User talk:Decline2010

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Decline2010, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles
Miscellaneous

May 2013[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page The Great Exhibition has been reverted.
Your edit here to The Great Exhibition 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://jamescleggartwritings.wordpress.com/2013/05/13/xenoclokeion-pancosmopolitanicon-or-the-public-and-the-great-exhibition-of-1851/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
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) 09:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Information icon Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added to the page John McCracken, because it 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.  
Your edit here to John McCracken 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://jamescleggartwritings.wordpress.com/2013/04/28/minimalism-on-things-and-objects/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
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) 09:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Information icon Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Minimalism. 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 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 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 Minimalism 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://jamescleggartwritings.wordpress.com/2013/04/28/minimalism-on-things-and-objects/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
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) 09:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to The Great Exhibition. 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. Thomas.W (talk) 09:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Stop icon This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did at John McCracken, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Thomas.W (talk) 09:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for adding spam links. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines. 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.  JohnCD (talk) 10:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Decline2010 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

Dear JohnCD, apologies for seemingly breaking the wikipedia rules. The links I added were to published articles on the relevant subjects, having therefore a professional academic standard and I felt being useful reference for wiki readers. They were written by me, yes, but then would any content I added internally to Wikipedia. It would be good to know your opionion on this - I will not do it again if you consider it a problemDecline2010 (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

you were told several times to stop adding inappropriate links, which these are, and you ignored the warnings. Content written by you into the encyclopedia would, or should, be sourced from independent verifiable third-party sources, and would hence be wholly different from the addition of a link to your own website. Given that you cannot link to, or write about, your website, what else would you do here if unblocked?--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 15:32, 26 May 2013 (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.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Decline2010 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

I will stop linking to any of my own writings. As someone working across a number of academic fields I feel I could make good and objective contributions to a number of pages and as such make a second attempt to unblock my accountDecline2010 (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Accept reason:

The editor appears to understand that they cannot be used as either a source or as an external link. I'm confident that further similar situations will not recur, and that they can be deal with accordingly if they do (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I have moved your unblock request down, as new entries usually go at the bottom of talk pages, in order to keep the conversation in order. As blocking administrator, I will leave another admin to review the request, but I have no objection to an unblock if they consider it appropriate. For reference, the relevant guideline on external links is WP:External links, particularly the section WP:EL#ADV, and there is a useful general guide at WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Can I add please that the actions that I have been blocked for happened within quick succession - I didn't actually see any of the warnings until I had been blocked. I was not intentionally acting against the rules of Wikipedia. Although it is a mute point, Encyclopedias - like Britanica for example - employ experts to write about their specialist subjects. Although the links I made went to my own writings, they are writings published in recognised art and cultural journals and therefore have a degree of objective validity. As said previously, I will not do this again and feel that I do have a strong knowledge base to make valuable contributions to Wikipedia, if given another chance. I have only been using it for a day - hence my probably clumsy unblock appeal. Decline2010 (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Non-admin comment: As the user who gave you the last two warnings I would like to add some input here. Your claim that everything happened in rapid succession, and that you couldn't see the warnings until you were blocked, is patently false since the edit that you were blocked for was made a full 24 hours after you were given the final warning. Leaving you plenty of time to read and understand the warnings that had been given to you. Thomas.W (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, I am more much sympathetic to this plea than I would have been a month ago. Decline2010, the "You have new messages" warning used to be a bright orange bar stretching right across the screen. That was recently replaced, on the grounds that it was "obtrusive", by a small orange flash. There were strong objections from many of us dealing with new users, who said that "obtrusive" was the whole point, and that new users might well miss the new notification and be unaware that they had messages; but we were not listened to. I am not surprised that our fears have been realised. JohnCD (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Many thanks for unblocking me and for the comments John CD. I'll learn to ropes and try to make positive contributions going forwardDecline2010 (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)