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.
[1]
MrOllie (
talk)
00:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Please elaborate on why you believe the link is inappropriate. Gabyth ( talk)
This is the final warning you will receive regarding your
disruptive edits. 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.
Nothing indicates this is a notable list. 69.181.249.92 ( talk) 21:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
How are you defining notable? Just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't mean it's not worth adding. Sometimes the best information on a topic doesn't come from the shortlist of sources that you know. Also, I have yet to see anything in the spam section that would place the added link into that category.
I've added an article on the Daily Beast where it was mentioned prominently, another article where I actually found out about the list is subscription only, but in a respected industry publication, and I've seen more than a few blogs on the list who've included it among their press section or covered in some way. For an article about fashion blogs, why do you consider fashion blogs and publications mentioning it "not notable" or "significant"?
Additionally, here's a link from the Mississippi State University library's collection of fashion reference links that includes a link to the list. http://guides.library.msstate.edu/content.php?pid=48394&sid=407243
I'm sure you'll say it's not respectable or notable enough because it's not Harvard or Yale, but good, relevant information comes from plenty of places that you may not personally find "notable." I'm not trying to create an article on the list, but it gives up to date context to many of the statements in the article that are out of date. Not to mention, no one has yet to mention what would constitute it as spam.
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk)
16:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to
discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice.
MrOllie (
talk)
02:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from
Fashion blog. When removing text, please specify a reason in the
edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's
talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the
page history. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
Phoenixrod (
talk)
02:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. When
editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "
Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:
The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.
Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field – please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you. - Phoenixrod ( talk) 03:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits, such as
this edit you made to
Fashion blog. If you
vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be
blocked from editing without further notice. —
Jeff
G. ツ
03:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
My edits are not the problem. Users removing edits because of personal biases is. Also, I have not spammed or vandalized anything. Please re-read the guidelines. You are mistaken
If you disagree with your block then you should follow the instructions at User talk:74.73.156.96 on how to appeal. Simply using another account and ignoring the block is not an acceptable procedure. I do not know the rights or wrongs of your original block, but I am going to block this account for 31 hours so that, if you wish to be unblocked, you can go through the proper procedure. I shall also restart the 31 hours block on 74.73.156.96. Please note that I am not judging the merits of your original block, and you are perfectly welcome to appeal against it if you wish to. JamesBWatson ( talk) 15:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Gabyth ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Blocked as vandalism for removing untrue information - not any true vandalism violation
Decline reason:
I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Sandstein 18:26, 10 August 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.
Are you aware that Wikipedia automatically logs you out of your account when you open a new browser session? At least in my case it does. I created an account specifically because I was trying to provide a more accountable place for the edits I make, but have been accused of spamming for trying to do so. I don't feel I should be blocked because none of the edits I've made constitute vandalism. I'm also not trying to evade the block, but sometimes I start a new session and have been logged out automatically. I don't care if the IP is connected to my account, and I'm not trying to hide behind either. I'm trying to make an old, out of date and in some places false article better, and at every point I've gotten nothing but abuse from people accusing me (without merit) of spam, vandalism and all kinds of other things which are not the case.
Okay, I tried updating this to appeal based on the reason that was listed. Is this incorrect? I can see how it looks like I was trying to get around the block by using the IP account, but as explained, it's an unintentional result of not always realizing when I wasn't logged in. Is this considered an appeal? I read that the text in the bracket should be brief, so I've tried to respect that. I admit, I'm new, so I'm not saying I haven't made mistakes, but I have tried to follow the process for everything.
Also, I'd like to say that in the appeal, I put the reason for what I believed to be the original block - that some people marked everything I did as spam or vandalism, even when this was clearly not the case according to the guidelines. I gave up on trying to add content, and my last edits to remove out of date and incorrect statements, were still marked as spam. As an example, I tried to remove a part about Variety and the Sydney Morning Herald having a fashion blog. Variety's fashion blog closed in 2008, and Sydney Morning Herald's closed in 2007, so to say they have fashion blogs is false as a result of being outdated. There are a lot more examples, but I haven't found anything that would suggest removing incorrect information is spam or vandalism, but all of my edits to do so were marked that way out of existing biases rather than actual spam or vandalism.
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.
[1]
MrOllie (
talk)
00:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Please elaborate on why you believe the link is inappropriate. Gabyth ( talk)
This is the final warning you will receive regarding your
disruptive edits. 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.
Nothing indicates this is a notable list. 69.181.249.92 ( talk) 21:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
How are you defining notable? Just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't mean it's not worth adding. Sometimes the best information on a topic doesn't come from the shortlist of sources that you know. Also, I have yet to see anything in the spam section that would place the added link into that category.
I've added an article on the Daily Beast where it was mentioned prominently, another article where I actually found out about the list is subscription only, but in a respected industry publication, and I've seen more than a few blogs on the list who've included it among their press section or covered in some way. For an article about fashion blogs, why do you consider fashion blogs and publications mentioning it "not notable" or "significant"?
Additionally, here's a link from the Mississippi State University library's collection of fashion reference links that includes a link to the list. http://guides.library.msstate.edu/content.php?pid=48394&sid=407243
I'm sure you'll say it's not respectable or notable enough because it's not Harvard or Yale, but good, relevant information comes from plenty of places that you may not personally find "notable." I'm not trying to create an article on the list, but it gives up to date context to many of the statements in the article that are out of date. Not to mention, no one has yet to mention what would constitute it as spam.
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk)
16:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to
discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice.
MrOllie (
talk)
02:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from
Fashion blog. When removing text, please specify a reason in the
edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's
talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the
page history. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
Phoenixrod (
talk)
02:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. When
editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "
Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:
The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.
Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field – please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you. - Phoenixrod ( talk) 03:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits, such as
this edit you made to
Fashion blog. If you
vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be
blocked from editing without further notice. —
Jeff
G. ツ
03:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
My edits are not the problem. Users removing edits because of personal biases is. Also, I have not spammed or vandalized anything. Please re-read the guidelines. You are mistaken
If you disagree with your block then you should follow the instructions at User talk:74.73.156.96 on how to appeal. Simply using another account and ignoring the block is not an acceptable procedure. I do not know the rights or wrongs of your original block, but I am going to block this account for 31 hours so that, if you wish to be unblocked, you can go through the proper procedure. I shall also restart the 31 hours block on 74.73.156.96. Please note that I am not judging the merits of your original block, and you are perfectly welcome to appeal against it if you wish to. JamesBWatson ( talk) 15:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Gabyth ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Blocked as vandalism for removing untrue information - not any true vandalism violation
Decline reason:
I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Sandstein 18:26, 10 August 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.
Are you aware that Wikipedia automatically logs you out of your account when you open a new browser session? At least in my case it does. I created an account specifically because I was trying to provide a more accountable place for the edits I make, but have been accused of spamming for trying to do so. I don't feel I should be blocked because none of the edits I've made constitute vandalism. I'm also not trying to evade the block, but sometimes I start a new session and have been logged out automatically. I don't care if the IP is connected to my account, and I'm not trying to hide behind either. I'm trying to make an old, out of date and in some places false article better, and at every point I've gotten nothing but abuse from people accusing me (without merit) of spam, vandalism and all kinds of other things which are not the case.
Okay, I tried updating this to appeal based on the reason that was listed. Is this incorrect? I can see how it looks like I was trying to get around the block by using the IP account, but as explained, it's an unintentional result of not always realizing when I wasn't logged in. Is this considered an appeal? I read that the text in the bracket should be brief, so I've tried to respect that. I admit, I'm new, so I'm not saying I haven't made mistakes, but I have tried to follow the process for everything.
Also, I'd like to say that in the appeal, I put the reason for what I believed to be the original block - that some people marked everything I did as spam or vandalism, even when this was clearly not the case according to the guidelines. I gave up on trying to add content, and my last edits to remove out of date and incorrect statements, were still marked as spam. As an example, I tried to remove a part about Variety and the Sydney Morning Herald having a fashion blog. Variety's fashion blog closed in 2008, and Sydney Morning Herald's closed in 2007, so to say they have fashion blogs is false as a result of being outdated. There are a lot more examples, but I haven't found anything that would suggest removing incorrect information is spam or vandalism, but all of my edits to do so were marked that way out of existing biases rather than actual spam or vandalism.