User talk:Chriswilliams24
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added 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 as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for continuing to add spam links. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may place {{unblock}} on your user talk page to have the block reviewed. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie Talk
Chriswilliams24 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was citing the article from the internet page it came from. It is from a site containing the articles used, and these articles have relevant information to the wikipedia subject
Decline reason:
Your edits indicate that your main goal is not making Wikipedia better, but promoting your web site. Considering that you ignored four warnings to stop, the block was necessary. Since you don't seem to have a plan for editing differently in the future, an unblock wouldn't be helpful to Wikipedia at this time. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
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.
- Even if you don't like my response, you are not permitted to remove it if you are still requesting unblock. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Chriswilliams24 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I would like to apologize for the inconvenience I caused. I was unaware that citing websites in certain manners was unacceptable, and I did not understand what the warnings were for when I was making the citations. I was not trying to advertise the website, and I apologize if that is what it looked like I was doing. In the future, I will make sure not to make such citations from websites again. It was was a mistake on my part, and I will avoid making such citations again
Decline reason:
This is not about websites, it's about WP:SPAM/WP:PROMO of one specific website, which of course you were aware of both when you signed up, and by the numerous warnings not to. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
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.
It sounds like you still don't understand the warnings, if you are now promising to never cite sources again. Nearly all of your edits consisted of adding links to one web site, most of them with no addition of content to the encyclopedia. It's good to make articles better and cite the best available sources. It's bad to add lots of unnecessary links to articles, especially when they're all the same web site. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Chriswilliams24 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Ok, I think I understand what was wrong now. Would it be more appropriate if more of the content from the articles was added to the page? I am asking this because the articles I was citing do have much information regarding the subject pages. And I understand now what you mean by adding too many links. Sorry about that. I now realize that the main site page was not relevant and I can make sure not to add that in external links because it does not directly pertain to the subject page. In the future, What would be the best ways to edit these pages without going against the guidelines?
Decline reason:
One open request at a time, please. — Daniel Case (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
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.
Chriswilliams24 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please, I now understand what I was doing wrong and I will avoid doing it again. I wish to contribute to the encyclopedia, with helpful links, but in the future I can make sure that they don't promote spam, or if they do, I will heed to the warnings. As stated earlier, I had not understood what the previous warnings had been for, but now I do. If you still feel that my mistake was unforgivable, I will not complain, as I did do something wrong. However, all I am saying is that I recognize what I have done wrong, I know now that it was wrong, I am apologizing for what I did, and I will avoid making the same mistakes in the future when contributing relevant content to wikipedia pages. Chriswilliams24 (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
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.
- We don't really need editors who are only here to add links, especially links to sites the editor is affiliated with, as is obvious in this case. If unblocked, will you refrain from adding any links to your website? OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Chriswilliams24 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I can't say that I won't add any links ever again, because that is where the full articles are found, but I can reference these links in the text I add to the page. Like what I had done for a few pages was I had added a relevant excerpt from the article into the text to add to the information, but the full article could be found on the link in the reference. If a reader chooses to, they can click on the link and read this full article to gain more information on the topic. The link added is just another resource on the same subject matter that readers could more easily find and access through wikipedia. The content on the link does pertain to the subject page, and does enhance the amount of information available to a reader on the given page. On a different note, I am not in charge of the website the articles come from, so it may be impossible for me to refrain from adding links to the website. However, if the website fails to conform to wikipedia's given guidelines, I can refrain from referencing the website on wikipedia. Chriswilliams24 (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You still miss the point. You must not add ANY links to your personal website. Not at all, and not ever. On that basis, do you still wish to edit here?--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
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.
- See WP:EL and WP:COI. In a nutshell, you can't use Wikipedia as a vehicle to advertise your own website. Period. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason}}
OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)