User talk:Polisson

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Polisson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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! --SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 04:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Polisson, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Hi Polisson! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of South Coast Track, New Zealand[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Jinkinson talk to me 04:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014[edit]

This account has 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, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you recently banned my accounts User:Swollib and User:Quelpolisson for sockpuppetry. Okay, that's fine. You will probably ban this one too. But before you do, please consider undeleting the article that I created from the account User:Quelpolisson. The article was South Coast Track, New Zealand and it took me quite a long time to write and a lot of effort and was in a small way an attempt at redemption for having used my original account Swollib for vandalism. The article had been reviewed and the content was not problematic and I don't think users of Wikipedia should not have this knowledge available to them just because the original contributor was banned. It doesn't really change the factual accuracy of the information in the article. You might also want to see my contributions from this account and consider the implications before banning this one. I will not make another account because I now understand I am somewhat of a persona non gratia on Wikipedia but I'm not sure that my contributions that fit Wikipedia's guidelines should be affected. Regards, Polisson Polisson (talk) 04:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Update[edit]

I am simply asking that you review, and consider my contributions for undeletion. I understand that the guideline that edits from blocked users should be deleted exists because it is fair to assume that edits from blocked users will be problematic but I'm asking as a person (not a computer, or some 'random blocked user') to review my edits and articles on a case-by-case basis before committing them to the Wikipedia article graveyard. Specifically, the article on South Coast Track, New Zealand, first article creation, is about a increasingly popular hiking track in New Zealand. It is only a matter of time before the article is created again, but this is not necessarily as a perfectly good article has already been written. Additionally, the article Russisch Brot which I made on this account was just a translation from the Spanish article. I didn't introduce any new content or other things that cause a problem. If you don't believe me, just translate the Spanish article to English or have someone do it for you. I note that you didn't even respond to my last message before taking action, which seems a bit unprofessional to me. I was polite, reasonable and considerate in my request. I would also like to bring to your attention that I have access to an unlimited amount of IP addresses and therefore usernames and will continue to edit Wikipedia in a constructive manner despite a ban. If my articles are reviewed by experienced editors and no problems found, why is my ban relevant? I would appreciate a response, and see it as your job as an administrator to do so. If I were to appeal my block, I would receive a response to accompany the decision so please do not say that I do not merit a response because I am a banned user. Regards

Any socking on your part, either by named accounts or IPs will be reverted, and the account will be blocked. I am revoking access to your talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More updates[edit]

Fair enough, but did you get a chance to look at the articles? This article might be of some use. Polisson 139.80.123.34 (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inclusionism[reply]

Would it be more appropriate to give the code of the article to another Wikipedia editor and they can create the article again? I have a few friends who would be willing to do that, but would they be accused of sockpuppetry? 139.80.123.34 (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And my original account Swollib - I had had that acccount from 2005, and I was just really drunk one night and made some stupid edits. And now it seems that I'm blocked forever. Isn't there some way to make up for my wrongs? That's what I was trying to do when I created those articles, and I was hoping that someone would notice that. 139.80.123.34 (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And what does it mean by "...and which have no substantial edits by others." ? I believe that my articles were substantially edited by others after their creation. What is the definition of a substantial edit? Regards 139.80.123.34 (talk) 02:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And what baffles me even more is that Wikipedia allows multiple accounts for this kind of strange behaviour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Darwinfish but not to let people start fresh and make positive and constructive contributions to the encyclopedia. 139.80.123.34 (talk) 02:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You won't be able to edit this page even using another account as I've semi-protected it. If there's any hope in hell that you would be allowed to edit at Wikipedia again, your persistent and stubborn attitude in evading your block, threatening to sock, and socking dooms that hope. As for your comment about your friends, they would probably be blocked for meat puppetry (or editing by proxy), assuming they are not you.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An alternate account is allowed if it is acknowledged on ones user page and not used for deceptive purposes, like arguing at WP:AFDs, voting at WP:RFAs or block evasion. As for unblocking, take the Standard Offer, do not edit or sock for 6-12 months and then request an unblock from your original account. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]