User talk:96.249.193.79

May 2014

Please stop adding content to my personal Talk page. I have not added anything since the last message , so there is really no reason to keep reverting my Talk page back to the original warning message. I got it and understand it... Thanks 96.249.193.79 (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for repeatedly spamming an inappropriate link that violates the WP:ELNO guideline after being asked multiple times to stop, as well as edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  ~Amatulić (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I was under the impression that if a link cites valid scholarly work, is not plagiarized, is not an attempt to sell or advertise anything, it could be added to the "External Links" section of an article. I was not aware my link had been removed by an administrator and since the reason given, that it was "an inappropriate link" was invalid (the article it was added to was about meditation and the linked article was on the benefits of meditation, completely relevant and, in my opinion, appropriate), so I added it back. It was again removed, this time as "advertising", which it certainly was not. At this point, I suspected I was simply being targeted because I am an unknown here. Again, I was not aware this was an administrator doing this and the reasons given did not apply to the link I added at all. In any event, if the block is lifted, I will refrain from adding links in the future, but my suggestion to the rule makers here is to establish rules that are better defined because removing content and then citing reasons that do not apply is pretty bad. 96.249.193.79 (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

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=I was under the impression that if a link cites valid scholarly work, is not plagiarized, is not an attempt to sell or advertise anything, it could be added to the "External Links" section of an article. I was not aware my link had been removed by an administrator and since the reason given, that it was "an inappropriate link" was invalid (the article it was added to was about meditation and the linked article was on the benefits of meditation, completely relevant and, in my opinion, appropriate), so I added it back. It was again removed, this time as "advertising", which it certainly was not. At this point, I suspected I was simply being targeted because I am an unknown here. Again, I was not aware this was an administrator doing this and the reasons given did not apply to the link I added at all. In any event, if the block is lifted, I will refrain from adding links in the future, but my suggestion to the rule makers here is to establish rules that are better defined because removing content and then citing reasons that do not apply is pretty bad. [[Special:Contributions/96.249.193.79|96.249.193.79]] ([[User talk:96.249.193.79#top|talk]]) 18:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC) |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=I was under the impression that if a link cites valid scholarly work, is not plagiarized, is not an attempt to sell or advertise anything, it could be added to the "External Links" section of an article. I was not aware my link had been removed by an administrator and since the reason given, that it was "an inappropriate link" was invalid (the article it was added to was about meditation and the linked article was on the benefits of meditation, completely relevant and, in my opinion, appropriate), so I added it back. It was again removed, this time as "advertising", which it certainly was not. At this point, I suspected I was simply being targeted because I am an unknown here. Again, I was not aware this was an administrator doing this and the reasons given did not apply to the link I added at all. In any event, if the block is lifted, I will refrain from adding links in the future, but my suggestion to the rule makers here is to establish rules that are better defined because removing content and then citing reasons that do not apply is pretty bad. [[Special:Contributions/96.249.193.79|96.249.193.79]] ([[User talk:96.249.193.79#top|talk]]) 18:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC) |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=I was under the impression that if a link cites valid scholarly work, is not plagiarized, is not an attempt to sell or advertise anything, it could be added to the "External Links" section of an article. I was not aware my link had been removed by an administrator and since the reason given, that it was "an inappropriate link" was invalid (the article it was added to was about meditation and the linked article was on the benefits of meditation, completely relevant and, in my opinion, appropriate), so I added it back. It was again removed, this time as "advertising", which it certainly was not. At this point, I suspected I was simply being targeted because I am an unknown here. Again, I was not aware this was an administrator doing this and the reasons given did not apply to the link I added at all. In any event, if the block is lifted, I will refrain from adding links in the future, but my suggestion to the rule makers here is to establish rules that are better defined because removing content and then citing reasons that do not apply is pretty bad. [[Special:Contributions/96.249.193.79|96.249.193.79]] ([[User talk:96.249.193.79#top|talk]]) 18:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

---