User talk:NotThatJamesBrown

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Suspected sock puppets/NotThatJamesBrown for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Randomized (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have responded to this accusation in the way advised at notes for the suspect. Please do not add notices such as this to my talk page again. If you wish to discuss something, start a new section below. Remember to be civil and assume good faith. ==(NotThatJamesBrown (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC))==


 * "If the accuser has listed evidence against you, you should respond to the allegations, unless they are obviously frivolous. You are allowed to respond to each and every accusation on the evidence page but are not allowed to remove accusations."


 * Perhaps you would like to respond to the allegations. Randomized (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not mean to offend you, but "they are obviously frivolous". I have no intention of discussing this issue with you anymore. Any future discussion should be about improving articles. ==(NotThatJamesBrown (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC))==


 * A checkuser will be requested. Let's wait and see what happens... Randomized (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please do not threaten me, this is against WP policy. I do not care whether you call for a checkuser. However, I access WP through many different proxies and I usually use a web anonymizer service. This is why I have an account. I have not broken any rules. Please leave my talk page, as I have asked you already. I am trying to contribute positively to the article. ==(NotThatJamesBrown (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC))==


 * When did I threaten you? It sounds like your running out of excuses. Randomized (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't made any excuses, and nor do I need to. Your behaviour towards me has only been threatening and bombastic, and resulted in disruption of the electrical sensitivity article and talk page. I was referring, however, to you specific threat above of a "checkuser" after I had already answered you and asked you not to comment here again. This matter is closed, please drop it and lets move on to improving wikipedia - that's why I joined... ==(NotThatJamesBrown (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC))==

-yawn-. If you've got nothing to worry about then you won't mind the checkuser being performed then will you. Randomized (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC) Randomized (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Reconsidered
I have re-evaluated my block. Based on the evidence at Requests for checkuser/Case/Unprovoked, which produced a result, I think this block should remain in effect. Jehochman Talk 18:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)