User talk:Republicofwiki

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

You seem to be new here, so, let me start by welcoming you. Thank you for already contributing to Wikipedia. It wouldn't be a free encyclopedia without people like you donating their time. Citations are very important to maintaining the validity of Wikipedia pages. Keep up the good work and keep pointing out where people could cite sources.

~Xan


My concern about your username

Hello, Republicofwiki, and

welcome to Wikipedia
!

I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here?

I'd appreciate learning your own views, for instance your reasons for wanting this particular name, and what alternative username you might accept that avoids raising this concern.

You have several options freely available to you:

Let me reassure you that my writing here means I don't think your username is grossly, blatantly, or obviously inappropriate; such names get reported straight to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention or blocked on sight. This is more a case where opinions might differ, and it would be good to reach some consensus — either here or at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. So I look forward to a friendly discussion, and to enjoying your continued participation on Wikipedia. Thank you. -- lucasbfr talk 13:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification! To be fair, Crazytales probably checked your contributions after your RfA oppose vote, but his concern was probably genuine (Let's all
source the article than to add the tag, there are a huge amount of pages tagged for source clarification. -- lucasbfr talk 19:32, 22 June 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hi, I appear to be blocked due to 'harassment'. Was my username found to be unacceptable? I'm new here and confused as to why I was blocked. Thanks.

Decline reason:

Oh, come off it. You are clearly not new here and you are clearly trolling. Go find some other place to play. — Yamla 03:36, 23 June 2007 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Please see my 'In regards to my unblock request' below. Thanks.

Decline reason:

Your assertion to being new is not at all convincing. You demonstrate a clear understanding of Wikipedia that indicates you are an experienced participant. Your use of {{

DisputeCheck}} is particularly interesting. It's an old template (that's been a redirect a good while), is hardly used at all and its not listed on any of the pages about cleanup and dispute templates. — Vassyana 11:43, 23 June 2007 (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.

In regards to my unblock request

There appears to be some misunderstandings about my account. I am a new user. I came on Wikipedia a few days ago after a sizable break and found many high caliber pages full of citations. Others were not. I saw "citation needed" on an article, so I viewed the source and learned how to create [

Lue_gim_gong
article in 2004), but haven't made any edits as one in the past six months.

When I received the

WP:AN notice. I don't believe my response
to lucasbfr's WP:UN message was inflammatory and he replied to my reply in a positive, reassured manner.

I patron the #Wikipedia IRC channel on Freenode and yesterday read a conversation by users

User:Gracenotes
that new users typically do not participate in Rfas. I am willing to change my Rfa opposition reason to something more acceptable.

--Republicofwiki 04:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm interested in giving you a fair chance here, as we should always assume good faith. What do you have to say to concerns other unblock reviewers have had as to your assertions that you "are new here"? They seem fairly convinced. Should they be? Feel free to respond here or on my talk page. -- Renesis (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for taking an interest in my point of view. As a blocked user I cannot respond to your talk page, so I'll respond here. As I've stated above, although I have been lurking since 2003, I have not been a regular visitor or contributor to Wikipedia. This is my first account. I am somewhat familiar with mediawiki markup, just not to all the specifics of Wikipedia and the proper social subtleties of participating in the community. I thus consider myself a new user.
From what I gather, others see my use of {{
DisputeCheck}} template in the process of adding fact tags to Stanley_Rader. [1]
Finding fact tags and their usage is no challenge, they are plastered all over any credible page.
The controversy appears to be centered around my opposition vote in
WP:SOCK, first section). This is not the case as I am not a sock puppet or puppet master. A checkuser should clear this up, but I don't see myself added to WP:RFCU
as of writing.
If you could link my talk page to my section in the administrator's notice board it would be most helpful. [2]
Thanks again for caring. --Republicofwiki 05:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry for asking you to reply to my talk page, I forgot the obvious. I have a couple follow-up questions. I think it is definitely jumping to conclusions to say you are a sockpuppet, but how do you know so much about intimate details, such as checkuser and how did you end up on the Wikipedia IRC as such a new user? Please clear this up for me. Thanks. -- Renesis (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, you have been unblocked following discussion at
WP:AN/I. I am still curious about my previous questions, and I look forward to any information you can give me. -- Renesis (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Republicofwiki&oldid=1085989922"