User talk:68.54.56.198

This IP has been repeatedly blocked from editing Wikipedia in response to abuse of editing privileges. Further abuse from this IP may result in an extended block. Notify an administrator • contribs • block • block log

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.

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).

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--Ben^chat 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. --Ben^chat 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. Durova^Charge! 07:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

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).

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.

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages such as User talk:68.54.56.198 for inappropriate discussion, as described here, you may be blocked. Rubicon | Talk 10:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

---

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

--Ed (Edgar181) 20:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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:

Once again let me say I've added the link in question only one time, about a year ago, and it was fully accepted by a vibrant (at the time) community. Now I'm preventing vandalism by preventing the link from being removed. All the "against policy" and all negative are on the side of those removing it. It wasn't spam when I put it here, and since I've not ever added it again, only preventing it from being summarily and improperly removed, it's not spam now. The people constantly having me blocked and labling me as a spammer or vandal should have their accounts deleted as they obviously do not care about what's good for the community here, and use the rules only to fit their ego, not the good of the pages they're editing. Most of them have not done even the most rudimentary research to see whether they were accomplishing a positive goal on behalf of their position of power, they have merely used the "appearance of impropriety" and "argument from power" to make a decision in line with those they followed. In any case, a most valuable resource is being removed from a wikipedia page on it's subject. This should be cause for concern amongst whatever policy-makers care about the usefulness of Wikipedia.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Once again let me say I've added the link in question only one time, about a year ago, and it was fully accepted by a vibrant (at the time) community. Now I'm preventing vandalism by preventing the link from being removed. All the "against policy" and all negative are on the side of those removing it. It wasn't spam when I put it here, and since I've not ever added it again, only preventing it from being summarily and improperly removed, it's not spam now. The people constantly having me blocked and labling me as a spammer or vandal should have their accounts deleted as they obviously do not care about what's good for the community here, and use the rules only to fit their ego, not the good of the pages they're editing. Most of them have not done even the most rudimentary research to see whether they were accomplishing a positive goal on behalf of their position of power, they have merely used the "appearance of impropriety" and "argument from power" to make a decision in line with those they followed. In any case, a most valuable resource is being removed from a wikipedia page on it's subject. This should be cause for concern amongst whatever policy-makers care about the usefulness of Wikipedia. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Once again let me say I've added the link in question only one time, about a year ago, and it was fully accepted by a vibrant (at the time) community. Now I'm preventing vandalism by preventing the link from being removed. All the "against policy" and all negative are on the side of those removing it. It wasn't spam when I put it here, and since I've not ever added it again, only preventing it from being summarily and improperly removed, it's not spam now. The people constantly having me blocked and labling me as a spammer or vandal should have their accounts deleted as they obviously do not care about what's good for the community here, and use the rules only to fit their ego, not the good of the pages they're editing. Most of them have not done even the most rudimentary research to see whether they were accomplishing a positive goal on behalf of their position of power, they have merely used the "appearance of impropriety" and "argument from power" to make a decision in line with those they followed. In any case, a most valuable resource is being removed from a wikipedia page on it's subject. This should be cause for concern amongst whatever policy-makers care about the usefulness of Wikipedia. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Once again let me say I've added the link in question only one time, about a year ago, and it was fully accepted by a vibrant (at the time) community. Now I'm preventing vandalism by preventing the link from being removed. All the "against policy" and all negative are on the side of those removing it. It wasn't spam when I put it here, and since I've not ever added it again, only preventing it from being summarily and improperly removed, it's not spam now. The people constantly having me blocked and labling me as a spammer or vandal should have their accounts deleted as they obviously do not care about what's good for the community here, and use the rules only to fit their ego, not the good of the pages they're editing. Most of them have not done even the most rudimentary research to see whether they were accomplishing a positive goal on behalf of their position of power, they have merely used the "appearance of impropriety" and "argument from power" to make a decision in line with those they followed. In any case, a most valuable resource is being removed from a wikipedia page on it's subject. This should be cause for concern amongst whatever policy-makers care about the usefulness of Wikipedia. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}