User talk:Wikibatman

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by some search engines, including Google. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Graham 87 03:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

January 2012
Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Angel. 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. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Angel, 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. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2012 (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. Materialscientist (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The first message at the top of this page says "Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site..." You kept linking to your blog. The message also says "See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations." You have been presented with all the relevant information for why your edits were reverted over and over, and yet all you did was continue to link to your site. It is your fault if you don't understand why you've been blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, no pages link to your site, because all your attempts to link to it were always reverted. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not external sites that are the issue, it's personal websites, as has already been mentioned. The ref tags contain online sources which meet the reliable source guidelines, not personal websites. There's a big difference between an online copy of a professionally fact-checked and peer-reviewed work by recognized authorities on the subject and someone's personal musings. You have already admitted with "I tried to add my article" that the page you were adding is your personal website (and the "Powered by Google Sites" bit at the bottom is an indication that it's someone's personal website at any rate). You adding the link is promoting your site, especially since all you did was just link to it without actually adding anything to the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * On a wiki site, or on Wikipedia? There's a big difference.  Wikipedia doesn't own the wiki software, other sites use it and what they do is their business and has no bearing on this site.
 * Please provide an example of said musing or commercial ref, and I'll remove it right now if someone else hasn't already done so. Even then others not being caught yet doesn't excuse your actions.  The Catholic encyclopedia, the Jewish encyclopedia, a university library's online copy of A Greek-English Lexicon, and news articles are not personal sites.
 * If it's your site, it's still personal. The only way it could become non-personal is if you sent it to a peer-reviewed theological or anthropological journal, and they're not likely to accept it.
 * This site is not a vehicle for people's personal beliefs. The site documents notable (defined here) views from an outside perspective, not an inside perspective.  The point is to let the reader understand the different views, but not convince them of one view over another.  Ian.thomson (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not saying you (Wiki) are posting your own ideas; but preventing other contributors like myself from posting theirs. Many of the External Links & have no proof of peer & journal approval.  Thus Martin Luther would have been banned from Wikipedia for personal opinion.  I 'now' understand what I did was not conforming to Wiki's protocol.  I will not post my personal website any longer.  I am formally requesting an unblock. Thank you. Wikibatman (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again, Wikipedia is not the place to post your original ideas, and you really shouldn't edit in subjects that you're involved with. As the person who posted your original warning in March 2009 (!), I fully agree with the actions of my fellow administrators. Graham 87 05:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)