Expertz123
This is your only warning; if you insert a spam link to Wikipedia again, 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. Kuru (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if I was unclear. You've been using multiple IPs and this account to add a very large number of self-promotional links, including links straight to a "buy me" page. I have disbled this account until you indicate that you indicate that you have read WP:COI and will agree to refrain from promoting your own material. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Kuru, how do I contact you? If I declare my conflict of interest and put it in the discussion page, can I then load the article as I feel I have a lot of value to add? For example look at teh Due Diligence page- I think it has added a lot of value.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Expertz123 (talk • contribs)
- You can contact me here; I'm watching this page for replies. My primary concern was that you were making small additions with links back to a commercial site across multiple articles and with multiple accounts. I can see now that you had corrected the major problem (the link to the purchase site) right before I blocked you. You have my apologies for not noticing this, and I have unblocked this account. It may help if you could edit from a single account, and supply additional sources in addition to your own works. This would avoid the appearance of WP:REFSPAM. Kuru (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, will add other sources and sorry for inconvenience.
Please see my changes to Due Diligence site- I dont want to do any other changes before you are happy with them.
Continued multi article "Luis F. Gillman" WP:REFSPAMING
edit- Accounts
- Accounts
Expertz123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
41.160.4.81 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
41.84.75.192 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. --Hu12 (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I think the articles add considerable value to what was there before (everything is referenced) - show me where it does not add value? Please look at it objectively before and after.
Hi Kuru, Hu12
I think this block is unfair: 1) I had quoted more than one source, other thean Gillman (took Kuru's advice) 2) There was a gapping hole in the definition of Due Diligence which I have filled. 3) Due Diligence is linked to mergers and acquisitions and corporate finance, shareholder value. In a nutshell Due Diligence, which is often used in mergers and acqusitions (which is a big compoennt of corporate finance) uses shareholder value to reduce the number of failed mergers and acquisitions. It has to be covered in all areas or the subject will not be complete. I did not merely post random spams in each of these sections. 4) If Gillman has contributed to the litreature must he just be ignored because he is quoted in 3 different pages. 5) The citation in each of the three pages focuses on different areas and is not merely a repeat (copy and paste). 6) I removed the reference to all webpages (i.e. the "buy page")
Please can you ask someone who is an expert in the 3 areas to evalaute whether these contributions are invalid and then please reconsider the bloack and re-instating these pages. I feel if these paragraphs are excluded we would be doing a disservice to the users of the encyclopedia. Kind regards
Expertz123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I think this block is unfair:
1) I had quoted more than one source, other thean Gillman (took Kuru's advice) 2) There was a gapping hole in the definition of Due Diligence which I have filled. 3) Due Diligence is linked to mergers and acquisitions and corporate finance, shareholder value. In a nutshell Due Diligence, which is often used in mergers and acqusitions (which is a big compoennt of corporate finance) uses shareholder value to reduce the number of failed mergers and acquisitions. It has to be covered in all areas or the subject will not be complete. I did not merely post random spams in each of these sections. 4) If Gillman has contributed to the litreature must he just be ignored because he is quoted in 3 different pages. 5) The citation in each of the three pages focuses on different areas and is not merely a repeat (copy and paste). 6) I removed the reference to all webpages (i.e. the "buy page")
Please can you ask someone who is an expert in the 3 areas to evalaute whether these contributions are invalid and then please reconsider the bloack and re-instating these pages. I feel if these paragraphs are excluded we would be doing a disservice to the users of the encyclopedia. Kind regards Expertz123 (talk) 08:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
It is clear that your principal purpose in editing Wikipedia is to promote a particular person's work. It does not take "an expert in the 3 areas" to see that. The fact that you will not acknowledge that there have been problems with your editing, but prefer to focus on how you think others have been "unfair" does not help your case. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2011 (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.
Expertz123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am sorry I will only edit the one page on Due Diligence if you allow me back- I think my addition to the subject added much value, please give me another chanceExpertz123 (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your edits to this article are spam; if this is all you intend to do then I see no reason to unblock.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 18:07, 16 February 2011 (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.