User talk:Steve m s 19

Spam-only account

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. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, 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. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for continuing to add spam links. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may place {{unblock}} on your user talk page to have the block reviewed. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:00, 5 March 2012 (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).

Steve m s 19 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not spam, I created and wrote the section "Variants of the game" and I wrote it from http://www.black-jack.net/blackjack-games.html and then I cited the page that the information was taken from. Is this not what wikipedia is for?

Decline reason:

Seems to me this block is spot on, perhaps if you had paid attention the first time you were reverted and given a warning you might not be in this situation Jac16888 ^Talk 23:22, 5 March 2012 (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.

Hi - if you wanted to discuss your blackjack link, the place to start would have been on the Talk page for the Blackjack article, Talk:Blackjack, we are all very friendly. It was a mistake to get into an edit war with an administrator. Zargulon (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ill be sure to open dialogue in the talk page if I add any more content to wikipedia. I did not realize he was an admin, perhaps he could have given a better explanation besides just calling it spam. Is it wrong for a site owner to add a citation to content taken from his page? Or is wikipedia only for people who do not have websites?

Comment from blocking admin Going back through your contribution history, in every single instance, you've added a small amount of content using a spammy link as a reference (all of which have now been removed). We see this editing pattern frequently; site-owners or someone with some other COI with the site involved figures that spam will sail under the radar if it's passed off as a reference. It's a old strategy that rarely works around here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it against wikipedia tos to add ref link when adding content? Is there a minimum amount of information that one should add before a ref link is justified? And how is the page spam, when the information was modeled after it. The section did not exist before I put it there, and it has been there now for about a year. SO how is it that the page is not worthy of being cited? This document lacked the information before I put it here, so how is it ok for the link be deleted and not the information.

See WP:COI and WP:Reliable sources. Your contributions violate both policies. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. I believe my site to be a reliable source of information on blackjack, and specifically the blackjack games page to be a reliable source of information about blackjack variants. I have not distorted information either, I may have a blackjack website but the information is valid. Taking a pointer from the WP-COI page, Id like to declare an interest in blackjack and Id like to get some feedback on what I should do to the page at http://www.black-jack.net/blackjack-games.html to make it a page that is worthy of being cited for blackjack variants. Should I rewrite the page in an encyclopedic way? Thanks..

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).

Steve m s 19 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please include the original unblock request.

Decline reason:

Your COI/spamming intentions are obvious and your denial isn't helping your cause. Max Semenik (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2012 (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).

Steve m s 19 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I stand by my word that Im not spamming. If I were spamming, I wouldn't be in this dialogue so please, enough with the spamming talk. I can see how a COI could be perceived, but now that I've familiarized myself with those terms, I am declaring an interest in blackjack and asking other editors for feedback on what I should do to the page to make it not considered spam. Perhaps I could have familiarized myself more with wikipedia terms, for that I apologize.

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, comments like "I can see how a COI could be perceived" make me feel you don't have any idea what the problem is. You are adding sites that your have a clear conflict of interest with, and they're not in any way reliable sources. An unblock is very unlikely to occur when the problematic behavor will be recurring. If you make another request, I would suggest actually reading the policies you've been given links to, and make a pledge not to add your sites in the future. Kuru (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2012 (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.

Whether or not you think it's spamming, it's obvious that we do. The only way anyone would consider unblocking you would be if you stopped adding links to sites that (1) you are affiliated with in any way and (2) violate WP:EL and WP:Reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then please remove or rewrite this entire section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craps#Variants_of_the_game as it has exact text from my website, which will hurt my page now since you removed the citation that has been there for a year and a half. I will agree not to cite my own websites on wikipedia, even though I hugely disagree that I have violated terms by doing do. And I dont know how you call it spam, when it is hundreds of words EXACT taken from my website, that has been there for 1.5yrs.

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).

Steve m s 19 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did make that pledge previous to your rejection, please read up just above this request. I may not agree with you, but I have agreed not to post my own websites. Look I had my account here more than 2 years, and I posted what.. 3 links? I hope its clear to you that I had no intention of spamming in the first place.

Decline reason:

Based on the comment below and the tendentiousness and attitude it displays, I am not only denying this unblock request, I am revoking access to this page ... oh, looks like it's been done. Thanks. — Daniel Case (talk) 05:56, 6 March 2012 (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.

It's clear that your sole intent was to use Wikipedia for your own personal benefit by driving traffic to your website. I can think of a lot of words that would describe this behavior, but "blocked and unwelcome" pretty much sums it up. Oh, and I'm and administrator, too, and I'm also denying your unblock request. Rklawton (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well then I will keep requesting, because I wont be pushed out of a public place when I'm not doing anything wrong. I have acknowledged that I understand what the issue is, so you can go ahead and stop attacking me because I'm not going anywhere. Thanks. And thanks for coming back an bolding the part about being an admin, I hope you feel powerful.

No, you won't. Rklawton (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]