User talk:Drmicrocap

Your edits to Daniel C. Ferguson
Please do not attempt to add completely unreferenced information to articles which violates our policy on the Biography of living persons. You provide no evidence that this alleged "reality show" ever existed and appear to be using this to insert the names and addresses of living people, and to assert relationships between them for which you have no evidence. It is also blatantly obvious that you are editing as as a sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked User:Drofmicrocaps. Voceditenore (talk) 08:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I crossed referenced it witch IMdb as for the other allegations I sign up as Drmicrocaps back in August of 2011.

Finally the Suit was settled years ago.

Thanks

08:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You provided no reference at all except the listing of a company name on IMDB (in itself not considered a reliable source). It does not support any of the assertions made in that section, and you know it. I'm not going to argue with you. You have been pointed to the policies here numerous times. If you continue to re-add this material, I will ask that you be blocked even before the outcome of the sockpuppet investigation. Voceditenore (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It is immaterial when you signed up under this name. You are using it to evade your block as User:Drofmicrocaps for making legal threats. You may not edit under any account until that block is lifted, and at the rate you're going, I doubt if that will ever happen. Voceditenore (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not here to argue either i simple asked for what type of references you need? AS it's states Dan is an American Businessman to some who controls a lot of Money if you do some dud diligence on him you will find out exactly that. Wikipedia should be about the truth and I can appreciate you want things factually linked. Just list them for me this links you believe are reputable I look into them.

09:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.125.108.69 (talk)

Also the addresses are mine 2905 keats st Point Loma as well as 6416 sw Golfview Dr. not anyone else. I'm sorry if it offended you. 09:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)~


 * If the addresses are yours, then they have no business being in the article. If you are trying to imply that they are the addresses of any of the people you had mentioned in the deleted paragraph, they equally have no place in the article. We require a reference from a reliable published source that verifies that this alleged show actually existed and was broadcast and what the contents of that show were. Please read the following:
 * Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
 * Wikipedia:Verifiability
 * Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources


 * Any edits which do not conform to these policies will be removed. Voceditenore (talk) 09:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Drofmicrocaps for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Voceditenore (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

During February 2013 I was blocked indefinitely for "It is also blatantly obvious that you are editing as as a sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked" User:Drofmicrocaps. along with my account being indefinitley blocked for making legal threats and violating the policy on biographies of living personsas pointed out by Huon (talk). Since their review and decline I have reviewed Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons as well as Wikipedia:Verifiability and finally Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and agree that by violating any of the three could be damaging or cause disruption to Wikipedia. I understand that in the future any unverified edits will be deleted thus preventing any of the above aforementioned to Wikipedia. I agree not to provide unsourced personal information as it is can cause the same damage or disruption and it is further acknowledged it is subject to being deleted and a potential block of my editing in the future.

In closing, I understand that the contributions of drofmicrocaps cannot be combined and or included with those of my user account Drmicrocap. I look forward to continuing to comply with Wikipedia.org policy and if I ever have any question to promptly ask one of the editors on their talk page.

If you need any additional comments or information please contact at your convenience.

Drmicrocap 03:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

During June 2016 I was declined due to a few minor ommissions as decided by Yamla that decline = Your comments below are almost everything we need to consider unblocking you. However, we need you to unambiguously withdraw the legal threat. Note, though, that it is not possible for us to combine the contributions of two accounts, and it's not remotely clear why you think WP:BLP applies in that case; it most certainly doesn't, so I'd like you to explain those statements. Yamla (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)}}

I was blocked indefinitely for "It is also blatantly obvious that you are editing a as a sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked"

This was due to a deletion of my yahoo account: User:Drofmicrocaps. and not remembering the login password to Drmicrocap so I proceeded under drofmicrocaps not being familiar with term Sockpuppetry. Afterwards I contacted you and was advised to add an email address so the password could be replaced and I did. Since that time I have exchanged correspondence legal counsel for wikipedia.org and have since made myself familiar with the term and the penalties for engaging in it on wikipedia.org and therefor understand the need for it as it can be very disruptive to others who wish to utilize all of the features of this site. It was agreed that I would utilize Wikipedia.org forum and thus fore include this withdraw any further threat of legal action in order settle any differences in furtherance of this I unambiguously withdraw the legal threat.

My account being indefinitely blocked for making legal threats and violating the policy on biographies of living persons. Since their review and decline I have reviewed Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons as well as Wikipedia:Verifiability and finally Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and agree that by violating any of the three could be damaging or cause disruption to Wikipedia. I understand that in the future any unverified edits will be deleted thus preventing any of the above aforementioned to Wikipedia. I agree not to provide unsourced personal information as it is can cause the same damage or disruption and it is further acknowledged it is subject to being deleted and a potential block of my editing in the future.

In closing, I would like to request that User:Drofmicrocaps. be permanently blocked and my user account Drmicrocap (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC) be unblocked. Thank you for a prompt reply as i look forward to continuing to comply with Wikipedia.org policy and if I ever have any question to promptly ask one of the editors on their talk page.

Drmicrocap (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Your latest unblock request was discussed and rejected here. I do not think this unblock request addresses the concerns raised in that discussion. Huon (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Standard offer
I'm not going to review the latest unblock request, but I think your best bet is to take the standard offer as the block is 3 years old. I am willing to start a thread on the administrators noticeboard to see if there is a consensus to unblock per that guideline; however I can't do that unless:


 * 1) The blocking administrator,  and the latest reviewing administrator,  are comfortable with any unblock. Administrators always block for a reason.
 * 2) You agree to take an indefinite topic ban on Daniel C. Ferguson, broadly construed. I don't want a repeat of the behaviour that led to the block.
 * 3) You let me know what sort of articles you intend to work on if unblocked. This is really important, as without it, administrators are likely to think "what's the point of unblocking him if he's not going to do anything"?

If I'm satisfied with all three points, I will start the thread and let you know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * - This user was blocked for making legal threats. I'm not sure they can be unblocked until the legal action has concluded - or has been rescinded. SQL Query me!  17:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Do we know if they are definitely (or have a realistic chance of) taking legal action, or is this just a typical angry mastodon sort of threat? If the latter, my point 2 should sort that out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Included in the above aforementioned was a retraction of making legal threats as I established dialogue with Wikipedia.orgs legal counsel Rubina Kwon, Esq. and again will tell : That I am now familiar  with the process in disputing a decision by an administrator.

Drmicrocap 11:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Standard offer
Acceptance of

1. start a thread on the administrators noticeboard to see if there is a consensus to unblock per that guideline; however I can't do that unless:

2. The blocking administrator, and the latest reviewing administrator,  are comfortable with any unblock. To date neither have replied and recommended continued block as Administrators always block for a reason and will request continued block upon requsts to have on blocked

3. I agree to take an indefinite topic ban on Daniel C. Ferguson, broadly construed. I don't want a to be blocked again for the behaviour that led to the this block and i request permission to have it lifted at any time in the future upon request.

4. I will let me know what sort of articles I intend to work on if unblocked. Thank you as this is really important, as without it, administrators are likely to think "what's the point of unblocking him if he's not going to do anything"?

Thanks in advance.

Drmicrocap 00:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I have no objections to an unblock. The legal threats were withdrawn here. Huon (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, I have started a Standard Offer discussion at Administrators' noticeboard. I'll keep you posted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the blocking administrator would be considered User:TParis (on the master account) - I blocked this account on the grounds of socking only, to enforce the block on the master account. Apologies for the delay, I was on vacation and did not see this until now. --Rschen7754 08:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * My only concerns are the standard legal block issues. Rescind the threat of legal action, promise never to do it again.  I see something that looks like it might be an attempt to do this, but the grammar is a bit sketchy and I can't make sense of the statement.--v/r - TP 10:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Note to admins: Ongoing discussion on AN here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note:Per the AN discussion that NYB (and others) linked to above, the request to offer the "standard offer" has been rejected by the community. - jc37 07:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Refactored edits restored
Note: With this edit, Drmicrocap had removed Seraphimblade's declined block notice and refactored the above threads and responses by administatrors to selectively remove some of them. I have restored them. I have not restored Drmicrocap's comment 7 July 2016, which he also removed with that edit, as no one has responded to it. Drmicrocap, please note that you may not selectively refactor conversations nor can you remove declined block notices as long as the block is still in place. Please read WP:TALK and note that if you contnue disruptively refactoring and removing declied block notices, you risk having your talk page access removed. Voceditenore (talk) 12:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

included 7 July 2016. I have reviewed WP:TALK and would ask Voceditenore (talk) to review the IP address this was logged into from to confirm Drmicrocap's ip address was used and if so note that it was inadvertently.
 * Oppose -I did not remove/intend to remove Seraphimblade's decline block notice. Drmicrocap's comment was also not

Drmicrocap 10:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Note to admins: Ongoing discussion on AN here. and since has been closed without comment being reviewed.

Drmicrocap 10:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * If you are referring to this comment, it was reviewed at the Administrator's Noticeboard . You can re-add it here, if you wish, but I'm afraid the matter of your unblock request is closed. Voceditenore (talk) 12:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the IP addresses that were used to login to delete Seraphimblade's declined block notice and refactored the above threads.

Drmicrocap 12:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)