Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments8 people in discussion
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Rotten Tomatoes. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by some search engines, including Google. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Please do not add spam links to pages. Thanks!sherpajohn (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
This is your last warning. The next time you insert advertising or a spam link, as you did to Knowing (film), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Have you had a chance to read Wikipedia:Linkspam? A link to one website has been solicited across numerous film articles, so this is obviously an interest in increasing traffic to the website. Links must be evaluated on their own merits; for example, one should not use the same critic through film articles' critical receptions; some critics' reviews may be more detailed than others. Hope you get what I mean. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continuing to add spam links. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.
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).
I have added legitimate movie reviews as indicated by the linking guidelines; i.e. interviews or reviews. I have already asked for a reason as to why the link would be removed and not heard a response. Please (1) unblock me and (2) give reason as to why these links are being disabled. Each link contains specific related information on reviews of that listed movie.
Decline reason:
You ignored multiple warnings to stop spamming. OhNoitsJamieTalk 18:39, 17 February 2009 (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.
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).
Ok, again, I'll have to repeat. According to WP guidelines, Interviews and Reviews are acceptable links as external links and NOT considered spamming. I review movies, a film-critic, and I'd like to know why you've removed the links. Please (1) ADVISE (2) unblock me. Thanks.
Decline reason:
You fit the definition of a spammer, both because your primary purpose is the addition of a specific link, and because you are linking to your own web site. Which, as you say you've read the guidelines, you already know. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:51, 18 February 2009 (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.
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).
Then tell me how it is I can add a review of a movie, given that the article is a Direct link and very affiliated with the wiki entry? It specifically states not to post the article on the wiki page otherwise I would have and just made it a reference.
Decline reason:
Since you claim that these are your own reviews, that you yourself wrote, adding the links to Wikipedia articles is a clear violation of our conflict of interest guidelines. As such, since you show no signs of wishing to stop adding links to your own work, I see no reason to unblock you. Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:52, 18 February 2009 (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.
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).
I am amazed at the amount of times I have to state this. PLEASE ADVISE on HOW to input reviews for movies. ALSO These reviews are not soley done by me, they are however done by critics that belong to the Movie-Critic Network. SO PLEASE Advise on how I can legitimately add the reviews, as stated in the guidelines. Thanks
Decline reason:
Nobody gets to put links to their own websites, that's all. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:32, 18 February 2009 (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.
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).
Links to my site? Where did it come up that I was posting links to my own site? What if I had posted the IMDB links? Obviously I do not own IMDB, I don't own Movie-critic either. You can see that there are multiple critics on that site, movie information, movie reviews, details, news, trailers, ect. As I stated, the links I did post were pertinent movie information specific to the article. I'm not posting links to my own site to generate traffic.
Decline reason:
The link you insist on posting is for a site that does not meet our notability and verifiability guidelines to make it a reliable source, so it is not welcome. In addition, at least one of the films you added the link to does not have a listing on that site thereby undercutting your claim that you aren't spamming. —Travistalk 14:59, 18 February 2009 (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.
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continued spamming of links after prior block expired. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.
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).
The last admin said there was a link without content, I checked the link and to the 4 posts I sent and it went straight to the article, so where is this spam? I'm not even Spamming, there was only 4 critic reviews! If I wanted to Spam Wikipedia, why wouldnt I do it across 500 of them before being blocked? These are reviews by critics, wiki's guidelines says specifically reviews are a good external link. I dont own the site, it's not my own, so whats the deal?
Decline reason:
If you look at WP:ELMAYBE you'll see that it says reviews are links to be considered, not added wantonly (Read this bit about the Spam Event Horizon, which should go a long way to explaining why we keep most reviews out of the xlinks section). Most film articles include a link to the IMdB/Rotten Tomatoes/Allmovies pages in the infobox. And if you check the Film Project's style guide, you'll see that it says "Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew.". So, adding xlinks of that nature to film articles is against policy for several reasons. — Daniel Case (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2009 (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.
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).
Yeah? And? The reviews were Editor's Reviews, not affected by "Vote stacking" On top of that, movies such as Good Dick, that dont even have much on their page, that link provided GOOD content for viewers to read. Just because it isn't IMDB you call it spam? Then an indefinite block? 3 links.. that was it, wheres the justification in that? Not to mention the Laziness of the blocks before hand and the lack of confronting the question I posed in all the messages, finally being addressed in the last post.
Decline reason:
The fact remains that you continued to add links after you were blocked for doing that very same thing. What part of that don't you understand after "all these messages"?
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.
Flignats, if you would read and assimilate the information I posted above, you would understand that, as user-submitted reviews, they do not meet our inclusion requirements. —Travistalk 19:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
You have now had the problem thoroughly explained to you; there will not be a need for further unblock requests. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Rotten Tomatoes. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by some search engines, including Google. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Please do not add spam links to pages. Thanks! sherpajohn (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
