User talk:Peli barbara

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. 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. Since Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by some search engines, including Google. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing their websites from appearing on Wikipedia. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continuing to add spam links. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I haven't done anything that is against your policy. I've found an interesting page that contains panoramic views of castles, churches and other monuments and I've added the links for the churches for the appropriate saints. I've always added these links to the external reference list where there were also links for other churches of the given saint. So I would like to get unblocked.

Decline reason:

The biggest issue here seems to be that you were asked to stop doing this, and yet you continued repeatedly. Generally, in the course of doing something, when someone tells you 5 times that you are doing something wrong, the proper response is to stop and figure out why it is wrong. That it took a block to get you to listen does not engender a sense that you intend to work well in a collaborative project such as Wikipedia. Additionally, that this request shows that you intend to continue to violate our External links guidelines, I see no compelling reason to unblock at this time. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:22, 20 January 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

1. When did you warn me multiple times? I have received only one thing, the actual ban of Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2009. No warns were displayed. 2. I don't want to submit anything that is not acceptable for you, I'm not a spammer. So I do ask you to tell me why is spamming to add content about the castle of Budapest which is part of the World Heritage. So tell me what has to be changed on the site to be accepted to be linked. Which rule is violated by adding these links, please define it exactly. 3. I don't want to destroy Wikipedia, by the contrary I want to improve it.

Decline reason:

I see no reason to unblock. You are still not showing that you understand our policy on spam. Those are the multipe warnings above, yet you continued to insert the same link. The entirety of your contributions are insertion of one particular link. Wikipedia is not a link farm and does not work that way. — Sandahl (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I haven't inserted the same link multiple times. It was the same site: 3dtour.eu/budapest but with a different ID each time, this ID specifies which panoramic image the site shows. I always added the right link for the right saint. So I would definitely like to know: 1. which rule is broken by adding a link for world heritage sites, 2. Why is for example a link allowed in Catherine of Alexandria in external links to eelk.ee/muhu allowed and my links with different panoid-s to 3dtour.eu/budapest not allowed. Please answer my questions.

Decline reason:

Please read WP:SPA. I'm always suspicious when someone suddenly creates an account with the singular purpose of "improving" Wikipedia by spamming a link to every article that even remotely applies to it. Honestly, I have a hard time seeing your actions as being beneficial to the project as much as they are beneficial to the website you are quite obviously attempting to promote. I see no reason to unblock. — Trusilver 09:57, 21 January 2009 (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.