User talk:JakeF4ce007
October 2016[edit]
Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. 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. [1] MER-C 12:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Materialscientist (talk) 10:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
JakeF4ce007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Google "Beam Formulas" and click on the structx.com link (rated far above Wikipedia) and tell me its not relevant to the beam page it was on. All links should be to this standard! Biggest problem with Wikipedia (apart from the spammers and haters) is the moderators not checking what they are deleting/reverting. Please let me know if you disagree. Unblock me please and add my links back! JakeF4ce007 (talk) 08:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are linking to your own website. This is totally inappropriate. That this is all you have ever done here shows you are one of the spammers you complain are one of the biggest problems with Wikipedia. The block is appropriate. Yamla (talk) 13:26, 8 February 2017 (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.
JakeF4ce007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
linking to a useful resource, without adds or a motive is hardly inappropriate. Could have been considered a donation. I didn't put links on random pages, I choose ones that would benefit from them so don't compare me to those spammers. There are numerous pages where instead of a link a reference has been added to a subtle change and this is appropriate? References are easier to leave because the act of referencing sounds like it must be true even though so many are inaccurate or just false! FYI here's one, Wikipedias "section modulus" article and formulas has been wrong for years (that's right not weeks or months.... years!) - How about you unblock me and I will fix it, add to it, add one (and only one) reference to my page (which itself is fully referenced - have a look your self) and the rest to unique accurate pages/books/journals and I will stop adding links to my web site? A fair deal since that particular page currently would help the world more if it was deleted. Deal? P.S. I feel you should take it upon yourself to fix or delete that page if you don't let me help.JakeF4ce007 (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Literally every edit you have made to Wikipedia's articles has involved linking to your site (bar one where you removed another external link first). Wikipedia is not here to drive your traffic. Your own opinions on how well-referenced and valid your site is have no relevance here. Unless you undertake to avoid adding any more external links to your own website (not "just one"; none, ever) you will not be unblocked. Yunshui 雲水 10:36, 9 February 2017 (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.
JakeF4ce007 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
For the love of Wikipedia, everyone's argument is a likened to all you do is donate something that is yours (all donations to Wikipedia belong to someone else). Can someone please just check one of my links and explain to me why it's not relevant? Wikipedia uses the "no follow" HTML tags to remove any chance of apparent increased traffic. You get increased traffic to a pointless site for long. Some people add text, I have added links. Check the links not the stats. Take one minute (have a 30sec click around) and look at http://www.structx.com/beams.html and if you still think it's unbenificial to the beams page then I will admit defeat and just wait for someone else to add it. Piece wiki-people ; )JakeF4ce007 (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You've already been told twice that you are not to link to your personal site. As you are continuing to do this, and even doing so in your unblock request, I'm removing talk page access at this time. Should you continue to request an unblock, you may do so through WP:UTRS. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2017 (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.