User talk:68.54.56.198

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.

September 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on First-person shooter. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Masem 22:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. NASCAR Fan24^{(talk•contribs)} 22:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of a page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. NASCAR Fan24^{(talk•contribs)} 22:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This is your last warning.
The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing anyone from linking to them from any site that uses the MediaWiki spam blacklist, which includes all of Wikimedia and Wikipedia. NASCAR Fan24^{(talk•contribs)} 22:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. Here are the reverts in question. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to First-person shooter. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. NASCAR Fan24^{(talk•contribs)} 00:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning.
The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to First-person shooter, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing anyone from linking to them from any site that uses the MediaWiki spam blacklist, which includes all of Wikimedia and Wikipedia. Please do not add links to Wikipedia just because they are related to the subject of the article. Only add links if they are absolutely necessary. Thanks. NASCAR Fan24^{(talk•contribs)} 00:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 72 hours as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated.--JForget 01:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:

the consensus on the links i'm trying to PREVENT FROM BEING REMOVED, NOT ADD, was established months ago and has been in effect from then until the last couple of days. since the links have been established for such a period, and since at the time a rather active community accepted them, they cannot be said now to be improper, particularly without discussion first. In addition, since the links were already there, it's entirely improper to brand me as a spammer, especially repeatedly. one link in particular is mine, and may be debatably not allowed, however good a resource and appropriate it is to the article, but there are several other links being removed repeatedly with NO reason stated, no discussion, and no community involvement. The time period of acceptance before this latest dispute should probably be enough to deem it improper to cut such a wide swath through the article without a significant amount of discussion FIRST. I need to be unbanned specifically because I was requesting arbitration at the time it occured. This is the second time I've tried to request arbitration and i always seem to get blocked right before I can do so.

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=the consensus on the links i'm trying to PREVENT FROM BEING REMOVED, NOT ADD, was established months ago and has been in effect from then until the last couple of days. since the links have been established for such a period, and since at the time a rather active community accepted them, they cannot be said now to be improper, particularly without discussion first. In addition, since the links were already there, it's entirely improper to brand me as a spammer, especially repeatedly. one link in particular is mine, and may be debatably not allowed, however good a resource and appropriate it is to the article, but there are several other links being removed repeatedly with NO reason stated, no discussion, and no community involvement. The time period of acceptance before this latest dispute should probably be enough to deem it improper to cut such a wide swath through the article without a significant amount of discussion FIRST. I need to be unbanned specifically because I was requesting arbitration at the time it occured. This is the second time I've tried to request arbitration and i always seem to get blocked right before I can do so. |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=the consensus on the links i'm trying to PREVENT FROM BEING REMOVED, NOT ADD, was established months ago and has been in effect from then until the last couple of days. since the links have been established for such a period, and since at the time a rather active community accepted them, they cannot be said now to be improper, particularly without discussion first. In addition, since the links were already there, it's entirely improper to brand me as a spammer, especially repeatedly. one link in particular is mine, and may be debatably not allowed, however good a resource and appropriate it is to the article, but there are several other links being removed repeatedly with NO reason stated, no discussion, and no community involvement. The time period of acceptance before this latest dispute should probably be enough to deem it improper to cut such a wide swath through the article without a significant amount of discussion FIRST. I need to be unbanned specifically because I was requesting arbitration at the time it occured. This is the second time I've tried to request arbitration and i always seem to get blocked right before I can do so. |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=the consensus on the links i'm trying to PREVENT FROM BEING REMOVED, NOT ADD, was established months ago and has been in effect from then until the last couple of days. since the links have been established for such a period, and since at the time a rather active community accepted them, they cannot be said now to be improper, particularly without discussion first. In addition, since the links were already there, it's entirely improper to brand me as a spammer, especially repeatedly. one link in particular is mine, and may be debatably not allowed, however good a resource and appropriate it is to the article, but there are several other links being removed repeatedly with NO reason stated, no discussion, and no community involvement. The time period of acceptance before this latest dispute should probably be enough to deem it improper to cut such a wide swath through the article without a significant amount of discussion FIRST. I need to be unbanned specifically because I was requesting arbitration at the time it occured. This is the second time I've tried to request arbitration and i always seem to get blocked right before I can do so. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.