User talk:Selnec

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Selnec, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

I notice, despite being a newly registered account, that you have some level of experience of editting on Wikipedia. That said however, I must inform you that some of your edits (as your account name suggests) are comparable to other users, whom identify with the Historic counties of England.

I suspect/trust you are familiar with what are known as the Naming conventions for English counties, however, as a matter of courtesy, I must inform you that, following many, many, many debates, and extrapolating all the legal and otherwise data, that for better or worse, the following policy on Wikipedia was been formulated:

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) Counties of Britain

This page in a nutshell: All Wikipedia articles about an existing British settlement or locality should use the current, administrative, county (e.g. Greater Manchester). Metropolitan counties, and other such modern counties, should be treated as counties and as a primary geographic reference frame. We should not take the minority position that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries.

Editors are often blocked for failing to recognise policies, and this one is no exception. Some of your edits could be seen by the editing community as inflammatory, and thus, I send these policies to you in an effort to communicate the rules of Wikipedia and support you so you are not blocked. I trust this helps. Good luck for the future. Jhamez84 22:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

unjustified. other accounts not being used.

Decline reason:

Block upheld on the grounds of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#"Good hand, bad hand" accounts, since the purpose of this account was to separate any repercussions for disruption from being attached to your main account Lancsalot (talk · contribs). -- Netsnipe ► 06:05, 9 November 2006 (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.

Wrong. That was not the purpose of the account. User:Lancsalot was subject to an increasing level of bullying and personal attacks from User:Morwen and her associates, making productive editing increasingly difficult and unpleasant. In addition, the new account has not been used for any disruption. All edits were made in good faith and improved article content. For example I corrected a couple of spelling mistakes which User:Jhamez84 has since reintroduced. I would also like to protest at Morwen's use of IRC to request back-door IP checks thereby avoiding due process, since in this case there was clearly no justification for the check. Selnec 10:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Now that you've been outed as the owner of this sockpuppet account, is there any point to having it unblocked anyway? Anyway if you want to take this further and have some other administrators review your request, I suggest you email unblock-en-l. -- Netsnipe ► 13:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a sockpuppet account since User:Lancsalot is no longer active. Only the principle of fairness requires that this account be unblocked. However, given the evident corruption in the admin system I won't be editing again using any account. Selnec 14:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The User:Lancsalot account was being used in an increasingly disruptive way, edit warring to promote a point of view. Particularly troublesome are edits like this. I invite other parties to read Talk:Lancashire/Archive 1 and decide for themselves.

The usage stopped, suddenly, after I got sick of this continued disruption and declared my intent to bring this disruption of Wikipedia in front of the arbcom if it continued. This would have provided you ample opportunity for evidence of "bullying" and "personal attacks" on my behalf to be presented. Morwen - Talk 14:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Disruptive meaning not in accordance with your POV. Never mind that my views are supported by Enc. Britannica - you know better. Anyway, further discussion is unlikely to be productive so I'll leave it at that. Selnec 16:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]