User talk:Necrosporus

February 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Dwm has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline 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. I removed the following link(s): http://syslogblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/tiling-wm.html, http://devnulll.blogspot.com/2007/05/dwm-debian-howto.html (matching the regex rule \bblog(?:cu|fa|harbor|mybrain|post|savy|spot|townhall)?\.com\b). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest). 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, constructive, 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) 18:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Some suggestions
There is no guarantee that you will be re-instated. However you must read the following pages thoroughly. WP:Notability, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:COI. Editing requires adhearance to these policy pages and guidelines. What we may think is irrelevant. You must use solid sources to verify what is said in the article. Contact me at my talk page if you need help. JodyBtalk 18:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As promised, I spoke with the administrator who blocked you, User:Blueboy96. Neither he nor I am comfortable unblocking you at this point. JodyBtalk 21:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request
">You're clearly violating WP:MEAT" Do I recruit people? "> Re-adding improper links (I mean seriously, user-written articles on blogspot as a resource?) is disruptive" What does it disrupt? If you read that articles and feel that link is not useful for Wikipedia, you are free to remove it from article.

And my argument still in place — I haven't intentionally violated any Wikipedia rules, so there is no reason to keep me blocked.

"Do not call newcomers disparaging names such as 'sockpuppet' or 'meatpuppet'. If a disproportionate number of newcomers show up on one side of a vote, you should make them feel welcome while explaining that their votes may be disregarded. No name-calling is necessary. Similarly, think hard before calling a newcomer a single-purpose account." "Behavior that appears malicious to experienced Wikipedians is more likely due to ignorance of our expectations and rules. Even if you're 100% sure that someone is a worthless, no-good, internet troll, vandal, or worse, conduct yourself as if they are not. By being calm, interested, and respectful, you do credit to your dignity and to our project." "Avoid using blocks as a first resort. Consider talking to a user before you block them."
 * Some rules (citation from Do_not_bite_the_newcomers) for this case:


 * It seems to me like using blocking to ban a user from a certain topic while ban requires Arbitration Committee rulings. I also wonder how Necrosporus' participation in discussion could be viewed as disruptive. Deletion policy states: "These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy.". Necrosporus can't disrupt deletion process by explaining his opinion and providing links which he view as notable. OckhamTheFox (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Mr. Daniel Case, you should know there is no exclusion of "discussion disruption" among other block reasons which can be appealed according Appealing a block. Moreover, this guideline would be useless if en-wikipedia staff would think that user once blocked for vandalism, sockpuppetry, edit warring, violating the three-revert rule, spamming etc will continue this once unblocked. Even in jails people are usually spent definite time. P.S. Blocking policy states that blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. OckhamTheFox (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked
I have unblocked this account. The likelihood of further disruption is low, and we can and must be better at handling new users than this. Booting new users off the project permanently for relatively minor mistakes is not a good idea in any way shape, or form. I'd like to extend my apologies to Necrosporus for this sort of welcome, this really isn't how things are supposed to work here. henrik • talk  09:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Henrik, thank you for unblocking Necrosporus. He is new to Wikipedia and doesn't aware of it's rules. Now he is. P.S. Necrosporus is active in Russian Wikipedia for now. Thanks to so called canvassing which actually promotes Wikipedia rather than substantiate any harm. OckhamTheFox (talk) 09:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)