User talk:ShaggyAlonso

Hello again, to clarify. I wasn't blaming my son for adding links. I stated very clearly that I asked him to add links on my behalf of my website business. I asked him because I did not realise that we were doing anything wrong in adding links and I readily admit to not having read or understood the guidelines on adding links. Neither did my son. We are, therefore, 100% guilty of this oversight. However, we both now clearly understand the policy and will, in future, not edit pages unnecessarily or add links to a page that do not add value or information of benefit to a visitor to Wikipedia and we will stick to your guidelines now we understand them. Also, to re-iterate, I am logged in using my son's Wikipedia account. I do not have an account. My son lives 40 miles away. Because I am logged in as him - my IP address has been logged and blocked in addition to his account and IP address. I ask you to re-consider your recent decision to decline my 'unblock' request. This was not an attempt to spam Wikipedia - it was clearly a mistake made out of sheer ignorance for which I apologise once more. Thank you. Mike Cummins
 * Because you admit to using/sharing an account that belongs to another individual (i.e., your son), this account cannot be unblocked, as it violates Wikipedia policies on role accounts. -- Kinu t /c  00:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello - I am the owner of www.peakdistrict-nationalpark.com (Let's Stay Peak District) which is a busines that I started on my own 10 years ago. Today, I asked my son to add links to Wikipedia pages related to the Peak District (this is his Wikipedia account) as we haven't added anything for a long time (very remiss) and have since created dozens and dozens of useful and unique content pages (area guides etc) for our readers and visitors. Recently we also commissioned videos for the whole of the Peak District and this project is current and ongoing. Obviously innocent of your editorial policy, I asked my son to catch up with the adding of what I feel to be useful links to Wikipedia as this is our area of expertise (although admittedly a business - is this frowned upon?) at the same time. Most of the content submitted was commissioned from a published author and the films have been created by an award-winning filmamker - this is not contet that has been plagiarised in any way and is regarded as useful, unique and in the main very high quality. If we are guilty of anything we must be guilty of adding too many links in too short a space of time - as, over the years, we have never had any issues beforehand. It seems to me that the main problem here is the sheer number of links that were added during the day - is that correct? Not necessarily the content? In other words had we added the same number of links over the course of two weeks - it wouldn't necessarily have been a problem? My son has also stated that he saw all the warnings more or less at the same time - so was unable to bring the problem to my attention until earlier this evening. There is no doubt that I would have instructed him to cease immediately on the first warning but maybe he was just working tooo quickly. To summarise - we are not a spammy company at all and do not get involved in anything but ethical and above the board marketing practices. It is clear that we breached your guidelines today but it was simply an innocent, if naive, mistake and I apologise unresevedly and ask that you unblock the account and re-instate our good reputation. Thank you for your consideration. Mike Cummins.

December 2009
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Rettetast (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

External links in Peak District articles
I fear that the links you're adding to Peak District articles may breach the guidelines at WP:ELNO, including: If you have a connection with the website in question, you may also be in breach of the conflict-of-interest guidelines. Rather than just adding links, you might like to incorporate some of the information from the website(s) into the articles (but be sure to follow Wikipedia's copyright violation guidelines). By all means ask for a second opinion, and you may well be editing in good faith, but when all your recent edits are to add links one or two particular websites, it looks like promotion, which is generally frowned upon. Dave.Dunford (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article."
 * "Links mainly intended to promote a website...",
 * "Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services."

This is your only warning; if you insert a spam link to Wikipedia again, as you did at Tissington, 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. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for spamming or advertising. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Vsmith (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)