User talk:Renamed user 5

User talk:Peter Damian
This page is a soft redirect.

Renaming pages

Please read Help:Moving a page for directions about how to rename a page. Copying the source code from one page to another is not an endorsed method of renaming. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right - I fixed everything already, so the text and all the edit history is at Problem of future contingents. If you find that you can't move the page to the correct name using the "move" link, you can ask at Wikipedia:Requested moves. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

In light of this post I have blocked you from editing Wikipedia. You cannot resume editing under a new name to circumvent your block. Also "Renamed user X" is the form given (as a courtesy) to those who have asked to vanish and stop editing the site. Please do not abuse this courtesy that was extended to you. WjBscribe 17:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly unreasonable. I have stayed away from any controversial area, and if you look at my edit history since returning this afternoon, you see they are of clear benefit to the 'project'. The article on Medieval philosophy needed a lot of work. Still does. Please be reasonable. Renamed user 5 (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your block is indefinite - you tried to derail an editor's ArbCom candidacy with absurd accusations and when that didn't work, you harassed him through posts to multiple websites. You misrepresented to me the extent of these postings, and suggested they had been removed when they have not. You also did not contact Jimbo Wales with the evidence you claimed to had, despite his offer to hear you out. If you want to negotiate an unblock, you need to contact Jimbo Wales as he invited you to. Alternatively, you could contact Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>. And btw, this sort of remarks on other sites really isn't the way to persuade me to extend you the benefit of the doubt... WjBscribe 17:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained that. Wales did not reply to my initial email, and the evidence I had was 'oversighted'. Which you know. I would rather you did not bring that up again. Renamed user 5 (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On being reasonable

For example, here are the extensive revisions I have made today to Medieval philosophy. What exactly is the purpose of this new block? Renamed user 5 (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how about I reregister under a non 'renamed user' account? Will that satisfy you? Those articles were in desperate need of attention, and the encyclopedia is better for them. They would not have happened without my knowledge of that subject. Once again, what is the block meant to achieve? Renamed user 5 (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the nonsense above

you harassed him through posts to multiple websites - all deleted
You misrepresented to me the extent of these postings - no I explained to you that these were replication sites.
You also did not contact Jimbo Wales with the evidence you claimed to had I did contact Wales, he did not reply. Some of the evidence was oversighted. The rest of it I am keeping.
If you want to negotiate an unblock, you need to contact Jimbo Wales as he invited you to. Again, he refuses to reply.
And btw, this sort of remarks on other sites really isn't the way to persuade me to extend you the benefit of the doubt...

Appalling

Wikipedia's admins are working hard to maintain their reputation as petty wannabes, I see. Wish I could help. Your edits are a credit to Wikipedia -- a credit they don't want. 271828182 (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]