Amasters321
August 2010 edit
This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to Albany, Indiana, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing their websites from appearing on Wikipedia. Ben Ben (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
{{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. TFOWR 15:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Amasters321 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
It is true that I made made changes to certain Wikipedia pages in relatively quick succession. However, this was not done for for the purpose of advertising. The websites to which I had posted relevant external links are not selling or advertising anything. They are purely informational, non-commercial sites as clicking on any one of them will prove. I hereby request that my account be unblocked and my edits restored. Thank you.
Decline reason:
I'm sorry, but I can't see how this is not spamming. You made 10 edits in one minute, linking to the same site over and over again. This is textbook spamming. TNXMan 17:20, 10 August 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.
Amasters321 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
TnXman30, I respectfully disagree that 1) The links I posted were an instance of spam, and 2) that they were pointed to the same site. Would you consider sports.blogspot.com to be the same site as kittens.blogspot.com? What you refer to as a "site" is really nothing more than a domain name. In fact, sub-domains exist for the very purpose of breaking a domain into discrete sites, each with it's own independent files and internal links. This is exactly what we have done with funcityfinder. We have created 174 different sub-domain sites, each focused on a specific city in Indiana. The links I added to the Wikipedia articles were not unsolicited advertisements. Quite the contrary, they were links to HIGHLY relevant, NON-COMMERCIAL, independent sites. The fact that I used tabbed browsing to submit them in an efficient, sequential manner does not make them spam. It just makes me an efficient editor trying to accomplish a task in the most efficient manner possible. I challenge you to visit any of the links I posted and show me how this is an example of spam. Unless you can show how what I've done is fundamentally an example of spam--which you have not--I ask that you restore my editor's privileges and restore my links.
Decline reason:
your use of "we" makes it clear that you are adding these links on behalf of Funcityfinder.com - they are all linking to different parts of your site, and I doubt if Funcityfinder are in it for love. Moreover, they are not useful links - I checked three at random, and they all had no information, just said "You 404’d it. Gnarly, dude." JohnCD (talk) 14:30, 11 August 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.
- Without acting on your block, are you aware of our policy on external links? In general, external links are only added to articles either as a reference to the material presented in the article or to expand on the article in ways that wouldn't be appropriate to add to the article itself. Therefore, the burden is on you to prove in each and every single instance that you want to add it that it does one of those two things and no other source is of comparable quality. Also, just because a site doesn't sell anything it still likely would benefit from the clickthroughs from one of the largest websites in existence (en.wikipedia.org) so it is disingenuous to say that it isn't for the purpose of advertising. That may not have been your primary motivation, but I bet it was in there somewhere. Syrthiss (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)