User talk:Canepa

Your edits are being discussed at WP:SPI
Hello Canepa. Your name has been mentioned at Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto. You may respond there if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the warning, I have responded with a full explanation. Canepa (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Michael Shrimpton
Please read Talk:Michael Shrimpton before doing anything else on that article. The banner is there to give the original editor a change to add proper citations (and to demonstrate notablility), otherwise the artcile is liable to be deleted. Removing the banner will count towards a WP:3RR, adding it does not. Martinvl (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Your abuse of the BLP unsourced template certainly counts towards your 3RR tally, and your undisclosed removal of references from the references section in the same edit may indead lead to more serious charges. Perhaps you should review your own actions before throwing your weight around, and before you get an WP:ANI filed against you for it. Canepa (talk) 10:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Another editor has wikified the article. Martinvl (talk) 11:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Another editor has undone your abuse of that template, lucky for you it would seem. Canepa (talk) 11:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Martinvl, the proper tag would be the {refimproveblp} - there is one legit source that mentions the subject.
 * Canepa, self posted resumes are not suitable general sources/references nor appropriate external links.
 * You two should stop bickering like an old married couple and maybe consider a voluntary interaction ban before one gets placed on you. Wikipedia is a big place, you dont need to follow each other around poking at each other. -- The Red Pen of Doom  12:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Block appeal
Hello Atama. Did you read my statement in the SPI? If you did, you will see that I explained fully that I was not a new editor. I had even added a list on my user page of the areas of Wikipedia where I had been active for years before (deleted by Dennis Brown in this edit). So one of your points in null and void as there was a perfectly reasonable explanation for it. Can you supply a few diffs and examples of what you think shows "a particular agenda" and of what you think shows the "grudges" please. Then I should be able to give the simple and reasonable explanations of those too. Do you agree with my points that the administrators concerned showed scant regard for the procedures laid down in the appropriate Wikipedia policies and guidelines when dealing with tis case? And we still haven't seen the requisite evidence that will stand up to scrutiny and which shows that I breeched the policy. Please read through what has been alleged and what I have written in defence, and please reconsider. Canepa (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm taking a longer look at this and discussing matters with the blocking administrator. I based my conclusions on the fact that you were obviously an experienced editor from your first edit, and the assertions of Dennis Brown, whose judgement I trust. I didn't realize that you had self-disclosed as an experienced editor due to previous anonymous contributions, and looking through your contributions I'm beginning to have doubts. I'll admit, also, that your unblock request seemed somewhat "Wikilawyerish" to me which automatically gave me doubt to your appeal; people innocently blocked for sockpuppetry usually behave differently in my experience. I need to see what Dennis Brown found that convinced him you are a sockpuppet before making a decision. I'll let you know what I decide whether or not I decide to unblock you. Thank you. --  At am a  頭 16:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Atama. If you need clarification of the reasons behind any other of my edits or behaviour, please ask - as there will be an innocent explanation. Canepa (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Atama, have you forgotten me? Canepa (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)