User talk:162.83.180.170

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Hard money loan. 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 exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. 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. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Gwernol 21:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Commercial hard money. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks. Gwernol 21:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The references on any topic are carefully reviewed to be similar to the topic, non solicitous of business, and if a directory, a free all inclusive directory similar to DMOZ. the purpose of alternate directories to DMOZ is clear. DMOZ has ceased responding to the majority of listing requests for the past four years. Moreover their editors are warned to not have an interest in the catagory they edit and or incentive to block listings. For that reason, DMOZ is still a source of information, but in the spirit of WIKIpedia, additional and truly open directories are sought if DMOZ is used as an information point.

Further DMOZ states not data on the topic. The directory listed does and is open and free and non solicitous. Therefore, your insistance on DMOZ as the sole source is not forward thinking. If you have an article on the topic you would like to see listed as reference please list it as reference is an important part of the articles on WIKI.

Be carefull to differntiate commercial spam from alternative directories other than DMOZ. For instance Weird Loans is one such source. It is owned by a large mainstream publishing company, but appears to be a friendly directory of sorts. Because it is free and open it is a good source.

I have restored the listing reference and would like you to respect that contribution and cease stalking this user. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.83.180.170 (talk • contribs).

I am not "stalking" you I am monitoring Wikipedia articles to ensure they do not contain spam. Please read our guidelines on external links. Your site clearly contains an "objectionable amount of advertising" and you are clearly using Wikipedia to promote the site. It is not an appropriate link. Please stop spamming Wikipedia. Gwernol 15:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Another spam warning

Please stop. If you continue spamming, as you did in Hard money loan, you will be blocked from editing. Gwernol 15:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for spamming

W

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for continuing to add spam links. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia. Gwernol 21:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Your efforts are right to keep wiki non commercial-- However -- The link was corrected to go directly to an information page. You failed to read that and were watching this user waiting to pounce -- You will be watched for stalking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.83.180.170 (talk • contribs).

No, you're wrong, I read the site. Its full of advertising and you are using Wikipedia to promote your site - please see WP:EL which explains our guidelines about external links. This is clearly an inappropriate link. As to your accusation that I was stalking you, as I explained before, I have the Hard money loan on my watchlist. I can guarantee you that had another user spammed that page I would have warned and/or blocked them too. Gwernol 22:03, 1 December 2006 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Please review this users updated link to direct visitors directly to the information article only. This is a non commercial site and is a free directory. The correction to the link has fixed the problem of concern to GWERNOL, but he failed to read it and used his expertise to speedily block this contribution and improvement. Gwernol is a good administrator becoming overzealous and will drive users off from WIKI.

Decline reason:

Gwernol was not being overzealous the site is against WP:EL and comments such as You will be watched for stalking to an admin do not put you in a good light-- Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 03:54, 2 December 2006 (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.

--162.83.180.170 17:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)== BetaCommand Did not read that a link was corrected! == Voted as a block - which will intimidate non admin editors. This will not help Wiki grow-- but will create stress for users. I have listed my concern on Betas archived talk page- but is "Archived". LOL —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.128.174.142 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC).--162.83.180.170 17:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wizardry Dragon, Thank you also for NOT READING. This pack mentality of admins makes you appear desperate to please the adins so you may remain part of their group. If you would have CHECKED the history and the last LINK UPDATE- you would have seen the correction went only directly to an article. As for debating the merits, it is clear you do not appreciate that Wiki itself was once criticised by existing encyclopedias for it's new approach. This was merely a non-DMOZ information site specifically on the topic. But it was improved by my updating directly to the article that was relevant, instead of leaving the viewer to go to the original index page. You still are arguing over an updated link that has no directory part of the page, and a block WAS issued without checking. Gwernol and any person so hopeful of adminiship will be a deterrent to Wiki's growth if they do not take time to read, verify what is said, and correct. The apology should be GWENRNOL's and BetaCommands, and Wizardry Dragon's to me. Because they are failing to check the updated link that would NOT have resulted in a block. The scaries thing to read is Wizardry Dragon sad comment that my protest of their error, was "a good way to increase block time". This is not a communist site where free opinion on the talk page should warrant punishment.

Any admin reviewing this should see the changed link, see the block was given without checking within less than what appeared to be ten seconds. The admin was POUNCING and the additional reviewers were simply repeating the error by not reading or fearing dissent. It is just ludicrous and silly to see the ignorance of facts and checking on the change made.

Wiki should not be a popularity contest amongst admins and wannabee admins. It should be accurate. In my opinion if Gwernol and the two added opionion's (who FAILED to read and follow the updated link of the last edit change) determined the entire opion of Wiki, far fewer would be here today. Wiki does not want you to alientate the attempts of others and rush to rash decisions without READING.

Thank you for reading Jan, and for giving an opinion that appears rational, unbiased and considerate. Especially the part where you aptly indicated the inclusion of the source was more a matter of opionion, even though you did not think it was needed. Regarding the "personal attack", I assure you it was me, a contributor who felt attacked when IN GOOD FAITH, I changed and improved the link to an article only. By not having it read, and having a BLOCK put on me, so that I could not even communicate, I take the highest offense. It was the thwarting of my ability to communicate. I have written for this complaint to be viewed on the backlog of complaints because it was so frustrating to be part of such behavior.

Gwernol in my opinion is like a good prosecutor, who in hurry for speed would accidently convict only a few wrong people. But one is too many. Hence the complaint stands and the tip to not go into law enforcement! LOL --162.83.180.170 14:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)