User talk:Republicofwiki

You seem to be new here, so, let me start by welcoming you. Thank you for already contributing to Wikipedia. It wouldn't be a free encyclopedia without people like you donating their time. Citations are very important to maintaining the validity of Wikipedia pages. Keep up the good work and keep pointing out where people could cite sources.

~Xan

My concern about your username[edit]

Hello, Republicofwiki, and welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here?

I'd appreciate learning your own views, for instance your reasons for wanting this particular name, and what alternative username you might accept that avoids raising this concern.

You have several options freely available to you:

If you can relieve my concern through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it.
If the two of us can't agree here, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as asking for a "third opinion", or requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Wikipedia administrators usually abide by agreements reached through this process.
You can keep your contributions history under a new username. Visit Wikipedia:Changing username and follow the guidelines there.

Let me reassure you that my writing here means I don't think your username is grossly, blatantly, or obviously inappropriate; such names get reported straight to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention or blocked on sight. This is more a case where opinions might differ, and it would be good to reach some consensus — either here or at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. So I look forward to a friendly discussion, and to enjoying your continued participation on Wikipedia. Thank you. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification! To be fair, Crazytales probably checked your contributions after your RfA oppose vote, but his concern was probably genuine (Let's all assume good faith ;). You contributions puzzled me also, since you seem to know the ways and means of Wikipedia. Having 2 accounts is not prohibited as long as you don't use both to create a sense of consensus and you don't circumvent a block. For my part, I'm satisfied by your reply on my concerns :). About the fact tagging, I have no issue as long as you don't overuse is to prove your point on something, but keep in mind that it is way more effective to try to source the article than to add the tag, there are a huge amount of pages tagged for source clarification. -- lucasbfr ^talk 19:32, 22 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).

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

Request reason:

Hi, I appear to be blocked due to 'harassment'. Was my username found to be unacceptable? I'm new here and confused as to why I was blocked. Thanks.

Decline reason:

Oh, come off it. You are clearly not new here and you are clearly trolling. Go find some other place to play. — Yamla 03:36, 23 June 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Please see my 'In regards to my unblock request' below. Thanks.

Decline reason:

Your assertion to being new is not at all convincing. You demonstrate a clear understanding of Wikipedia that indicates you are an experienced participant. Your use of {{DisputeCheck}} is particularly interesting. It's an old template (that's been a redirect a good while), is hardly used at all and its not listed on any of the pages about cleanup and dispute templates. — Vassyana 11:43, 23 June 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.

In regards to my unblock request[edit]

There appears to be some misunderstandings about my account. I am a new user. I came on Wikipedia a few days ago after a sizable break and found many high caliber pages full of citations. Others were not. I saw "citation needed" on an article, so I viewed the source and learned how to create ^{[citation needed]} tags to add "citation needed" to pages and added them to a few articles which I believe need citations to back up their unsupported claims. This is my first account, I've lurked around since 2003 as an IP address user (I started the Lue_gim_gong article in 2004), but haven't made any edits as one in the past six months.

When I received the WP:UN violation, I looked up lucasbfr's recent changes via the 'Special pages' link in my toolbox and saw the WP:AN notice. I don't believe my response to lucasbfr's WP:UN message was inflammatory and he replied to my reply in a positive, reassured manner.

I patron the #Wikipedia IRC channel on Freenode and yesterday read a conversation by users User:WHeimbigner and User:Miranda discussing User:Crazytales's Rfa. I read Crazytales's responses to the questions and joined with the minority in opposition. I apologize if my opposition was seen as insolent or harassment. I have now been informed by the very helpful User:Gracenotes that new users typically do not participate in Rfas. I am willing to change my Rfa opposition reason to something more acceptable.

--Republicofwiki 04:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm interested in giving you a fair chance here, as we should always assume good faith. What do you have to say to concerns other unblock reviewers have had as to your assertions that you "are new here"? They seem fairly convinced. Should they be? Feel free to respond here or on my talk page. -- Renesis (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for taking an interest in my point of view. As a blocked user I cannot respond to your talk page, so I'll respond here. As I've stated above, although I have been lurking since 2003, I have not been a regular visitor or contributor to Wikipedia. This is my first account. I am somewhat familiar with mediawiki markup, just not to all the specifics of Wikipedia and the proper social subtleties of participating in the community. I thus consider myself a new user.

From what I gather, others see my use of {{fact}} and the arcane {{DisputeCheck}} as damning evidence I am a sock puppet or a reincarnation of some long-standing editor. I am not. I discovered the tags and their parameters by a simple process I hope all Wikipedians, new and old, apply: if you see some interesting markup, view the source of the page and discover how it was done. I found the {{DisputeCheck}} template in the process of adding fact tags to Stanley_Rader. [1] Finding fact tags and their usage is no challenge, they are plastered all over any credible page.

The controversy appears to be centered around my opposition vote in User:Crazytales' Rfa. According to WP:RFA, "Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose and Neutral sections." I assumed this as a welcome to add my opinion to the Rfa. I now realize this is far from the truth. Rfas are horribly political and controversial. New users should steer away from them. I have been accused of multiple votes in Crazytales' Rfa (a violation of WP:SOCK, first section). This is not the case as I am not a sock puppet or puppet master. A checkuser should clear this up, but I don't see myself added to WP:RFCU as of writing.

If you could link my talk page to my section in the administrator's notice board it would be most helpful. [2]

Thanks again for caring. --Republicofwiki 05:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for asking you to reply to my talk page, I forgot the obvious. I have a couple follow-up questions. I think it is definitely jumping to conclusions to say you are a sockpuppet, but how do you know so much about intimate details, such as checkuser and how did you end up on the Wikipedia IRC as such a new user? Please clear this up for me. Thanks. -- Renesis (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, you have been unblocked following discussion at WP:AN/I. I am still curious about my previous questions, and I look forward to any information you can give me. -- Renesis (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]