User talk:Drofmicrocaps

October 2012

Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Calmer Waters 05:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Drofmicrocaps. You have new messages at Calmer Waters's talk page.
Message added 05:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Calmer Waters 05:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drofmicrocaps, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Drofmicrocaps! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 02:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Drofmicrocaps. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Drofmicrocaps. You have new messages at I Jethrobot's talk page.
Message added 00:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Drofmicrocaps. You have new messages at I Jethrobot's talk page.
Message added 02:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 02:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Drofmicrocaps. You have new messages at I Jethrobot's talk page.
Message added 04:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Drofmicrocaps. You have new messages at I Jethrobot's talk page.
Message added 05:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Drofmicrocaps. You have new messages at I Jethrobot's talk page.
Message added 06:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Also, please do not create new headers on my talk page every time you post a message. Just continue the conversation under the same heading. Thanks. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Drofmicrocaps. You have new messages at I Jethrobot's talk page.
Message added 08:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Drofmicrocaps. You have new messages at I Jethrobot's talk page.
Message added 18:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Man of Sin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Church and Christ's Church

Antichrist (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Church

Daniel C. Ferguson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Scottish

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Daniel C. Ferguson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Billion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Daniel C. Ferguson

A tag has been placed on Template:Daniel C. Ferguson requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 09:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Daniel C. Ferguson

Please read Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons and particularly this section of it. Your edits were in violation of that policy and have been reverted. Thank you for your cooperation. Voceditenore (talk) 12:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No they weren't and this was edited originally by Wikipedia’s staff that didn't include you. It's referenced and link to cook county Chancery court The Northern Trust ve. Daniel C. Ferguson, et. al if you change my published edits again we can fight it out legally. This includes Dan's violation of certain individuals civil rights to find out who the James M. Trapp was to Steven G. Trapp. Last did you write the Wikipedia and publish it? No, somebody else did and who are you to Dan now? I’m sure the DOJ would love to know in Washington D.C.

Drofmicrocaps (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no connection whatsoever with the subject of this article. The reference given doesn't remotely support your contention and furthermore the use of court documents like this, even if it had supported it is not permitted per the section of BLP policy I linked to above. You have been warned before about the approach you have been taking to this subject by an administrator. [1]. I'm also going to place a warning below about making legal threats as you have just done. Voceditenore (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Voceditenore (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not take the whole Wikipedia down as you’re the editor? You didn't write it nor edit until yesterday as for warning me Warn Ns. Theresa Whethers at the DOJ Civil rights division in Washington D.C. as well. I will change it back as it was edit originally by Wikipedia staff and that was the final decision and you tried to edit and change even the original publish version.

I will be reediting it again and will take it to your dispute resolution if you attpemt to alter it again as the original was much different from the one approve and published originally before your edits of the truth.

Drofmicrocaps (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletion "Certain defendants believed that Leonard C. Ferguson's Trust and Estate Attorney James M. Trapp, Esq., of McDermott Will & Emery was related to Daniel C. Ferguson's former Son-in-Law”, was in violation of the above aforementioned link you provided personally it was originally edited by Jethrobot. If you you edited it again in violation we will proceed to dispute resolution!

Drofmicrocaps (talk) 07:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given your response and your restoration of the assertion, I have taken the issue to the Biographies of living persons Noticeboard. You are welcome to join in the discussion there. It's in this section. Voceditenore (talk) 08:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I just removed that section again. Your references don't support what you added in. If you have a reliable source for what you're saying, you're free to add it back. .....and issuing legal threats will get you blocked, so recant it and talk it through.

You may be exactly who you say you are, but since none of us knows that for fact, we have to print only that which can be verified through reliable sources, it's not personal. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 17:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also of note, the claim that the article was "edited originally by Wikipedia’s staff" was false. It was created by this user. Yworo (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

--v/r - T P 19:22, 28 November 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I wrote the original Wikipedia not someone else as posted. Furthermore a block before it is commented on is a violation of due process and must be lifted pending the outcome as I posted that it was edited by Jethrobot which is who i asked to after you were cut with the Truth. As for trying to blatantly ommit the link and facts found hereafter https://w3.courtlink.lexisnexis.com/cookcounty/FindDock.asp?NCase=&SearchType=2&Database=3&case_no=&Year=&div=&caseno=&PLtype=2&sname=Daniel+Ferguson&CDate=. you find the name Amanda Trapp and the law firm http://www.mwe.com/ the Firm James M. Trapp is of Counsel for. Finally I posted that I would pursue this through disput resolution as youe diting something and haven't done any due diligence on DC Ferguson, if you had you know why he's called The Lion Tamer and you post what about his Religion or Theological viewpoints. Drofmicrocaps (talk) 04:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per comments and second request below. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:09, 29 November 2012 (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'm sorry, but this request is quite incoherent. Please address the reason for your block more concisely, that is, your breach of the no legal threats policy. Also, to be frank, due process does not appear to apply in this circumstance; blocking you does not infringe on any of your legal rights at all. "I am not a lawyer." Likewise, you do not own this or any article, nor does anyone else. Violations of the biographies of living persons policy and edit warring can and will also lead to a block. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that not only does this user need to address the legal threat issue, he needs to understand that regardless of how and by whom an article was created, no one owns it or gets to control its content. He also needs to show that he has understood that we cannot use primary court documents as sources, only reliable secondary sources, and understands that we have a "do no harm" when it comes to biographies of living people. In particular, he seems to claim that the article was created by some Wikipedia official and that that gives it some kind of stamp of final approval. Ha! Yworo (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I wrote the original Wikipedia not someone else as posted and you ADMIT no one owns it, That is why I should be unblocked as it had not be determeined by any group just one before the comment period was clsoed. As for being written incoherent I guess that's the difference bewteen Ivy League and where others learned to read. Your pompt attention is appreciated 05:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Max Semenik (talk) 08:10, 29 November 2012 (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.

PS I thought Yworo edited it first? Drofmicrocaps (talk) 05:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't addressed the legal threats. on a lighthearted note, you spelled several words wrong in your second unblock request. Ivy Leauge, I presume? Thekillerpenguin (talk) 05:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Drofmicrocaps still has a serious misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works and more worryingly does not seem to understand our BLP policy at all (or insists that his grievances against the article's subject give him the right to ignore it). This started when he contacted the Teahouse concerning the fact that the original version of the article at AfC had been deleted as an attack page. User:I Jethrobot (who is not an administrator) responded to the question and explained the problem to him [2]. When Drofmicrocaps created a new version of the article in mainspace, Jethrobot made exactly two minor edits to it: one to format the bare url references [3], and one to adjust the image [4]. Drofmicrocaps seems to think (mistakenly) that Jethrobot was a "member of Wikipedia staff" and that his minor edits constituted a "seal of approval" on the article. Unfortunately, Jethrobot missed some major problems with the article and clearly did not read it in its entirety. Shortly after he formatted the references on October 18, I removed this BLP violation which was even more serious than the one I removed yesterday. I strongly suggest that this editor not be unblocked until he shows an understanding of our BLP policies and commits himself to abiding by them. He also needs to explicitly retract his threat to report editors with whom he disagrees to the US Department of Justice (in my case) or to the press, as he did with another editor. Voceditenore (talk) 06:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What "comment period" are you referring to, Dr? Wikipedia article are open for any editor to edit indefinitely. Except you, at this point, I'm afraid, ever again, if you don't "get it". Yworo (talk) 07:35, 29 November 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

your reason here Drofmicrocaps (talk) 09:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your latest unblock request was declined here. Requesting another unblock so soon from another account is not the way forward, particularly since you still do not address the issues that have been raised beyond the legal threats. Huon (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2016 (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 am appealing following block

1. This account was also blocked making legal threats or taking legal action.

2. "This account has been blocked indefinitely because the account owner is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts."

In support of this unblock request I submit the following in support.

During November 2012 I was blocked indefinitely for making legal threats or taking legal action then again during February 2013 I was blocked indefinitely for "It is also blatantly obvious that you are editing as  a sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked"

This was due to a deletion of my yahoo account: drofmicrocaps@yahoo.com 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 for include this withdraw of any further threat of legal action in order settle any differences in furtherance of this I unambiguously withdraw the legal threat.

In closing, 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.

Drofmicrocaps (talk) 09:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]