User talk:Xoxotrackandfield

Newwave Mktg
This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, because it has been identified as an account used for promotion of a company or group, with a username that implies that this has been done by that company or group. See Business' FAQ and Conflict of interest.
 * http://.centerforhumanreprod.com

This kind of activity is considered spamming and is forbidden by Wikipedia policies. In addition, the use of a username like yours violates our username policy. --Hu12 (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Continued WP:CITESPAMMING
It has become apparent that your account is only being used for spamming inappropriate external links or self-promotion, so it has been blocked indefinitely. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising" and persistent spammers will also have their websites blacklisted. --Hu12 (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

UNBLOCK ME

 * You have been advised more than once that the link/website you keep linking to is not appropriate as either a source or as an external link from an article. You are blocked because you continue to ignore that direction.  If unblocked, what other edits do you intend to do? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Your first block was for a combination username and WP:SPAM. You addressed one part, then went right back to the improper links and spamming.  When you were unblocked to changed your username, it was with the understanding that you would not add those links ever again.  Of course, you're made aware of WP:COPYRIGHT every single time you edit (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

{{{unblock reviewed| I understand that, I have not said in any of my prior responses that I was going to continue to post if that's clearly a problem for wikipedia, but I'm treating this as a learning experience so I can not violate any more conduct rules, but my question is STILL not answered. I want to know how some pages can have the center for human reproduction sited on the page and be okay whereas mine were not. }}
 * decline=Procedural decline: no response to BWilkins below. He didn't require much from you, but you haven't copmlied even with this. Max Semenik (talk) 11:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Although WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is typically related to articles, it works for WP:EL as well ... indeed, I've already begun putting together a task to find out where it's being used right now and verify if it should be there. In short though, the existence of something never justifies its existence somewhere else (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're saying you're just a student, how can you explain your first username, Julienewwavemktg, in conjunction with edits adding links only to one site? Do you with all the reasearch you caim to have done not have any other source of information? Max Semenik (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If you actually read why I changed my first username, that would answer your question. I am a full time student, which means that I cannot hold a full time job and be employed by any company because it violates my school handbook. With that said, I used to intern for that company. I can recopy the entire reason as to why I changed my username if you would like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xoxotrackandfield (talk • contribs)
 * Note: you already have an open unblock; simply reply to questions (like I changed to above) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, simply put, wikipedia never let me continue putting in additional sources. I just so happened to have done a lot of research on center for human reproduction prior because of personal situations so I wanted to post on what I have done research on — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xoxotrackandfield (talk • contribs)


 * Under wikipedia policy this would almost certain not be allowed; see original research. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 11:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's start over here
Julie, believe it or not, the admins who are commenting on this page are working hard to get you unblocked and not to keep you blocked. For example, my personal philosophy of this project starts with "everyone has something to add to Wikipedia". By now you will have read the Guide to Appealing Blocks a few times - it's pretty clear there as to what Admins must see in an unblock request in order to unblock and what will lead to an automatic decline. You'll see a few things such as confirming that the behaviours that led to the block (such as adding external links to a specific site) must not recur - you'll note, that your arguments that "since they appear elsewhere they must be ok" kinda ran contrary to requirement.

So, how do we move forward and actually get you unblocked in order to contribute? By this point, you probably have a dozen more people watching this page and your contributions - that's actually normal (last time I checked there were over 100 editors watching my talkpage), and can actually be helpful for you. It can however also be daunting that people are watching your contributions - but understand, people are here to help, not hinder.

I guess the final answer that Admins are looking for - and is going to be monitored to a degree is this: If this is the case, let us know right here (please don't post another unblock request), and we should be able to move forward. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * you're not representing any organization/company
 * you will not promote any organization/company, especially through the use of external links
 * you will not be including links to one specific website (or mirrors of it)


 * i do wholeheartedly agree that we have no wish to discourage potential new editors, and I hope that you will successfully weather the storm here. But please do take my comment about original research on board. If you have problems in the future I, and I am sure Bwilkins will be happy to advise on your intended edits. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I had originally thought that every time I wanted to respond, I had to use the "unblock". Sorry, that was my misunderstanding. So my question becomes, I would hope that I have made it clear that I am not working for any sort of organization or company. What exactly do you mean through the use of external links...I thought that all credible information that can be traced back to a source was valid...is that an external link? What is exactly appropriate?
 * For example, the one you have been linking to again and again: not acceptable (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

But if I want to put something about Matanza-Riachuelo and it is linking to a website that talks about it, and I cite it the same way as I did before, is that considered acceptable? If so, what exactly is the difference?


 * Apparently you do not understand the reason for your block, which as per WP:GAB is core to becoming unblocked. The Centre's website that you continually link to may not be used, and you have been advised why more than once.  There has yet to be any statement by you that you understand and will not do so - instead, you're being intentionally vague.  As such, it appears that you're simply wasting the time of people who are going out of your way to accept you into the community of Wikipedia - if you're going to do that, your indefinite block will be just that: indefinite. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Xoxotrackandfield, are you going to answer to the above? Max Semenik (talk) 07:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)