User talk:Dzp111

January 2011
Your talk page is also not an appropriate place for this information. Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social network, or memorial site. Please stop trying to promote your website here. If it can be shown that it is notable using reliable sources at a later time, there will always be space to create the article then. --Onorem♠Dil 13:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sorry about that.

Reply to your message
You have now had similar answers from a number of people,

''..You're kidding me, right? Please say so. The bulk of my frustration is the utter lack of answers, the no replys to very polite messages and posts, and the total lack of assistance on the matters of my deleted articles.''

and I'm sorry if you don't like them but, in my view, you are not going to get a different answer

..good one.

You know what? Screw this, wikipedia's not the source of the planet. I'm going wherever I can find cooperative assistance, and simple damn politeness and courtesy.

Goodbye. Consider this wiki account along with the DNCH one closed, stale and dead. It's useless here anyway.

Daniel Poirier

Reply
"utter lack of answers, the no replys to very polite messages... "
 * That's a bit rich, after I spent twenty minutes writing this detailed reply for your talk page, which you overwrote after six minutes, (so I doubt whether you read the links, which answer your questions, with much attention); and offered you a DRV to give you the "discussion" you were asking for. You asked me "What am i doing wrong?" but it isn't that you're doing something wrong: Wikipedia is simply not for what you want to do. Try Myspace or Facebook, where you can post whatever you like. JohnCD (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, as well as the reply I gave on my talk page with a talkback link on this one so Daniel would be sure to see it. (In fact, he wiped out my talkback link when posting the remark to which John and I are both replying.) Lady  of  Shalott  22:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your editing is clearly aimed only at advertising, and becasue of persistent disruptive editing. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Email received
I have received the following in an email from this user: "Hello, Sheepishly requesting unblocking on my account. Reason (and excuse) for behavior; exhaustion trying to accomplish too many things too quickly. Apologies."

I have told the user to request an unblock here, and stated that, as the blocking administrator, I would not assess any such request, but would leave it to another admin. However, in order to help the user I will say that if I were assessing it I would require more of a reason than that, following the persistent use of Wikipedia for promotion, combined with the consistently uncivil and uncooperative attitude to other Wikipedians. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Excitability, that was my undoing during those 20-something hours. So excited was I that I wasn't even aware of the charges against me; so excited, that I was not aware that some admins were even responding (note that I was learning 'the ropes' of this wiki format as I went along (see tildes @ bottom)). Excitement clouded my better judgment so much so that I was clueless to the fact that I was "promoting" or "advertising"; this never even crossed my mind since making an income from my projects is not an intention of mine.

Perhaps the charge against me that's really 'hitting home', brought by JamesBWatson, is that of "consistently uncivil and uncooperative attitude to other Wikipedians". This I regret the most as I have little tolerance myself for such attitudes emanating from anyone toward others. For this charge I am deeply regretful, for this, there must be no excuse on my part, ever.

I am requesting an unblock so that I may continue my work now that I have learned much about how things work here at Wikipedia. I do and will continue to appreciate any input/opinion any of you may wish to offer so that I may do things correctly and smoothly, and without crossing unnecessary faux pas lines.

One of my many faults is that I tend to learn things the hard way, the long way, sometimes the idiotic way. This is fine as long as I learn, but never do I ever I wish to disrespect anyone that I meet, real or virtual.

Best Regards,



Daniel

Dzp111 (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I also will leave this for an uninvolved administrator's decision. Daniel, in order to attract one, you need to make a formal unblock request by putting  at the bottom of this page. The reason can refer up to your apology above, for which thank you, but it should also indicate what sort of edits you expect to be doing, given that you now understand that Wikipedia is not for promoting yourself or your website. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

John, in the near future I'll most likely refrain from any editing until certainty of all aspects of rules are understood. I did nearly edit a page on 'Pike' last night (the fish) as I have a recent video of one which I have caught last week. The video however is more of an entertainment genre and, it is affiliated with DNCH. So to cede on the side of caution I refrained from adding it.

It is without any doubt that I intend to have my projects mentioned on Wikipedia one day in some form suitable and appropriate to wiki's format. But without proper guidance this goal will remain out of my reach and I can live with that. I have recently developed a passion for the realm of Natural Medecine, therefore I will most likely consider focusing my contributions in that subject, at some point in time.

I must say, in closing, that this has all been a formidable experience for me to say the least. I won't be so bold as to say that I've made some 'friends' here but I have indeed met some fascinating people, some of who's intellectual calibre are inspirational to me. This experience has opened before me doors that I did not know existed and I intend to open each one of them.

Thank you, and best regards.

Daniel

Dzp111 (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to say that I am a bit concerned about contemplating editing an article about Pike because you took a video of yourself catching one. That's original research, and is exactly what Wikipedia is not about. Third party reliable sources are the only acceptable ones, not you and a lure and a JVC camcorder. This is, after all, an encyclopedia and not a blog ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 12:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

One thing I must say though about the service here; no one seems to be in any "hurry". Maybe that's good, not sure.

Dzp111 (talk) 12:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As per WP:GAB, you need to convince admins to unblock you ... I'm not convinced, nor are the hundreds of other admins who track unblock requests. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 12:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Tough crowd. Okay, well, just let me know.

Hey BWilkins, with all due respect, care to tell me how you know "so very much" about my (pike) video? Interesting conclusions there.. David Susuki likes it (I think). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzp111 (talk • contribs)


 * Well, when David Suzuki publishes something conerning your specific instance of an esox esocidae, then let us know. In case you missed the hint, this is a perfect chance to review WP:GAB and perhaps rephrase your unblock, or provide us with the "missing link" between your current status of indefinitely blocked and apparently wishing to be unblocked.  The entire history of this talkpage (including things you removed) shows that you don't really want to edit an encyclopedia nor follow rules ... ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 13:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've read the WP:GAB, and it all makes sense. I do agree with the blocking, I erred, no question about it. I can only claim sheer ignorance as my defense, that and over-excitability. The more this is going on though the less I feel any urge to contribute whatsoever to Wikipedia, I'm all for rules but it's when one breaks them, intentionally or not, sometimes the making amendments for the action justifies naught but the withdrawal of one's own interest in wanting to get involved. In other words, my feeble and ignorant attempt to "contribute" served only as a disaster for me, here.

It was, it seems, a mistake on my part for having come here in the very first place. I hold no grudge for that would serve nothing to all causes. I am no longer confused either as I now realize that any attempt to make rightful amendments here is short but futile given the fact that I am truly trying to conform to the wishes of those who stand in judgment of my 'immature' actions, without any light in sight still.

You therefore need not worry for my 'contributing', this is what you see fit, and with this I must agree in accordance to your incessant finger pointing.

So to conclude, no longer concern yourselves with the unblocking, it is no longer of importance to me. It is, for me, plainly, not that important and not worth all of this.

Best regards to all of you, and please carry on the excellent work that you do, and I mean that sincerely.

Daniel

Dzp111 (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)