| == December 2009 ==
File:Information.png Welcome to Wikipedia. One or more of the external links you added in this edit to the page The Knife do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. You may wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Netalarmhappy holidays! 23:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
File:Information.png Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in this edit to The Clientele. Inappropriate links include links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that serve as advertising or promotion. Thank you. Netalarmhappy holidays! 23:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
File:Nuvola apps important.svg Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Junior (album). If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Netalarmhappy holidays! 00:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
File:Stop hand nuvola.svg This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you add inappropriate external links, as you did with this edit to Foreign Born. Netalarmhappy holidays! 00:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
|}
== Vandalism? ==
Template:User talk other
- File:Pictogram voting comment.svg COMMENTScript error: No such module "String".I would like to see you be able to have your block rescinded. However, for that to happen, you need to understand the policies that your edits today violated and why the block was applied. Your edits violated: WP:RS, WP:EL, and WP:ELNO.
Specifically, when you look at the About page at Obscure Sound, it is a blog written and maintained by one man. Despite being generally informative and well-written, as per WP:RS and WP:SELFPUBLISH, blogs are generally not considered to satisfy Wikipedia’s reliable sources policies. If it were a blog that is part of an actual media company (e.g., the ArtsBeat blog at The New York Times), or written by a recognized authority, then it might be considered a reliable source. At first glance, I think that Obscure Sound does not qualify. (Nor do I think that The Arts Section satisfies the requirements.) Finally, as regards its placement in the External Links section of a wikiarticle, at WP:ELNO#11, the policy is that such links to blogs are not permitted, “except those written by a recognized authority.” Is Mike Mineo — the author at Obscure Sound — a recognized authority? Nowhere on that website, that I can find, does he provide his C.V. so that we can determine this. (For instance, a blog by President Carter on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be a blog by a recognized authority.) Finally, you were blocked because after receiving your first two warnings — which specifically told you that your edits violated WP:EL — you persisted in continuing to edit in the same manner. You should have begun a discussion with the person who issued the warnings on his talkpage. The block was for persisting after receiving warnings to stop. If you want to have your block reversed, you need to show that you understand this when using the the Template:Tlx, or your request will be denied by the Administrator handling it. Be sure to read WP:GAB first. — SpikeToronto 00:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
- File:Pictogram voting comment.svg Note:Script error: No such module "String".Contristo, you probably do not want to have two Template:Tl requests on your page (I am referring to the one above (↑) and the one below (↓)). The reason I say this is that the unblocking admin may only look at the one above, and that will not get you unblocked. You want him/her to focus on the one below. So, I suggest removing the coding from your initial response above (↑). Whether you leave your comments or not is up to you. But, I would remove the coding, namely the {{unblock|1= at the beginning and the }} at the end. Lastly, it can take a while sometimes for Template:Tl requests to be processed when there is either a backlog or a holiday. Be patient. Once you have your privileges restored, if you ever have a question about contributions that you would like to make to the Wikipedia project, feel free to contact me at my talk page. Good luck! — SpikeToronto 02:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)|}Reply
| == Blueboy96 ==
{{unblock|1=This is in response to Blueboy96, due to his previous explanation for disabling my account: "You started linkspamming in 2007, took a break, then returned in 2008 to linkspam some more, took another break and returned again to linkspam. People who are blocked for that kind of behavior simply don't get unblocked with a simple apology. Blueboy96 03:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)"
I assume he wants me to stand on both of my hands to prove my sincerity or something, but how exactly were my links "linkspam"? Is it normal routine for administrators to deny one's request because they posted a link three years ago to a relevant web site? I mean, if it was so bad and detrimental, then I am sure Wikipedia would have spotted it three years ago. I could understand if I am posting links to sites that are completely off-topic to the respective Wikipedia entry, but as you can see by my contributing history every one of my links is entirely relevant. I added those links to Wikipedia pages of various musicians, and upon clicking the link visitors would see an entirely original, 1000-word article detailing that specific band with legally authorized audio samples.
The previous explanation from SpikeToronto was great in showing me why solely run blogs are not generally considered a reliable source. But this user who is taking an issue with me, Blueboy96, seems to be abusing his administrative power. I am tech-savvy enough to know that a link appearing on a Wikipedia page has no bearing on a site's Pagerank or monetary status, so I am confused why Blueboy96 is unable to get off his high horse and recognize this was due to a lack of knowledge on my part which SpikeToronto clarified and enlightened me on before. I then proceed to apologize and correct my error on judgment, but all I get is a snappy response accusing me of being a spammer and an insincere apologist. I am posting links to relevant content in generally obscure Wikipedia articles (since the feature of the article is often an unsigned or independent artist), so the 9 or 10 extra hits gathered per week from Wikipedia really is not substantial enough to ban me. Even SpikeToronto agreed that the link I notedbefore (http://www.theartssection.com/2009/09/music-neon-indian.html) was not in compliance with guidelines, and since it is a personal blog how am I supposed to gather that a site with a longer history and more frequent updates than "theartssection" would be considered "linkspam"? I understand the issue now that SpikeToronto told me, but I have not had ONE warning on Wikipedia prior to today. I explained earlier why I did not comply to the first warning today; I did not see it in my inbox until I had edited two more articles similarly.
Any input would be appreciated. I plan to take this issue to a higher power if need be, since I find the response of Blueboy96 to be highly unprofessional. Wikipedia would be a better place if the administrators would be more coherent and approachable, just as SpikeToronto was with me, and I know Wikipedia grows with the average user's experience with it. I do not know how anyone should be encouraged to contribute positively to Wikipedia if they have to deal with representatives as rude and incoherent as Blueboy96.
Thank you.}} |}
|
|
|
