User talk:75.139.93.111

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April, 2009[edit]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to glowsticking. 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. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought this up at the administrator's noticeboard. [1] WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009[edit]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to Glowsticking, 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. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continuing to add spam links. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. 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. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:58, 6 April 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).

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

Request reason:

This is not spam. thanks

Decline reason:

It may not be Spam, but it's certainly spam. Please see WP:SPAM for more information. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:19, 6 April 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).

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

Request reason:

I really don't care what you call it. It is not SPAM. It is highly relevant to the article. If the other link remains(which is entirely useless - at least the page it is linking to), then genxglow should remain as well.

Decline reason:

Even if it wasn't spam (which I believe it was), your repeated insertion of that link is edit warring, which is by itself a blockable offense. Blueboy96 19:31, 6 April 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.

If you are really concerned with the addition of the link to the page, anon, review WP:EL, particularly WP:ELNO, WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE for why this link deserves to be on the page. Discuss it on talk:glowsticking, identifying why it is encyclopedic, and how wikipedia is improved by ignoring this set of guidelines. If you are unable to do so, perhaps it is not an appropriate link for an online encyclopedia. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:44, 6 April 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).

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

Request reason:

I don't care if it is an offense. The point is that it is a useful resource, and it is useful to wikipedia user. That is the whole idea of this website, is to be informative and useful. If you feel the link I posted is not useful, then please review the remaining external links on the glowsticking article.

Decline reason:

No grounds for unblocking provided. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:05, 6 April 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).

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

Request reason:

The reason is that is a freakin glowsticking forum, that talks about glowsticking. how can it get more relevant?! It is by far a more superior resource than the current external link. Please use common sense instead of making me jump through useless hoops. Put the damn link back if you are going to allow external linking at all.

Decline reason:

See WLU above. Block reset for wasting our time with frivolous requests.  Sandstein  20:55, 6 April 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.

Please note this comment: Talk:Glowsticking#External_links. Continuing to post will result in blacklisting the page. There are reasons why the link can not be included, by posting appeals to circumvent our policies, you are making the page less accessible to fruitful edits, for no gain. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Spam-tracking

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you?[edit]

Do you live in Dare county?--75.139.102.107 (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:75.139.93.111&oldid=1139884626"