User talk:Gnomepress

Hello, Gnomepress! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 11:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

May 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Gnome Press has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \bwordpress\.com (links: http://gnomepress.wordpress.com).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 11:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Sixth Column 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.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \bwordpress\.com (links: http://gnomepress.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/review-sixth-column/).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 05:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended or used for promotional purposes. Please read the following carefully.

Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Because Wikipedia does not allow any form of spam or other promotion of people, products, companies or other groups (even non-commercial or charitable ones). Using Wikipedia for such purposes will result in the blocking of the account involved. Please read Wikipedia:FAQ/Organization and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for our policies about this.

In addition, user accounts are for individuals only, not for companies or groups or other collective editing. Your username should reflect this. Usernames that appear to be promotional (such as those that make reference to a company or product) violate our username policy and are typically blocked to enforce that policy.

What can I do now?

If you have no interest in writing about some other topic than your organization, group, company, or product, you will not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.

If you do intend to make useful contributions about some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:

Add the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below this message box.
Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:

Tell us what new username you want to use. Please make sure that your new username does not violate our username policy and check that it has not already been taken (click here to search).
Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If instead you believe that you have been blocked by mistake (i.e., you have not in fact been using Wikipedia for promotional purposes), please write {{unblock|Your reason here}} below this message box and replace the text "Your reason here" with the reason why. See also Wikipedia:Appealing a block for more information. Nja²⁴⁷ 19:25, 24 July 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).

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

Request reason:

All I wanted to do is link to more particular info for the Gnome Press collector or people who are interested in early Science Fiction publishers. I explained the very good reasons for this on the Gnome Press talk page. I don't know if anyone has read it as there has been a distinct lack of any worthwhile feedback despite my requests and patience. I'm not promoting a product. The site is a blog, sure, but it's not a personal blog. Nor is it a 'fansite' in the sense of the word intended in the guidelines, and I can see no sensible reason why the link shouldn't be there with respect to the guidelines. The site (while obviously focused on a particular 'product') attempts to be a provider of facts and information with regards to both specific copies of the books, and the books and Gnome Press in general. Now, I understand my username might have been an unfortunate choice (I didn't review the guidelines for this) despite the fact that Gnome Press has been out of business for almost half a century. I chose it (obviously unwisely) to reflect my interest and passion. Changing it if necessary isn't a problem and I had a brief discussion on this with another editor who decided the link was ok, and that didn't suggest I change it. I also acknowledge that my behavior in starting to post links to my reviews was ill-advised and set off alarm bells. Anyone is of course welcome to inspect the site and then please explain to me exactly why the content is not fit to be linked to from wikipedia. I know what the guidelines say so please just don't quote them to me. They aren't rules and the content and intent of the site (to my mind at least) clearly places it outside of the what the guidelines are there to prevent. I'm a reasonable person and all I've wanted on this is some reasonable discussion.Gnomepress (talk) 13:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We depend upon new editors being willing to read and understand our spam policies. Your site, gnomepress.wordpress.com, matches a regular expression that causes such links to be routinely removed by the XLinkBot. You can probably realize that if such links are routinely removed, per policy, you will have an uphill battle getting such a link included in Wikipedia. No, we are not prepared to engage in extended discussion of why we do not normally link to Wordpress sites. You must agree to stop promoting your link, or this block is unlikely to be lifted by administrators. EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 26 July 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.

Another reason you were blocked is because of the username you chose. It would be very helpful if you were willing to change it. Do you have another username you are willing to use? lifebaka++ 14:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I won't attempt to insert that particular URL again. But I just want to make some observations and I would like some clarification. You used the word 'normally', you do not 'normally' link to Wordpress sites. This kind of fuzzy terminology is used all through the 'guidelines' - another fuzzy term. This is what led me to believe that in some situations these kinds of links can be acceptable. This factor combined with the confrontational and uncommunicative intervention of initial editor TastyPoutine has resulted in frustration for me and I imagine could lead to the annoyance and frustration of other new editors. I would also just like to take issue with your perception of what I was trying to achieve with the link. I'm not 'promoting' anything. Unless you mean that like any other editor that places an external link, the 'promotion' is of information for the edification of all. The fact that it happens to be my site is (or should be) irrelevant. If you have read all my discourse over this issue, you should understand my motivations. Ok, so given 'normally' really means 'never' (which if that's what you mean, that's what you should say, so people don't get confused), and just so I've got this straight, it's the fact that it is a site hosted on <insert blog host here> that is the problem, not the content or format?? Again, many thanks for your time and consideration.Gnomepress (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your argument: you were adding a link to your web site on the article Gnome Press. This violates username, conflict of interest, spam and possibly advertising policies and therefore you should remain blocked. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, username I agree and understand and I will change it. However, Gnome Press as a commercial entity has been dead for almost 50 years so I don't understand how I can be seen as promoting a product or otherwise engaging in any other behaviour for personal or financial gain. I could be wrong, but from the comments and opinion here, it seems that no-one knows what Gnome Press really is (or were) nor has anyone checked out the site. If you do, you will see it's no different than any other blog-style external link here on wikipedia, apart from the fact that it's hosted at on commercial blog which is a no-no. I'm sorry, I must be frustrating you guys, but we appear to be talking past each other here. At first blush the site appears to be bad - poor choice of username, commercial blog-host, focused on a particular brand, I agree with your casual summation. But a closer look will I'm sure reveal that username can (and will) be changed, the wordpress thing is understood and the content doesn't breach any of the guidelines you mention unless there is an absolute draconian application of them which just a casual inspection of external links on wikipedia clearly indicates you don't do. Collecting Gnome Press books is my hobby, information on Gnome Press is extremely limited on the Internet and my dissatisfaction with this situation led me to create a resource that would be of benefit to those interested in the subject and what I imagined would be a link on wikipedia beneficial to those seeking more info. I'm not arguing for anything, I just want to understand. I would like to know if the format and the content (never mind the host, I understand that) sits outside the intent of the guidelines. I guess this is kind of a 'Request Edit' or 'Request Comment' call with regards to the site's content. Many Thanks. Gnomepress (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I would like to change my username. Should I wait for this to play out?? Or create another account and just rejoin discussion on this page?? What would be the best thing to do in this case?? Thanks. Gnomepress (talk) 10:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I will alter some settings to allow you to create a new account. This means your edits under this account will be abandoned and you will start anew. If that's not the route you wish to take we could try changing your username instead, but that will need further steps and approval.

Essentially if you're okay with starting new then there's no reason to reply, simply get on with it and create a new account. However if you want to keep this account and change the name, then reply here and wait, but again this method will require more steps and may not be approved. Regardless, ensure that you're now clear on spam and external link policy, and of course choose a new name that is within the realm of the username policy. Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 17:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]