User talk:Capt. Colonel

Hello. If you had of read the article, you would of learned that he has directed a film, as well as an episode of The Office. Beach drifter (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great attitude to display. Hello to you too. Capt. Colonel (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the news

Discussion is at Wikipedia:ITNC#US_congresswoman_Gabriele_Giffords_shot_in_Arizona, not at Talk:Main Page. Please drop the attitude – in the UK, and no doubt elsewhere, "Paki" is an extremely offensive term. I have removed your comment for a combination of both reasons. Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 22:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments about the current title of the article not being good is completely right. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Capt. Colonel, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 05:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It's nice to see another native New Englander here, even if you live in NYC now. Capt. Colonel (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in replying. It is a pleasure to meet you as well! You may be able to meet some other natives and others who share your interests in the Wikiprojects such as WikiProject Connecticut. Remember to keep on spreading the WikiLove and happy editing! --—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 04:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corwin Brown

See the bottom of the alphabetical roster page, near the end: [1]. This is a much more official source than the website. Pats1 ^T/C 21:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool thank you. Capt. Colonel (edits) 22:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2011

Blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not.

If you are not a sock puppet, and would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tiptoety ^talk 02:03, 4 February 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

What? I'm no sockpuppet. Please explain what this means.

Decline reason:

The sock evidence looks strong, and your recent edits don't suggest a sincere desire to improve the encyclopedia. EdJohnston (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2011 (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.

Note to reviewing administrator: This user is on DC's static IP address editing with the exact same Useragent as his other accounts. Tiptoety ^talk 03:24, 4 February 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

Given the absence of a sock report or anything of that matter, this strongly wreaks of fishing, and the guidance that "if you are requested to perform a check, always ask for the evidence of the user that a check is needed and appropriate, and confirm for yourself that there is indeed a valid basis that you can explain if needed. Do not assume, no matter who asks." I also strongly disagree with EdJohnson's assertion that my "recent edits don't suggest a sincere desire to improve the encyclopedia." Capt. Colonel (edits) 9:20 am, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

I can confirm Tiptoety's findings. Block evasion is not permitted. TN X Man 14:28, 4 February 2011 (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.

I don't feel like arguing here, but there was no basis for him to check user this account in the first place. Surely due process counts for something. Perhaps I'll take it to the audit subcommittee. Capt. Colonel (edits) 14:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]