User talk:Mmontelione

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peregrin Took[edit]

Can you provide reasons for the inclusion of a fansite link on the Peregrin Took page before reverting my edit. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I apologize for my lack of explanation - the fan-site is run by me and I do not see any reason why it should not be there, it is a fan-page dedicated to Pippin with tons of information, pictures, analysis, and more about the character. Sincerely, Matthew Montelione, 5/14/10.

I have removed it because I don't see a need to turn the article into a link farm. Information and analyses can already be gathered from the existing links. De728631 (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it has appeared that I will keep posting it, because I disagree with you.

Peregrin Took[edit]

Wikipedia is a media facet that can be edited by anybody who wishes to edit it. It would be vandalism to post incorrect information about a subject, and it would be vandalism to use profanities and other harmful language. Posting a link to a fan-site is not "vandalism." You cannot call it vandalism simply because you disagree with the presence of a fan-link. Thus, I will continue to post it every time it is removed. I have every right. Simply because you use fancy Wiki icons to post corrections does not give you any more right than I have. Thank you.

Wikipedia does have certain standards though to which everybody who wishes to edits its articles must adhere. Please read WP:FANSITE that clearly states that the following external links shall be avoided:
Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies.)
Please don't post your link any more or it may eventually lead to your account being blocked. De728631 (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Repeatedly posting a link after you have been informed that it is against the rules of wikipedia is considered vandalism. Your account is clearly a sock intended to do nothing but promote your own website, as can be evidenced by your edit history. Like De728631 said you are at risk of having your account suspended. It is also considered bad form to remove talk page entries until the discussion is over. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 05:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see why you believe my account is a "sock," as I have in other edits elaborated on an otherwise lacking contribution to Pippin's page. Jeez, since when did Wikipedia become hounded by police? It's only a fan-site, for crying out loud. There is nothing on there that is *not* true. Sigh. I'll never understand the motivations of certain folk. Well, alas. As for my "bad form," I apologize for not spending my hours editing pages on Wikipedia. (talk)

I have now suggested to add your domain to Wikipedia's blacklist of weblinks. As you're apparently unwilling to adhere to Wikipedia's policies for notability and editing, you may now discuss the matter at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. De728631 (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has any other user been spamming with this domain? It seems to me that only this user has been repeatedly posting this URL to one article. If it's one user posting the link, blocks are the preferred form of stopping the spam. If users are only posting the spam link to one article, page protection is generally preferable. It seems that this approach will be denied I have denied this approach under both of those counts. Furthermore, I have just blocked this account for 31 hours, which will hopefully deal with the problem. If it does not, an indef block is in order. — GorillaWarfare talk 17:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as the spam-block template message says: "Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted..." and Mmontelione has now added this undesired link for the seventh time. That's why I filed the request. De728631 (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for adding spam links. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — GorillaWarfare talk 17:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have made other legitimate edits, I have not blocked your account indefinitely. However, I would like you to read about edit warring so you know why the "keep posting information that is being deleted" strategy is a bad idea. If you continue to spam this link, your account will be blocked indefinitely. As for why your fan site is being deleted, please see the links to normally be avoided in external link sections. Yours fits:

A word to the wise[edit]

There has been a request made at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist‎#peregrintook.com that your domain be added to our spam blacklist filter. GorillaWarfare has declined it. Please do yourself and your site a favor and don't push that link when your block expires. There have been reports that some search engines look at Wikipedia's blacklists when evaluating linkspam reports and developing their own blacklists. This has been unofficially confirmed for the global Wikimedia blacklist at meta:Spam blacklist; it may also be true of the "local" (English Wikipedia only) blacklist where your site has been discussed.

Our rules don't let us indefinitely protect an article like Peregrin Took forever and we know that if you're really determined, you can bypass your block with a new account. That's why if you add that link again either with this or another account, your domain will probably be blacklisted.

Domain-tracking data:

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A note from the "elderly man"[edit]

Just to inform you, I'm 32 and if you call that elderly then you might still be a bit young and are therefore forgiven. More of my reply to your latest comment can be found on my talk page. De728631 (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am 23, so I am considerably younger, however your constant grouchiness led me to believe that you were elderly. - Matthew (Mmontelione)

October 2010[edit]

This is your only warning. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Peregrin Took, you will be blocked from editing without further notice. You have been deliberately altering the Peregrin Took article in a negative manner due to the fact that your fan site is not considered a valid link. Please refrain from doing so, any more edits like this and you will be reported to administrators. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 06:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On policing pages[edit]

Hello, Mmontelione. You have new messages at De728631's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mmontelione&oldid=1139507822"