Thelumbrjack

Welcome!

Hello, Thelumbrjack, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Zero-energy building have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome.  — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I have replied to your help request at User talk:2601:1C2:F00:4F70:2572:C562:BB06:18E8. I'd ask you to please also take a look at WP:PAID and to make sure that you comply with the disclosure requirements for paid contributors laid out in the Terms of Use. Huon (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked

I have twice asked you to make sure you comply with the disclosure requirements that ae part of the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. You have replied to one of those messages, so I'm sure you have seen it but chose to ignore it. Thus I have blocked you from editing for deliberately violating the Terms of Use. If you wish to contest the block, you should take a look at the guide to appealing blocks. Huon (talk) 06:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow, You've won this battle of geekery to keep wikipedia free of relevant new information about zero energy building certifications. You must feel really proud of yourself. I for one am really impressed by the power you've yielded here today. Congrats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelumbrjack (talk • contribs) 17:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

See WP:No original research. Wikipedia is not the appropriate venue for "new information". Huon (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is where one goes to find outdated information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelumbrjack (talk • contribs) 22:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I can't speak to what people go to find on Wikipedia, but it aims to have well-established information based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Of course none of this addresses your own conduct. What Wikipedia doesn't aim to have is promotional content written by people with a conflict of interest who try to evade scrutiny by not complying with the disclosure requirements laid out in the Terms of Use. Huon (talk) 06:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Please reconsider

I'm sorry if your initial experience here was not a positive one. I feel responsible because I removed your initial contribution. It did not follow our rules. I then put a "welcome" message here, but perhaps if I had reached out a little better to explain how you could achieve your goal while still following the rules, things might not have gotten so out of control.

Wikipedia has its rules for a reason and cannot work with people who misunderstand what the project is all about and what the reasons are behind some of those restrictions. You could still become a valuable contributor here, but it involves a bit more work than just plunking in some "good information". Information that cannot be tracked back to a reliable source, or wording that is too one-sided, these sorts of additions are not allowed. If you know of industry publications where some of the information you wish to add can be cited to, that would probably work. What we cannot use are self-published websites or press releases, because these types of sources are not sufficiently independent.

You are correct in your assessment that these rules and restrictions mean that there is true information out in the world that is not covered by Wikipedia. Information that has not been written about by independent sources is simply not eligible, true though it may be. Usually, important information will be written about by someone reliable and independent, but finding that sometimes requires relevant expertise in the field. This is how you could still contribute.

Fighting with admins, however, is never a winning thing to do. And making seemingly condemnatory generalizations about Wikipedia certainly gives the impression that you would be happier somewhere else. But we can always use more good editors and if apologizing and appealing to reason can bring you back, I'm willing to try. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your attempt. I completely understand that "fighting with admins is never a winning thing to do" but Huon's holier than thou attitude was a total turnoff for someone new attempting to provide content for the greater good. I'd try to work out my edits with you since you seem a lot more willing to work with me, but I don't believe it's possible for me to get the correct information onto the site outside of ghost writing for a 3rd independent party, which is a game I'm not willing to play. Thanks again for your civility.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelumbrjack (talk • contribs) 18:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Happy to work with you. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)