User talk:Courcelles

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for because I don't like you. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Answer your e-mail

Discussion closed. Courcelles 16:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please answer your e-mails. Your lack of attention to them indicates to me you don't care and shouldn't be blocking people if you can't respond to their e-mails. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 21:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC) I respond to almost all civil e-mails that merit one. Your unblock request was declined on-wiki, you know why you were blocked, and you were acting rather aggressively on your talk page. Engaging you off-wiki was a zero-sum game, as I had absolutely no intention of reducing your block. Further, e-mail is there only for conversations that should not be held on-wiki, and discussing a simple edit warring block is not one of those. Courcelles 21:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC) So you could have at least taken the courtesy to write back saying that instead of ignoring it. It is administrators like you that cause editors to leave. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 22:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC) (talk page stalker) Intoronto1125: Not everyone has huge amounts of free time with which to respond to emails and edit Wikipedia. Courcelles is right to not respond to emails they feel are not worth responding to. Also: Have ANY editors ever been driven away due to lack of response to emails? Maybe you should consider taking a week-long wikibreak and get the stress out of your system. Hmm? Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 22:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC) The point is they saw the e-mail and did not respond to it. Come on it takes a couple of minutes to respond. I don't think I will be editing here for a while and might be done. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 23:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Look; even if they DID respond to the email they would probably just be saying something off-wiki that was already said on-wiki. If you want to take a wikibreak for a while then by all means go ahead, you probably could use one anyway! Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 23:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC) A non response came off as arrogant and a "I don't care" type of person. Another thing why was I blocked for a week when the editor breaking the 3rr rule was blocked for 24 hours. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 01:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC) You cannot determine anything from a non-response. A non-response could mean he has other things offline to deal with. (Personal health problems, family problems, internet connection problems.) It could mean online issues. (Desire to take a break. Notifications not working. E-mail not working. Taking a mini break. Dealing with some other problem. Having 500 other people e-mailing him asking for a response.) A non-response is just that: A non-response. If you read any more into a non-response, the problem is yours. We're volunteers here and we all have different schedules.--LauraHale (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Also Intoronto1125: The incident was the first such violation for that user and we usually let people off easy for first-time offences. You on the other have an extensive history of edit warring and you were blocked accordingly. Just let it go. Holding grudges gets you nowhere on here (Another thing I have learned from experience). Why do you think WP:STICK exists? Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 04:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Typical response to my above question (a no response). Honestly the worst administrator I have come across here at Wikipedia. Thankfully there are much better ones. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 16:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC) You edit-warred for the third time, and this after an incident of highly abusive socking. There is nothing else to say to that, if you don't change your behaviour, you will soon be indeffed. Courcelles 16:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence of socking at all accusing me of socking is wrong. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 17:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Your block log begs to disagree. Courcelles 17:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Sorry for the revert. Entirely accidental, and my apologies. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 17:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• No worries. Courcelles 17:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

José Eduardo dos Santos

Hello Courcelles: as foreseeable, Gabirro the sniper has again appeared on the talk page of the JES article, trying once more to sell his spam stuff about the man not being Angolan. What is the action you would recommend? Aflis (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation

Hello! You noted that the "party list was likely made too long by Noetica's additions", but a clerk just opened the case with everyone's name intact.
Please see my statement for an explanation of why I regard my inclusion as inappropriate. (I suspect that this applies to others' inclusion as well.)
If I'm to remain listed as an "involved party", I would sincerely appreciate a clarification of my role in the case and what participation is expected of me. Thank you! —David Levy 15:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Courcelles. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.