User talk:Dacblog

February 2014

Hello, I'm BilCat. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the page Rockwell B-1 Lancer, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. - BilCat (talk) 05:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Boeing 777. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it.  
Your edit here to Boeing 777 was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://airplanepassion.blogspot.com/2013/02/wga-worlds-greatest-airplane.html#.UxKol_ldXpM) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 03:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Tupolev Tu-22. 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. - BilCat (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

This is your last warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Wikipedia is not a place for advertising your blog. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

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 the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Daniel Case (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2014 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have contributed in a few articles other than just posting external links, I want to contribute more so please unblock me. I won't be adding any more external links that lead to blog. Dacblog (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Pretty clear WP:SPA. Making two edits that don't involve your blog doesn't make this not an SPA. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:22, 4 March 2014 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Well now that I am blocked I am not able to make any more contributions to prove the opposite. Give me a second chance, you can always block me again if I do the same which I will not. Best Regards. Dacblog (talk) 8:01 pm, Today (UTC−6)

Decline reason:

If you would, kindly submit a new unblock request to give some idea of what editing you plan to do besides that around your blog. - Vianello (Talk) 04:21, 5 March 2014 (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.