User talk:Emoholic

You've been warned, and this is the last warning. Changing from 143.236.35.205 to this username does not erase your history nor the "you will be blocked if you continue to spam" warnings you've received. If you spam just one more link, you will be blocked from editing at all. The only reason you haven't been already is to make sure that you understand that getting an account does not remove the warnings you've already received. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to use Wikipedia for advertising, you will be blocked from editing.

Hate to say it, but I have thousands of IP's at my disposal. I can do this all day. Allow the link, it is appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emoholic (talk • contribs)

And there's an army of Wikipedia editors and several automated bots that can keep removing the link. Taking that attitude makes it pretty unbelievable that your intention is not to spam. Notice that other editors are getting in on this? — Saxifrage ✎ 08:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Since that's your view, this account has been blocked indefinitely as it apparently exists solely to promote your site of the same name. If you wish to make positive contributions to Wikipedia, edit this page and leave {{unblock}} or email me or one of the other administrators at Wikipedia:List of administrators. If you think your site is appropriate, discuss it at the articles' talk pages rather than trying to force it in, because it will never work. We can add your site to the spam blacklist if necessary. Do not remove warnings from this talk page, or you will lose the privilege of editing it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel, Some things were said in haste. The IP comment was one of them.

Fair enough. Are you going to stop spamming your site into Wikipedia? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that I spammed the bananaphone page. However, I believe that my site should be considered for the emo_slang and emo_music page. If it is not fit, I will no longer add a link to it. If it is ONLY being blocked because it is my site, however, I believe that is unfair. If I were to have created a different username and not made the mistake of changing the link on the bananaphone page to my site none of this would have happened. I only had the best of intentions when i changed the bananaphone link, and am sorry that I caused any harm. I have read the terms of this site now. I am sorry for any disterbance. Please reconsider its listing on those pages. (Emoholic 08:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I will be happy to lift your block on the understanding that you will not add your site again, but will instead discuss the suitability of the link on Talk:Emo (music) and similar pages and try to gain consensus with other editors whether your link should be added or not. Can I count on you for this? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would like to respond to SaxiFrage but can't. In response to him - Please review the site before declaring that it is a bad site. Just because I own it doesn't mean it is a bad site. If you review it I believe you will think it is a worthwhile link. Thank you both very much for you time and I am sorry be being a jerk about the issue. This was definatly the wrong way of going about this. (Emoholic 08:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Once again, I am sorry. I wish there was a way to make it up to you both, but I can not.

No, I don't think it's automatically a bad site. I will leave it up to the editors who are regulars at Emo (music) and Emo (slang) to evaluate it though, so rest assured that I won't be influencing the decision at all. — Saxifrage ✎ 08:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've unblocked you. If you want to make it up, making positive contributions would be more than enough ;-). See the welcome page and the community portal if you'd like some ideas. And like I said, you're more than welcome to discuss adding a link to your site, just not to add it over and over again to multiple pages. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying. I might add some about Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater if I can find anything to add. I just beat the game tonight. Played it for about 30 hours. Great title.

Hello![edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Emoholic, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

A reminder[edit]

It doesn't matter what the page is about, you still can't add links to your own website to Wikipedia articles. There are no exceptions. I've removed your link on List of games featuring Sonic the Hedgehog, since not only was it a link to your own page but you'll notice that none of the games listed have external links (it goes against the style guidelines of Wikipedia). — Saxifrage ✎ 22:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that was considered link spamming, I thought I was being helpful. Once again, my apologies.

(Emoholic 23:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

You might find WP:EL helpful if you haven't read it already. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam link[edit]

Stop adding your spam link to Wikipedia or you will be blocked from editing. Consider this your final warning; in the future, any accounts or IP addresses that add your link are subject to immediate blocking. —Guan aco 16:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you check Saxifrage's or Sam Blannings talk pages you will see that I am actually using the Bold-Revert-discuss method to try to get the link added. There was a message posted about the link in the talk page that was not responded to and Sam said that after a week I should add the link and see if a USER protests the link being added. Thanks for understanding. (Emoholic 16:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I'm protestingl. The site is not notable and the connection between your name and it is in voilation of username policy if it is. Unless, of course, you own the site, which means you're spamming for it.--Pro-Lick 16:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless of course I am following the guidelines set up for me by admin. If you are protesting just for something fun to do, which it appears based on looking at your history, then please stop. The site is exactly what the topic is about and if you checked it out you would understand. As for the notability of the site, it is as notable as the other sites, it is just newer. I personally believe that you are doing this just because I removed your vandilism. If that is the case please stop. (Emoholic 17:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Emoholic, when you started adding your site back against the wishes of two editors and without any other editors supporting you, then you weren't BRDing, you were edit warring. You missed the 'discuss' bit of BRD, the bit where you get a consensus that your site should be linked to.

Moreover, referring to someone reverting the removal of your site as 'vandalism' [1] and questioning their motives is extremely uncivil. I would suggest giving up your campaign to get Wikipedia to link to your site. External links are the exception, not the rule, on Wikipedia, and if no-one else thinks your site meets WP:EL, it probably doesn't. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I echo Sam's comment. Having just reverted your spam link added an hour before the comment above, I think it's fair to say that any reappearance will result in your account, and any other account or IP address adding that same link, being blocked for vandalism. I hope there is no room in that statement for any further misunderstanding. Just zis Guy you know? 17:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I believe the bit about calling Pro-Lick a vandal is just an honest misunderstanding of what constitutes vandalism. Emoholic reverted an edit that compared using "emo" as an insult to calling someone a dick on the basis that it was crude language. Given that Wikipedia is not censored this was really a content dispute, but I can understand why an inexperienced user such as Emoholic would have thought it vandalism. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still find it slightly disingenous that Emoholic told me Pro-Lick had been "vandalizing" the emo pages yet neglected to mention that this 'vandalism' included removing the link to his site. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism was "crude speach" i guess. This is why I added the link AFTER I reverted the vandalism. I was then annoyed that he started picking on me because I thought his word choice and usage were in poor taste (i.e. what you would find in a hardcopy encyclopedia. (Emoholic 01:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Please do not remove legitimate warnings from your talk page or replace them with inappropriate content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. If you continue to remove or vandalize legitimate warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks.

The above is due to an anon who claims to be this user blanking this page. ST47Talk 20:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]