199.9.64.2

Unregistered editors using this IP address received messages on this talk page years ago. Since users of the IP address have likely changed, these messages have been removed. They can be viewed in the page history.

August 2014

Hello, I'm Dennis Bratland. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the page John Gardner (American writer), 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. Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

October 2014

Hello, I'm McGeddon. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the page John Scalzi, 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. WP:ELNO specifically instructs not to link to "Any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds." McGeddon (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

On closer inspection this seems to be a fansite where any user can submit a review, so Wikipedia link policy would preclude any links to it, both search results and individual reviews. --McGeddon (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

SFreader.com is not a fan site, it is a curated review site, has been online since 2001, and has an archive of over 1300 reviews. Books are submitted to the review editor by authors for review. The review editor queries available reviewers, provides the book, and edits and posts the resulting review. All of this is explained on the Get Reviewed page, had you bothered to read it.

Linking to sfreader.com in every edit for months

Hello, 199.9.64.2. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.--McGeddon (talk) 13:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Diana Rowland. 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. McGeddon (talk) 08:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing 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 think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

SFreader.com is not a fan site, it is a curated review site, has been online since 2001, and has an archive of over 1300 reviews. Books are submitted to the review editor by authors for review. The review editor queries available reviewers, provides the book, and edits and posts the resulting review. All of this is explained on the Get Reviewed page, had you bothered to read it.

Decline reason:

That's as may be, but since it doesn't fall under any of Wikipedia's criteria for appropriate external links, and since you're clearly here for no other purpose than to shoehorn it into as many articles as possible (despite being asked not to), it's pretty obvious that you are only here to drive links to the site. That's the very definition of spamming. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:53, 31 October 2014 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

So your definition of shoehorn is posting a link in the external links section that leads to appropriate and related content? Where else would one post links to book reviews except on the Book or Book Author page? EVERY link on Wiki is to drive traffic to an external site that contains RELEVANT content. Curated, third-party, unbiased reviews are relevant content. If not, please explain why http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Hearne has a link to an external review site. from Wiki guidelines: Links to be considered: The recommendation to consider professional reviews as external links was repealed (see this archived discussion). The reviews should instead be used as sources in a "Reception" section. So if the links are in a reception section they are appropriate? Thanks for including a reason, you persecuting Nazi. Guess it pays to have biased friends at Wiki.

Please include a decline or accept 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.

---