User talk:Cameron Dev

Welcome!

Hi Cameron Dev! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing!

A lengthy welcome

Hi Cameron Dev. Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.

If you find yourself in a disagreement with another editor, it's best to discuss the matter on the relevant talk page.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not find this particularly useful, and indeed some parts of it are quite offensive. Next time you feel the need to "welcome" someone else this manner, I suggest a closer reading of what they have already said and done. If you had, you would appreciate I know fine well what is and is not a good source, that my specific issue is precisely how the handling of an editorial dispute is being allowed to resemble a farce rather than a discussion, that there really isn't any reason anyone might think I have a connection to Price, and that no, I really don't need to spend time writing about trains for a week or two before I might be allowed to write a biography here. That said, I am quite sure you meant well and have good intentions, so please don't take this personally. Cameron Dev (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel that way. I hope you'll reconsider, if you intend to continue here on Wikipedia. --Hipal (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cameron Dev (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I want to edit train articles. Cameron Dev (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You are blocked for abuse of multiple accounts, which your appeal fails to address.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cameron Dev (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand I was blocked for not editing train articles. I promise to only edit train articles. I promise to only be one person when I edit train articles. Cameron Dev (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Gibberish. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Katie Price's history of drug use

@Martinevans123: I don't mind people drawing different conclusions based on a common set of facts, but after the absolute shit I was forced to eat by the likes of Zaereth, it's pretty galling to see EnPassant getting away with blatant lies like this and be told that I'm the disruptor and deceiver. As he already knows from the biography talk page, there are now at least two BBC reports of Price having admitted cocaine use and entered rehab, i.e on two separate occasions. She clearly has a problem, and contrary to the continuing inexplicable garbage of Masem, no, the vast majority of UK celebrities aren't repeat visitors to the Priory to treat their coke addiction. Cameron Dev (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. Be careful that you don't make any personal attacks here, on other editors, or you may lose your Talk page access. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]