User talk:Chepe Limon

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent edits do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the "sandbox" rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write   below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial


 * Comment - I'm a little suspicious of this, but I don't spend that much time on image uploading, and I'd like someone who does to opine on this. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Drive-by comment The minimum number of edits to become auto-confirmed is a method of verifying that the editor actually intends to be a positive editor on Wikipedia. Making nul edits bypasses that test of trust - we still have zero proof of your intentions on Wikipedia, and thus it is impossible to know your motives. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 11:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Simple: just to edit South American football articles and upload legit images. There is no hidden agenda.Chepe Limon (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But how do we know? You cheated to get there ... ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 18:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't cheat. Did I break any rules?
 * How would you know? Cheat? Did I break any rules? If so, mention them. I already told you I wasn't here for vandalism. I am not sure what else you want to hear from me but this "guilty verdict before committing a crime", with no evidence on top of it, is nothing short of ridiculous and says a lot about the treatment new users might get. Edits are edits, whether they are a paragraph or a letter. You are threading into the dangerous territory of discriminately banning users just on your hunches. Chepe Limon (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked at your "edits" ... they were not edits. The goal is to determine in your first 10 edits your overall plans as an editor: you made nul edits, which means you cheated to become autoconfirmed.  Editors have been blocked for less, and indeed there is a long-term banned editor whose socks do the same thing, and they're instantly blocked when they do - I'm not yet saying that this is the case right now.  Note: WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK are not the same thing. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 20:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How about assuming your "so-called" good faith? Call it how you want it but edits are edits; the most you can judge edits by is if they were disruptive/vandalism (which they weren't). And if editors have been banned for less, then I seriously question the quality of your admin. That is probably why there are rules and guidlines like, "guilty until proven innocent", "assume good faith", blah blah blah (which, by the looks of it, is pure BS). I don't have time to deal with this BS anymore. Bye.
 * "Assume good faith" merely means "presume good faith unless there is sufficient evidence to indicate otherwise". In this case your edits give more than enough evidence to indicate otherwise. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)