User talk:McTrumpet

Er, hello...

Just wondering what drew you to leave the comment on my talk page? You have no record of any contributions before this. I'm afraid I don't really welcome comments from editors about other editors on my talk page. If I have a dispute with someone, I don't really welcome other editors, particularly editors with no edit history, adding their tuppence-worth. If you want to say anything to an editor, say it on their talk-page, don't use mine. I'm also afraid I suspected you of being "somebody else", ie. a notorious vandal trying to disguise himself.... Camillus (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Nothing much. Just browsing through, and I saw an anonymous shitebag making threats over the net, and commented on their amateurishness. I don't have a dispute with anyone, other than to say that I don't agree with your policy of judging the quality of edits based upon the previous edits, or lack thereof, of the editor.

You can suspect me of whatever you want, however, I shall draw your attention to these articles here : Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers

Thanks for making a noob feel welcome dude. ;)

I do apologise if I have wrongly accused you, but it does seem strange to me how browsing through Wikipedia would lead you to a user's talk page. How does that work? New editors usually start by editing articles, not getting involved in other people's disputes. Perhaps you have been editing anonymously before tonight, as it also seems strange to me that a "newbie" would be so up with WP "policies"? Camillus (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

As I have alrady explained, I have been browsing Wikipedia for quite some time, and am most familiar with its policies and guidelines and the operation of Wikipedia. To access a users talk page, you click on their username, and then discussion next to the tab for their name.

If you need to know how it is that people come to be familiar with wikipedia policy, please check out this article: Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines

You will find it most informative.

As you will Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

Your actions are in breach of both of these Wikipedia policies, kindly desist.

--McTrumpet 00:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I have struck out my comment on the WP:RfC page, as you are quite correct in saying that I have no evidence for my "suspicion", although I don't agree with your comment that you had "already explained that you have been browsing WP for some time" - I can't see where you explained this previously. Camillus (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. I was going to insert that information, but decided not to. Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain the relevance of this anyway?

Incidentally, I still can't see where you have apologised for making unfounded accusations aginst me, and admitting that your actions are in breach of :

1 : Wikipedia:No personal attacks 2 : Wikipedia:Assume good faith

Could you provide me with the link please?

Many thanks. --McTrumpet 00:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

While you are at it, User:CPMcE, is there a policy with regards to browsing talk pages? I understood that these were publicly accessible pages? Please ley me know which pages I should and should not be viewing. Thanks again. --McTrumpet 00:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, I'm afraid now I have to take exception to the comments that you have added to your new user page. Evidently you created it after I struck out the comment on the RfC for Rms, with the explanation above. But I would have to take exception to "Camillus is actively still going around spreading rumours and lies about myself!". This is patently not true. Apart from my comments here, I made one comment elsewhere (the RfC), and subsequently struck it out, as I admitted I had no evidence. How does this translate into "actively still going around spreading rumours and lies"? How can one comment on one other article, expressing a "suspicion", translate into "spreading rumours and lies"?

I would also point out that the "notorious vandal" (notorious for adding sectarian bigotry to many articles to do with anything Irish or Catholic) that I mentioned above pretended to be an Irish Catholic in his latest "incarnation", calling Rms an "eedjit", just before you edited my talk page, so it didn't seem awfully surprising that he should come back again "attacking" Rms. Normally I get about one comment every few days. Rms was coming back every half hour or so, in a different guise, and then your comment appeared, "out of the blue". This is what led to my suspicion.

I can't see how your remarks about me on your user page (not just on the discussion page) do not amount to a personal attack against me. Camillus (talk) 01:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

At the time the page was created, the content was as it says.

After you had failed to respond to my request that you cease and desist spreading further lies about myself, you proceeded to accuse me of having previously made edits anonymously, a statement which you have yet to retract.

What are you talking about "accusing you of making edits anonymously"? I asked if you had done so, as it seemed strange to me that a new user would immediately jump into an RfC - there's absolutely no policy against making anonymous edits, WP is the "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". How can I "accuse" you of doing something that is perfectly acceptable. Being so up on policy, you should know that. Camillus (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not give a hoot who this Rms person is, nor have I ever heard of them before. If you have some problem with a user I suggest you take it up with them.

Why add a comment to an RfC about a person you don't give a hoot about, and have never heard of before, endorsing the RfC, and stating that the person you have "never heard of before" has breached the rules of wikipedia, on multiple instances, and has admitted to previously, and will continue to, create multiple identities for the purpose of vandalising wikipedia??? You don't give a hoot, you've never heard of him before? - how the hell do you square that with your comment on the RfC? Camillus (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

My user page is a statement of fact, the quotes are copied, word for word, from the postings which you have made. For you to suggest that this is a 'personal attack' is a misuse of the Wikipedia policies, and is, in fact itself a form of harrasment.

You have still failed to retract the statements which you have made against myself, therefore you are still continuing to spread lies and rumour about myself.

I have responded on your talk page, I have moved the "discussion" to the talk page of the RfC. How on earth can you say that I am "spreading rumours and lies"? You have used your user page solely for the purpose of attacking me.

I have no further interest in "discussing" with you. Camillus (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I shall update my user page accordingly.

--McTrumpet 01:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

found another one :

"I strongly suspect it's Mr.Seeger up to his old tricks. What a bore. Camillus (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)"

No, surely not that Camillus?!?!?!?

They don't spread lies, rumours and gossip about people. Do they?

"01:50, 29 March 2006 CPMcE (→Er, hello... - the mind boggles how someone could endores an RfC about someone they've never heard of before and don't give a hoot about!!!)"

Or do they? --McTrumpet 02:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)