User talk:Herede

Welcome!

Hello, Herede, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 22:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Kateri Tekakwitha. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because you are clearly here not to contribute to the encyclopaedia, but to use Wikipedia as a tool to attract readers to your website.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. JBW (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite astonished to have been drastically expelled without warning; I would certainly have understood an explanation and a reference to guide my firsts steps. Such a brutal exclusion is not what I call a friendly welcoming! And the link added was not at all inappropriate! I admit that I am an apprentice. I am still confused by the non very friendly editor. And I am scared to "fuck up" anything. I began to amend by reading editing principles and rules, where I have found information on adding only a web reference as you stated. My only purpose on doing so was to give access to a new knowledge. I give a lot of my time to free research. I read and appreciate Wikipedia even though I often find inaccurate informations. I have also financially contributed to Wikipedia. My purpuse is to freely spread knowledge. I hope you will understand and let me amend by contributing a real english text on the portraits of Tekakwitha, giving a résumé of a French website on this subject. And eventually on some others where I can significally contribute. Herede (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge, research and spam definition.

What is spam? This research on Google gives quite a different meaning than the one your are using.

https://www.google.com/search?q=spam

I made three references on Wikipedia to three websites which give new and unique scholar researches that cannot be found elsehwere. These are on the portraits or Jacques Marquette, Paul Le Jeune and Tekakwitha. Is that spam?

Here is the real question: is Wikipedia opened to knowledge and new research? Or not?

DILEMNA: I am willing to enrich English Wikipedia in writing an English text giving a résumé of the new findings on Tekakwitha Portraits. But, how can I do so, if I do not refer, at least once, to the only source available on that question, which is the fruit of a 5 years shcolar research? An enormous website, well documented, which cannot be duplicated on Wikipedia... But only refered to...

https://rd.uqam.ca/Tekakwitha/index.html Herede (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles contain information that is verifiable through the inclusion of published reliable sources, not an individual's own research.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I am quite astonished to have been drastically expelled without warning; I would certainly have understood an explanation and a reference to guide my firsts steps. Such a brutal exclusion is not what I call a friendly welcoming! And the link added was not at all inappropriate! Since it was directly related to the subject of the page. I admit that I am an apprentice. I am still confused by the non very friendly editor. And I am scared to "fuck up" anything. I began to amend by reading editing principles and rules, where I have found information on adding only a web reference as you stated. My only purpose on doing so was to give access to a new knowledge. I give a lot of my time to free research. I read and appreciate Wikipedia even though I often find inaccurate informations. I have also financially contributed to Wikipedia. My purpuse is to freely spread knowledge. I hope you will understand and let me amend by contributing a real english text on the portraits of Tekakwitha, giving a résumé of a French website on this subject. And eventually on some others where I can significally contribute. Herede (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're not going to be unblocked unless you explicitly agree to stop spamming uqam.ca or any other sites you are connected with. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:48, 8 December 2022 (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.