain Wikipedia administrators seem to be less than calm in dealing with me. There are a few contentious issues, but it is nothing major. Further, their hands are not necessarily clean. I tried to be most reasonable, but sadly one of the administrators resorted to blocking me.

I do not believe this is fair. I do feel targeted, perhaps for expressing an unpopular opinion. I have been labeled as a troll, yet it was never my intention to be disruptive.

It is indeed high time we all take a step back and discuss the matter, perhaps as an RfC. To best proceed with an RfC, I need to be unblocked.

Once unblocked, I pledge to avoid editing two articles that are the root of this disagreement, and avoid the administrators who acted against me. I would also ask that the administrators who acted against me kindly refrain from accosting me further, until the matter is settled by the community.

Best wishes,"

Decline reason: "Your comments were, indeed, trolling. The links you have been posted are considered disruptive, and you are obviously well aware of the fact. — Coren (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

But Coren, I am asking for the community to review this matter. And to state my case. Surely I have a right to present my side, to discuss this in an open forum, and so forth? Alternatively, if you believe you are so correct, why are you afraid of unblocking me so that I can get an RfC on the matter? --Namescases (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You have, actually, no such "right". Editing Wikipedia is an opportunity you can deny yourself with inappropriate behavior such as you have displayed. The Arbitration Committee has already ruled that links to ED are entirely inapropriate [2], so your only avenue of redress is with them. — Coren (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


You've come here to troll, and have admitted as much with edits like this. You could at least be honest about it when confronted. We realize that you are trying to have fun by being disruptive, but you have to realize that we are trying to build an encyclopedia here, not play a MMORPG. Please stop wasting our time. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)