User talk:68.54.56.198: Difference between revisions
Decline unblock |
|||
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
|decline=[[WP:EL]] states the following: "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked." — [[User:Yamla|Yamla]] 18:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)}} |
|decline=[[WP:EL]] states the following: "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked." — [[User:Yamla|Yamla]] 18:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)}} |
||
::I have not added a link in over a YEAR! I'm preventing them from removing one without due cause. Furthermore, "avoid" does not mean "don't do it". The reason the link was there for over a YEAR! is that it's a very good resource. Will NOONE! even consider '''that''', the most important point here?! The link itself is not spam, and I am not adding it, and yet I'm repeatedly being blocked and the block upheld based on criteria which ''Do Not Fit''. the situation. There is no spam going on here, there is no conflict of interest. If you're going to ignore your own rules in the name of enforcing the rules, your entire system is completely corrupt. |
Revision as of 13:41, 8 October 2007
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you.
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Appointment_red.svg/48px-Appointment_red.svg.png)
68.54.56.198 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
- (edited to remove personal attacks--Benchat 12:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC))! If you would take 3 seconds to check your facts you'd see that I haven't added so much as a period to the page in question, so how could I have been adding links, inappropriate or otherwise?! The information I've been putting BACK has been on that page for months without problem. Mr. Nascar didn't like his edits being undone, so he labled me as a vandal. now you, mr. Haemo don't give a damn whether I'm doing what I was accused of. I say again, there is no definition of spam in the known universe which covers Preventing something from being removed which has a Long-Standing History of being where it is. The fact that I'm being kept from moderation isn't bad enough but the block will be upheld based on...? NOTHING. I didn't add anything to the page! You didn't even look or you would have quickly seen that!
Please include a decline or accept reason.
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.
October 2007
With regard to your comments on User talk:68.54.56.198: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Even though you're blocked - please keep future unblock requests clean. --Benchat 12:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Your recent edits
Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 19:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
1 week block
Two previous blocks have failed to remedy the problems of WP:SPAM, WP:COI, and WP:POINT. In response to this edit, the answer is yes it does matter. Wikipedia has a reliable sources guideline that disqualifies most uses of personal hobbyist websites. If the information there really is high quality then when your block expires you'll be welcome to consult the vetted sources that you drew upon to create that site and expand Wikipedia's article using citations to those sources. DurovaCharge! 07:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Appointment_red.svg/48px-Appointment_red.svg.png)
68.54.56.198 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
"A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia to produce a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia, and the potential motivations of an individual editor. COI editing often involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote yourself or the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups. When an editor disregards the aims of Wikipedia to advance outside interests, they stand in a conflict."
There is no incompatibility. Wikipedia, SUPPOSEDLY wants to produce a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia. That's exactly what I want. There is no interest in promoting myself or the interest of other individuals, companies, or groups. I aim to provide the best resource both here and on my site. That's my primary motivation, it overrides every other motivation which could be brought into focus here and of all the people involved in this "edit war" I seem to be the ONLY one who cares most about the stated purpose of Wikipedia. All the care about is:
"There are three types of wikispam. These are: advertisements masquerading as articles, external link spamming, and "Wikipedian-on-Wikipedian" spamming or, "canvassing" (also known as "internal spamming" and "cross-posting"). Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website. However, a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities."
My site is not an advertisement. I spend countless hours editing my site for the same reason as is stated in paragraph one. I gain no profit of any kind, nor any fame, or any other personal benefit beyond feeling good for having done something good for the community. You can't FIND another motivation, because one does not exist. This is no solicitation for a business, product, or service. There is no "promotion" of a company or individual. The site is a very good resource about First Person Shooters.
A "personal hobbyist site" has absolutely no bearing on the usefulness of a resource. In fact, having a commercial interest clearly violates the neutrality standard espoused. FirstPersonShooters.net has nearly as much information as any other site on the internet. It has information about lesser-known and older titles that most of the commercial sites do not have. Most importantly, it's genre-specific so the information is all easy to locate and non-commercial.
Without exception every single point brought to bear against me, my inclusion of my site, and my site itself has been entirely without merit and in many cases blatantly false.
Decline reason:
WP:EL states the following: "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked." — Yamla 18:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
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.
- I have not added a link in over a YEAR! I'm preventing them from removing one without due cause. Furthermore, "avoid" does not mean "don't do it". The reason the link was there for over a YEAR! is that it's a very good resource. Will NOONE! even consider that, the most important point here?! The link itself is not spam, and I am not adding it, and yet I'm repeatedly being blocked and the block upheld based on criteria which Do Not Fit. the situation. There is no spam going on here, there is no conflict of interest. If you're going to ignore your own rules in the name of enforcing the rules, your entire system is completely corrupt.