User talk:Moothallelstow

August 2014

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to John Bunyan. 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. Theroadislong (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is linking to a local historian - someone who is the former curator of Moot Hall Museum and a recognised expert of Bunyan's family tree - spamming? This person provides a FREE service to people carrying out research - surely therefore a very useful link?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moothallelstow (talk • contribs)

Our restrictions on promotion do not exclude promotion of non-profit entities. Promotion is promotion. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Especially when it's self-promotion. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Orangemike. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the page John Bunyan, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. If you intend to edit constructively in other topic areas, you may be granted the right to continue under a change of username. Please read the following carefully.

Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, website or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.

Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?

Probably not, although if you can demonstrate a pattern of future editing in strict accordance with our neutral point of view policy, you may be granted this right. See Wikipedia's FAQ for Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, organization, or clients. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again.

What can I do now?

If you have no interest in writing about some other topic than your organization, group, company, or product, you may consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.

If you do intend to make useful contributions here about some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:

Add the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} on your user talk page.
Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy.
Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:
- Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked.
- Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

--Orange Mike | Talk 22:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Moothallelstow (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I wish to Appeal - The links I added were to sites relevant to the content of the articles – other reputable historical sources, such as the Bedfordshire Record Office, the Moot Hall Picture archive and, in the case of the link to my own site, I provide a free local history service. Also to other useful local sites (Elstow Parish Council etc) How can links such as these be regarded as SPAM? I certainly had no intent to spam, merely to provide useful links to sites that provide further information or help relating to these Wiki articles. As the former curator of Moot Hall Museum, I wrote most of the content of these two Wiki articles - John Bunyan, Elstow - so why on earth would I want to put spam in them? Did you even visit the sites I linked to, check out what sort of sites they are? It appears that you cannot have done so, or you would have seen that what I say here is true. I ask you to re-consider. Thank you.

Decline reason:

You will not be unblocked unless you agree to stop posting links to your own site, per WP:ELNO and WP:COI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:44, 25 August 2014 (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.

Thank you for taking note of my appeal and for putting a limit on my blocking - I accept that you do not want links that are (albeit only in effect) self-promoting - ie to my site. but what about links to Bedford Record Office and other historical sites containing more information relative to the Wiki article? I do not understand what is wrong with those??? As for promotion - putting a link on Wiki to ANY site is -surely - 'promoting' that site? You allowed my link to Moot Hall Museum, so why not to Bedford Record Office? They are both Historical source keepers! I do not understand the logic underlying HOW you are applying this "No promotion" rule - your decisions appear (to me, at least) to be arbitary and with no consistancy. Please clarify - I need to understand so that I know how not to break this rule again. Thanks

To Ohnoitsjamie -  I have been to Wiki's guidance rules page - thank you for pointing out that guidance page.  However, having read every rule there, I am even more bewildered for I cannot see any rule there that would be broken by any of my links, except the one to my own site. The link to the Bedford Record Office Elstow Community History pages did not breach any of those guidence rules - on the contrary, that particular site provides ' a unique resource', one which adds historical information that is not on the Elstow Wiki page.  In fact, those community pages contain far more than one could reasonably add to the Wiki page. Similarly, anyone wanting information about Elstow might find the link to Elstow Parish Council's site, Bunyan Meeting site etc. useful - which of Wiki's Links Links guidance rules do these links actually break?  Please also see my questions, above, to Orange Mike.  It is also rather confusing having TWO of you dealing with this matter. Also, why did it say when I signed in that my ban ends tomorrow, when you say my ban is not terminated?  Dare I suggest that you two need to communicate with each other before coming back to me?

You are blocked indefinitely; I don't know what you're talking about regarding the ban ending tomorrow. Orange Mike blocked you. You appealed. As the original blocking admin, Orange Mike can't decline the appeal; another admin has to, hence my involvement. I'm not discussing the matter further, because WP:ELNO and WP:COI are clear, and exist so that Wikipedia editors don't have to explain these policies to new users every time they arise. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the two links above did breach the guidence rule, you would be able to state which rule they break. As you refuse to do so, it is not clear to me that you cannot justify your decision based on those rules. These two links clearly do NOT breach those guidelines and your decision is therefore arbitary and unjust. I spent many hours getting the content of the Elstow and John Bunyan sites accurate and comprehensive but you clearly do not appreciate my contributions, so I will therefore stop wasting my time and cease being a contributor to Wiki. This saddens me greatly.