User talk:GrotesqueOldParty

What's wrong with that name

Say it slowly, one syllable at a time. --Milton 04:49, 28 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).

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

Request reason:

I don't understand this at all - and isn't there some sort of process to go through? I think there should be some sort of discussion about this and I should be able to take part in it. I think I've been a good citizen even though I'm fairly new here and I don't understand why I'm being treated so abruptly. I ask that the ban be lifted and for a discussion. I'm not totally opposed to changing this name, BTW, I just want a chance.

Decline reason:

None of that needed, especially since you're not opposed to changing the name. Just follow the directions above. — Jmlk 1 7 21:29, 10 July 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.

I didn't say I was not opposed to changing the name. I said I'm not TOTALLY opposed to changing it, but I think it should be given a fair hearing. I was fishing around and noticed the name "Demsaredonkeys" was allowed to stand, even though that user has since changed it. I also wonder if either of you even bothered to look up the word "grotesque" before making your decisions. GrotesqueOldParty 01:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further - the very first thing I will do if I do change my name is go public and request a full discussion in the appropriate forum on usernames. I will use the prior decision in favor of Demsaredonkeys and any other names which may possibly be seen as anti-Democratic to argue in my favor. This discussion will take place either way, so why not get it over with now? GrotesqueOldParty 01:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Allowing username change to WhiteHouseDelouse (talk · contribs) Request handled by: Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delouse - "To rid (a person or an animal) of lice by physical or chemical means". I would expect this name to be rejected by Wikipedia:Changing username under the grounds that it may be "insulting to other people or groups." (See Wikipedia:Username policy#Inappropriate usernames). Just a heads up, as you may wish to give it another a try. - auburnpilot talk 01:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice, and you have more experience with this place than I do, but if "Demsaredonkeys" can be approved I see no reason why WhiteHouseDelouse shouldn't be. I mean, who wants lice to be left alone? Then again I don't see what's wrong with GrotesqueOldParty - you yourself had a long interaction with me and didn't object to it, after all. If this one is rejected I'll try another. GrotesqueOldParty 03:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a bit of a clarification, User:Demsaredonkeys is currently blocked, and has been for several months. That said, I'm not sure if they really are similar -- the donkey is in fact the logo of the Democratic party (I assume we're talking US, here, given the context), and I don't see such an argument applying in favor of this username, here. Your latest choice is probably better than the current name, but still sounds to me like a POV-username -- this is one of the few sites where that sort of thing may be problematic. Feel free to discuss, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new, but as far as I can tell POV usernames are not banned. I see them all the time here. BTW, why was the Demsaredonkeys guy banned after his name was allowed? Was it for some other reason? GrotesqueOldParty 05:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that I don't have any real objection to your current name, but I can see where others would. The username policy is just vague enough that most blocks/renames/etc are judgment calls, but you also get the blatantly objectionable ones as well. I'd say both your current name and requested name (WhiteHouseDelouse) fall into the judgment call area. If you'd like to file a report at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names before committing to a new name, I'd be willing to unblock for that purpose. - auburnpilot talk 04:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would very much like to do that. Thanks! GrotesqueOldParty 05:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet accusation

I'm not entirely sure what a sockpuppet is, but I've looked it up. I don't know who this person is who is making this allegation against me, and I looked at the 'evidence' and have no idea what they're talking about. I'm not sure this place is worth the effort if this is the sort of garbage you have to put up with to help here. I've just sort of been surfing random articles and doing little clean-ups and such where I could. Now my name's being attacked and I'm being accused of being this Torture guy. What next, someone will say I'm a clone? (Don't tell me, clone probably has some secret meaning here too.) GrotesqueOldParty 05:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely for being a sockpuppet of TortureIsWrong (talk · contribs) As confirmed by checkuser. GDonato (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]