User talk:NixNoughtNothing

June 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

visionsofjoy.org: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.visionsofjoy.org

--Ronz (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the source you're using fails our reliable sources criteria, so it's not just a problem of how the material is presented. Further, the source itself is highly promotional, bordering on WP:REFSPAM. --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

Please stop. If you continue to add promotional material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. --Ronz (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you use Wikipedia for advertising, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Ronz (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it has become apparent that your account will be used solely for unconstructive editing, you have been indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest it by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} to this page. Kuru (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

How is it spamming to add only ONE reference to a site? As far as advertising, by that reasoning how is having an article on the Bates method not advertising it?

Decline reason:

All of your edits consist of edit-warring to make articles on this subject conform to your own point of view. You present the appearance of a person who is here, not to improve the encyclopedia, but to promote the "Bates method." If you are interested in promoting the "Bates method," you'll need to do that on your own web site, not through Wikipedia. If you request unblocking again, please carefully read the neutral point of view policy, and clearly state your plan for editing differently in the future. A good unblock request would include a demonstration that you understand what a neutral point of view is, and probably some ideas for articles you'd like to edit that aren't related to this subject. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:04, 27 July 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I really do not see how any of my edits were non-neutral. Since FisherQueen claimed above that "All of your edits consist of edit-warring to make articles on this subject conform to your own point of view", implying that she looked at all of my edits, I will point out that in the Presbyopia article I changed a very biased statement into a neutral one. I don't see how I was making the Bates method article conform to any point of view, only noting the opinion of a Bates method teacher regarding the See Clearly Method, which I did my best to report in an acceptable way. Note that another editor, "Samueltheghost", agreed that it should be there per his edits to the article.

Decline reason:

When an admin blocks you, arguing the point without addressing the issue will not result in an unblock.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 14:17, 29 July 2010 (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.