User talk:PrestonDorey

I'm Preston, shoot me an email or send a message.

I am respectful person and ask for respectful emails and conversations on my talk page. I've debated to delete my talk history or keep it since I don't know how to properly archive it. I'm still pondering. I'm hopeful exclusionist are reasonable and understanding. Eventually, I will learn.

Trying to create a new talk page and archive the old stuff is a learning experience. For an experienced journalist i'm still earning my wiki my stripes. PrestonDorey (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I believe the general etiquette is not to attack community members like myself. Especially, with unsubstantiated claims, It's against policy and unfriendly. I'm guessing user communication from an IP on my talk page is a masked user who failed to login or sign without the use tides is an act vandalism against the article subject. I believe in ethical and unbiased journalism with a neutral viewpoint. I have integrity, I have no COI and should not be attacked further.PrestonDorey (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Are you a proxy for Jim Deberry or Reputation Defender?

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I admit to previously sharing a workplace co-habit IP with another users. I made a novice mistake by not checking the community rules and should have looked further into the possibility of a shared IP conflict. When i opened my account I did not use caution to making sure that a possible conflict IP would cause an issue. I am aware who the certain user is you stated my account is related to. I am aware that party has an account. My interest in editing on this site is high enough that If required I will disclose my relation of such user. the relationship itself is incremental and not substantial enough for me not to disclose it. After reviewing the terms I see the guidelines I broke. I am remorseful for not disclaiming my career relationships on a shared IP. I fully understand that all of my contributions to Wikipedia are logged to protect the legitimacy of Wikipedia. I am not and have never intentionally violated your guidelines. I promise if granted the ability to return to good standing that I would work within the credibly of your govern guidelines. I further agree to dissociate my personal editing from any possibly of conflict. I want to earn back our trust by proposing improvements to articles and proposing to take firm steps so the issue cannot happen again. I would like to avoid disclosing my relationship to the publishing company I work for to protect the nature of my edits as neutral. I believe my conduct doesn't deserve a block. I believe upon review any user will find my edits have been neutral, well placed and to the point. I have poured effort into providing quality content to your place. If mercy is granted on my account I pledge to honor your system and believe my edits will contribute in a positive manner towards Wikipedia. PrestonDorey (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Since placing the previous block, I've spoken with a couple checkusers about the technical evidence and it appears that this may have been a false positive. I've therefore unblocked this account. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Jim Deberry was accepted

Jim Deberry, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

~KvnG 14:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)