User talk:Ethantke

April 2024[edit]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Glock. 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. Thank you. Loafiewa (talk) 08:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did at Glock, you may be blocked from editing. 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. Loafiewa (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That link was in no way inappropriate and was very similar to other articles cited. Ethantke (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Glock. 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. Read WP:NOTHERE. If your only intent with editing is to spam the same link to this page, then you're doing nothing to help actually improve the encyclopedia. Loafiewa (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for advertising or promotion.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Not once was I advertise I added a valuable citation to a section with 0 previous citations. I also did NOT spam I posted a cite it got removed so I undid the removal. I as previously mentioned Wiki links are NF links and with that no there are no beneficial factors. I didn't link to a product I linked to a valuable blog - which is within Wikis guide lines. Please re-read Wiki guide lines if you have trouble understanding. Thanks. Ethantke (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Blatant spam, completely inappropriate for Wikipedia. Yamla (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2024 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Okay so once again I get a redundant response with no real reasoning. I was warned I would be blocked *next time* I posted and then one (1) second later got banned. Also to reiterate, not ONCE did I spam on the page, I provided a valuable link that meets Wiki standards. Look at cite 64 on the Glock forum I posted on, it is the exact same type of cite that follows back to a related page to mine. Nothing I did was out of the ordinary or against policy. Ethantke (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Since you think you have not done anything wrong, there are no grounds to remove the block. 331dot (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2024 (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.