QUADCIN
Welcome!
editWelcome!
Hello, QUADCIN, 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
- How to write a great article
- 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!
And thanks for the addition you made over at Leland castle. Your use of verifiable sources is to be commended! ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 05:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Rochelle Park material and sources
editI note your expansion to the Rochelle Park article, as in this version before your development was deleted by User:Orlady, who is focussed upon "sockpuppets" of User:Jvolkblum. I assume your account will be labelled as a Jvolkblum sock and soon will be blocked. I believe that Orlady and others are technically correct that it is legal under wikipedia policies and practices for them to delete everything you add, because of past stuff, whether or not your material is useful. Anyhow, it looks to me like the topic does deserve an article, and it could be interesting. I would like to support your ability to edit this and other articles in the wikipedia. However, for your contributions to be protected, rather than stripped out immediately by editors focussed on enforcement, it would be necessary for you to go through an unban process. If you are interested, contact me by email through my User page. doncram (talk) 05:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- I dont see how I would go about being unbanned when I was never banned in the first place. I have experienced being accused and blocked for being an extension of someone else who is banned. None of such charges are true so I therefore do not see how I can be legitimately blocked in the first place. I made multiple articles yesterday about the citys neighborhoods and then my user account was blocked. I created a new one which I am editing from currently and its because I should certainly not have been blcoked seeing that I have never been banned before. I am confused why I am blamed for any of this.
- Assuming you are not the original Jvolkblum and so on, and even perhaps if you are, then what you have experienced is indeed unfair. Even if you have done some technically "wrong" things since being accused and blocked unfairly, I think you can and should be cleared to edit under one account freely in wikipedia, without having your contributions deleted, and, although it is beyond me to control what happens in an unban appeal, I would argue for that. I understand the unban process to be the arena in which you can clear your name and/or get a clear new start. I think you can make a good case and be heard. It is wikipedia policy and practice to forbid banned users from creating of multiple accounts, at the same time or in succession, so it will be pointed out that you have done that "wrong", but it can also be claimed that you were treated badly and/or that you are not the banned Jvolkblum. The unban process is where to fight that out. Persisting in creating more accounts and restarting deleted articles and re-adding deleted materials, now, given my offer to support you in an unban process, will tend to undermine your potential to be unbanned, I believe. I would prefer to discuss this further off-line. I received an email but it provides no email address for me to reply to. Create a new email account at yahoo or anywhere, if you wish, and send that to my wikipedia email account, to discuss further. doncram (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)