User talk:Bluefish1111

October 2012[edit]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Solar cycle 24. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, please do not insert movie promotion into articles. Acroterion (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to List of solar cycles. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Solar storm of 1859. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Bluefish1111 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm pretty new to editing on Wikipedia. I apologize. I didn't realize that there were multiple messages regarding the content that I posted. I have used Wikipedia a lot for research and have seen films named. I didn't realize it was an infraction. I felt that the info about this film would be helpful to someone researching Solar Cycle 24, Ionospheric heaters, and HAARP. That is what I was doing and I didn't find much information. I had heard about the film and solar cycle 24. i was originally trying to find out more info. I am not affiliated with the film and did not request that anyone do anything. In the future I promise to post only once and see what the editors have to say before adding it anywhere else.

Decline reason:

Pending a satisfactory response to the message below.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You were warned by template and hand-written note four times: you stopped and waited, then came back and did the same thing you'd been warned for three more times, apparently hoping they would go unnoticed. You haven't made any edits on any other subject. Can you explain how you might edit in the future, bearing in mind that a condition of any unblock would require you to avoid the the movie and related subjects entirely, not just "post only once?" In the meantime, I suggest that you review some guidelines and policies: WP:SPAM, WP:ELNO, WP:NPOV (which requires that fringe topics be described accordingly if that is the consensus of mainstream and scholarly sources), WP:FRINGE, WP:BRD, WP:RS and WP:V. Acroterion (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Acroterion (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Bluefish1111 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm sorry, but you are incorrect in understanding my motivations for not responding to the notes. I did not understand that there were multiple notes. I was looking around for info on the subject of the heaters and Solar Cycle 24 based on some info I had heard. I didn't find much, so I thought mentioning the film might be helpful to others that came after me. In regards to posting in the future; I can't say that I would be doing so at this time. This has been a rather unpleasant encounter. However, it would be nice to have the option. As I mentioned I use Wikipedia often for my own research. There may be a time when I have something to contribute. Thank you.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline: no response to the questions below. Any future unblock requests must address these issues. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 am willing to consider unblocking you, to give you another chance. However, one thing gives me pause. Can you please explain this edit? Even if we assume good faith about the addition of content about the film, we still have two rather puzzling removals. Even to someone who knew nothing else about Jesse Ventura, it would clearly be evident that someone who "questioned whether the government is using the site to manipulate the weather or to bombard people with mind-controlling radio waves" might be considered a conspiracy theorist, and a little more knowledge of his career would confirm it, so why did you remove the mention of the fact? JamesBWatson (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]