User talk:Steve m s 19

Spam-only account
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. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. 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. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for continuing to add spam links. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may place unblock on your user talk page to have the block reviewed. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia.

OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi - if you wanted to discuss your blackjack link, the place to start would have been on the Talk page for the Blackjack article, Talk:Blackjack, we are all very friendly. It was a mistake to get into an edit war with an administrator. Zargulon (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Ill be sure to open dialogue in the talk page if I add any more content to wikipedia. I did not realize he was an admin, perhaps he could have given a better explanation besides just calling it spam. Is it wrong for a site owner to add a citation to content taken from his page? Or is wikipedia only for people who do not have websites?


 * Comment from blocking admin Going back through your contribution history, in every single instance, you've added a small amount of content using a spammy link as a reference (all of which have now been removed). We see this editing pattern frequently; site-owners or someone with some other COI with the site involved figures that spam will sail under the radar if it's passed off as a reference.  It's a old strategy that rarely works around here. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 23:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it against wikipedia tos to add ref link when adding content? Is there a minimum amount of information that one should add before a ref link is justified? And how is the page spam, when the information was modeled after it. The section did not exist before I put it there, and it has been there now for about a year. SO how is it that the page is not worthy of being cited? This document lacked the information before I put it here, so how is it ok for the link be deleted and not the information.
 * See WP:COI and WP:Reliable sources. Your contributions violate both policies. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I believe my site to be a reliable source of information on blackjack, and specifically the blackjack games page to be a reliable source of information about blackjack variants. I have not distorted information either, I may have a blackjack website but the information is valid. Taking a pointer from the WP-COI page, Id like to declare an interest in blackjack and Id like to get some feedback on what I should do to the page at http://www.black-jack.net/blackjack-games.html to make it a page that is worthy of being cited for blackjack variants. Should I rewrite the page in an encyclopedic way? Thanks..


 * Whether or not you think it's spamming, it's obvious that we do. The only way anyone would consider unblocking you would be if you stopped adding links to sites that (1) you are affiliated with in any way and (2) violate WP:EL and WP:Reliable sources. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 00:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Then please remove or rewrite this entire section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craps#Variants_of_the_game as it has exact text from my website, which will hurt my page now since you removed the citation that has been there for a year and a half. I will agree not to cite my own websites on wikipedia, even though I hugely disagree that I have violated terms by doing do. And I dont know how you call it spam, when it is hundreds of words EXACT taken from my website, that has been there for 1.5yrs.


 * It's clear that your sole intent was to use Wikipedia for your own personal benefit by driving traffic to your website. I can think of a lot of words that would describe this behavior, but "blocked and unwelcome" pretty much sums it up. Oh, and I'm and administrator, too, and I'm also denying your unblock request. Rklawton (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Well then I will keep requesting, because I wont be pushed out of a public place when I'm not doing anything wrong. I have acknowledged that I understand what the issue is, so you can go ahead and stop attacking me because I'm not going anywhere. Thanks. And thanks for coming back an bolding the part about being an admin, I hope you feel powerful.
 * No, you won't. Rklawton (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)