User talk:Eptypes

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, Eptypes, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! Resurgent insurgent 12:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of ref desk section: accidental?

Why did you remove this section from WP:RD/M? It didn't seem inappropriate to me. Was it an accident? —Keenan Pepper 05:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that; I was going to move it to the Science desk. --Eptypes 05:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put the question back. Cheers. --Eptypes 05:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpupetry

Clio the Muse said on Rockpocket's talkpage that she suspects that you are a sockpuppet. Just thought it would be better to let you know, since you might never look at that page otherwise. A.Z. 05:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your comments. Editors should be permitted to leave Wikipedia in peace and with dignity. There is no good reason for sniping from the sidelines. Rockpocket 06:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you are a relatively new editor, Eptypes. Please be aware the it considered extremely impolite to revert the deletions editors choose to make on their own talkpage. There has been much debate about what should and should not be deleted from talkpages, but the current state of play is that editors can remove content of their own pages. Therefore, please do not revert these comments again.

The - shall we say - robustness with which you have embraced the Ref Desk in the days since you arrival has raised more than a few eyebrows. Sadly, there are so many editors who feel the need to use sockpuppets that new editors who show more than a basic level of knowledge about the project are often cast under suspicion. This often leads to conflict with WP:BITE and WP:AGF. Now, I have no idea if you are a sockpuppet of a user I may know, and even if you are, as long as you adhere to our policies then it is unlikely it would matter. However, my friendly advice to you is to exercise a bit of caution for a while or so to get the hang of things, learn from the regulars and avoid getting involved in contentious issues. Before too long people will begin to come around to the fact that you are just a fast learner. Rockpocket 07:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFAR

You have got to be kidding, did you even read any of my comments above? Firstly, the RFAR will not be accepted since there is nothing to arbitrate, secondly what on earth does my reversions of StuRat's goading have to do with you? And finally, if you wish to be investigated for sockpupptery, this is exactly the way to go about it. I have been advising people that they should respect WP:BITE and WP:AGF with respect to you, but this course of action is hardly doing yourself any favours. My advice to you is to withdraw this premature RFAR before you find yourself in trouble. I certainly shall not be taking any part in it. Rockpocket 23:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration case stays. --Eptypes 23:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the arbitration from User:Eptypes, or from User:Khunter, or from User:Goingempty, or from User:Parker007, or from User:Shines8, or from User:Paracit? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It will be unnanimously rejected. You need a reality check. Start an RFC. David D. (Talk) 23:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can not speak for another user. If StuRat wishes to make a statement he may use his talk page and a clerk will copy it over. Please do not copy conversations involving other users. Thatcher131 23:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due process

Dear Admin,

02:38, 22 May 2007 Thatcher131 (Talk | contribs) blocked "Eptypes (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ({{sockpuppetcheckuser|Endgame1}})

I do not see my name here:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Endgame1

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).

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

Request reason:

Thatcher131 has skipped due process, and blocked me. Note: CheckUser information release is governed by the CheckUser policy.

Decline reason:

See here. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:57, 22 May 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.

Checkuser information does not have to be filed publicly, in this case it was directly communicated to me by checkuser Mackensen. However, thanks for the reminder to update the page. Thatcher131 17:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]