User talk:2603:3021:1E04:2400:B4C1:7A94:6E8E:940F

October 2018

Anonymous users from this IP address 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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. - TNT ^💖 19:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

2603:3021:1E04:2400:B4C1:7A94:6E8E:940F (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I read the Wikipedia policy on spam. My intent was to add relevant content to Wikipedia, eg, Improper driving is in fact not a lesser included offense of reckless driving by speed. I think at one point I even cited the actual Virginia case law that that came out of. I think it is relevant and I think it adds relevant content to wikipedi. If my reckless driving webpage is considered too spammy as a citation I can create a blog post that has the case law citation backing up the issue dealing with improper driving being a lesser included offense of reckless driving. The other content I tried to add was also relevant. Someone posted on Wikipedia that reckless driving does not leave you with a criminal record. That is a vague, and not helpful answer that has real world consequences. Reckless driving does in fact show up on a background check and so misinformed people could answer the question wrong on background check. I have had people call me who did that based on similar misinformation and had job offers rescinded. So I think there needs to be clarification that while this may not get reported to some places it often will show up on an employment background check. 2603:3021:1E04:2400:B4C1:7A94:6E8E:940F (talk) 23:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were spamming a link to a lawfirm's website, and I presume that you work for or are otherwise associated with it as the link was basically to an advertisement. Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. One lawfirm's interpretation of the law is not necessarily a reliable source, be it in a blog(definitely not a reliable source, as blogs lack editorial control) or on the lawfirm's website. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

2603:3021:1E04:2400:B4C1:7A94:6E8E:940F (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't object to blocking for the website link, which I did not realize you cannot do due to the fact that there were other links on that page which have since been removed. Blocking is a bit of a kindergarten punishment in this situation in light of the fact that it was an honest mistake and there were already two other links on the page? I mainly object to removing the citation I posted to authoritative and binding case law that backed up my legal point... https://caselaw.findlaw.com/va-court-of-appeals/1274526.html That is not spam that is a link to the Virginia Court of Appeals (a published and authoritative source) for the legal proposition I put forth, namely that improper driving is not a lesser included offense of reckless driving by speed. 2603:3021:1E04:2400:B4C1:7A94:6E8E:940F (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were blocked for posting links to your website, not for posting a findlaw link. Further attempts to spam Wikipedia will result in the blacklisting of the site. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.