Welcome!
Hello, Drummer182, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{
helpme}}
before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
Rigadoun
(talk)
19:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to
Drum.
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. Because Wikipedia uses the
nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. 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.
Bdb484 (
talk)
03:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Bdb484,
Concerning 411drums.com, the link that you removed. According to Wikipedia guidelines:
What should be linked
3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.
Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should avoid:
1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.
2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints which such sites are presenting.
3. Sites containing malware, malicious scripts, trojan exploits, or illegal content.
4. Links mainly intended to promote a website. See external link spamming.
5. Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. For example, the mobile phone article does not link to web pages that mostly promote or advertise cell-phone products or services.
6. Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation.[1] See below.
7. Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser or in a specific country.
8. Direct links to documents that require external applications or plugins (such as Flash or Java) to view the content, unless the article is about such file formats. See rich media for more details.
9. Links to any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds.
10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists.
11. Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies.)
12. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked.
13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked.
14. Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers.
15. Links to sites already linked through Wikipedia sourcing tools. For example, instead of linking to a commercial book site, consider the "ISBN" linking format, which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. Wikipedia:Map sources can be linked by using geographical coordinates.
16. Links that are not reliably functional, or likely to continue being functional. For example, links to temporary internet content, where the link is unlikely to remain operable for a useful amount of time.
17. Affiliate, tracking or referral links i.e. links that contain information about who is to be credited for readers that follow the link. If the source itself is helpful, use a neutral link without the tracking information.
18. Placing external links on Wikipedia navigation pages such as disambiguation, redirect and category.
19. Links to websites of organizations mentioned in an article – unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered.[1][2]
20. External links as entries in stand-alone lists. List entries should always have non-redirect articles on Wikipedia or a reasonable expectation that such an article is forthcoming, and thus be internally-linked only.
We have several screenshots on file and are documenting your abuse of power. Drummer182 ( talk) 16:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The page is locked Mike. How about assisting us. Drummer182 ( talk) 14:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first.
SarekOfVulcan (
talk)
14:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Drummer182 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
There is no reason my account should be blocked as there was an ongoing discussion. Because one user was getting upset with the link to valuable material which was shown by his abusive language here today. This action goes against everything Wikipedia stands for which is providing knowledge to everyone. Please remove this block so discussion can continue rather than BD's personal attack against this link. Thank you.
Decline reason:
411drums.com is a site that uses user-submitted links for its collection. Not an WP:RS and not a valid WP:EL. You were asked many times to not re-add it, yet you failed to abide. As such, the block is valid to limit WP:DISRUPTion, until such a point as you heed the requests/warnings not to re-add. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:59, 11 March 2010 (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.
Drummer182 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
thank you for your reply, but you are misinformed about your reason. There is no where for users to submit links to that site. There is a link section, as most websites have, but they are links that were gathered by the creator of the site and not submitted (as explained to me). There is a place where article content can be submitted for consideration for inclusion on 411drums.com. Which would be more educational content to the vast amount of content that already exists. It's interesting that there hasn't been one consistent reason for this link to be removed, but rather it appears to be a grasp at straws to throw many up at the wall to see what sticks. I understand that this will probably fall on deaf ears as it seems the matter is already decided beforehand... which is a shame since it appears the "discussion" part of Wikipedia is not really for discussion at all. That is sad. I also understand the integrity for which Wikipedia stands for and that is why I am fighting so hard to include 411drums.com. I'm not the owner of the site. I am just trying to make sure important materials beyond the scope of Wikipedia are made available to the masses. Again, if 411drums.com is not a site that is appropriate for linking to from Wikipedia, then I am hard pressed to find one that is? CNN or the NY Times or The Washington Post or any other news site which all thrive on advertising online? I would just like a consistent application to all links on this site without any double standard.
Decline reason:
You won't be unblocked unless you agree to stop violating WP:EL policies. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:50, 11 March 2010 (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.
Welcome!
Hello, Drummer182, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{
helpme}}
before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
Rigadoun
(talk)
19:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to
Drum.
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. Because Wikipedia uses the
nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. 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.
Bdb484 (
talk)
03:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Bdb484,
Concerning 411drums.com, the link that you removed. According to Wikipedia guidelines:
What should be linked
3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.
Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should avoid:
1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.
2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints which such sites are presenting.
3. Sites containing malware, malicious scripts, trojan exploits, or illegal content.
4. Links mainly intended to promote a website. See external link spamming.
5. Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. For example, the mobile phone article does not link to web pages that mostly promote or advertise cell-phone products or services.
6. Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation.[1] See below.
7. Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser or in a specific country.
8. Direct links to documents that require external applications or plugins (such as Flash or Java) to view the content, unless the article is about such file formats. See rich media for more details.
9. Links to any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds.
10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists.
11. Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies.)
12. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked.
13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked.
14. Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers.
15. Links to sites already linked through Wikipedia sourcing tools. For example, instead of linking to a commercial book site, consider the "ISBN" linking format, which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. Wikipedia:Map sources can be linked by using geographical coordinates.
16. Links that are not reliably functional, or likely to continue being functional. For example, links to temporary internet content, where the link is unlikely to remain operable for a useful amount of time.
17. Affiliate, tracking or referral links i.e. links that contain information about who is to be credited for readers that follow the link. If the source itself is helpful, use a neutral link without the tracking information.
18. Placing external links on Wikipedia navigation pages such as disambiguation, redirect and category.
19. Links to websites of organizations mentioned in an article – unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered.[1][2]
20. External links as entries in stand-alone lists. List entries should always have non-redirect articles on Wikipedia or a reasonable expectation that such an article is forthcoming, and thus be internally-linked only.
We have several screenshots on file and are documenting your abuse of power. Drummer182 ( talk) 16:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The page is locked Mike. How about assisting us. Drummer182 ( talk) 14:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first.
SarekOfVulcan (
talk)
14:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Drummer182 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
There is no reason my account should be blocked as there was an ongoing discussion. Because one user was getting upset with the link to valuable material which was shown by his abusive language here today. This action goes against everything Wikipedia stands for which is providing knowledge to everyone. Please remove this block so discussion can continue rather than BD's personal attack against this link. Thank you.
Decline reason:
411drums.com is a site that uses user-submitted links for its collection. Not an WP:RS and not a valid WP:EL. You were asked many times to not re-add it, yet you failed to abide. As such, the block is valid to limit WP:DISRUPTion, until such a point as you heed the requests/warnings not to re-add. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:59, 11 March 2010 (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.
Drummer182 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
thank you for your reply, but you are misinformed about your reason. There is no where for users to submit links to that site. There is a link section, as most websites have, but they are links that were gathered by the creator of the site and not submitted (as explained to me). There is a place where article content can be submitted for consideration for inclusion on 411drums.com. Which would be more educational content to the vast amount of content that already exists. It's interesting that there hasn't been one consistent reason for this link to be removed, but rather it appears to be a grasp at straws to throw many up at the wall to see what sticks. I understand that this will probably fall on deaf ears as it seems the matter is already decided beforehand... which is a shame since it appears the "discussion" part of Wikipedia is not really for discussion at all. That is sad. I also understand the integrity for which Wikipedia stands for and that is why I am fighting so hard to include 411drums.com. I'm not the owner of the site. I am just trying to make sure important materials beyond the scope of Wikipedia are made available to the masses. Again, if 411drums.com is not a site that is appropriate for linking to from Wikipedia, then I am hard pressed to find one that is? CNN or the NY Times or The Washington Post or any other news site which all thrive on advertising online? I would just like a consistent application to all links on this site without any double standard.
Decline reason:
You won't be unblocked unless you agree to stop violating WP:EL policies. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:50, 11 March 2010 (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.