Jimmy at the Blocked

April 2017

Hello, I'm EricEnfermero. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Jackaroo (trainee) have been removed 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. EricEnfermero (Talk) 21:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Jphdesigns, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Jphdesigns! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 21:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion, as you did at Jackaroo (trainee). From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  GoldenRing (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I got 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).

Jimmy at the Blocked (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

You blocked me. I do have affiliation with the site i linked to the Wiki entry, but i felt that the entry could use a link to a site that actually offers the service the wiki entry is talking about. It's a genuine, working cattle property in Australia. In other news, I would like to plead ignorance - I'm new to this (was my first entry edit) and i didn't really understand fully that what I was doing was so inappropriate, I just felt the entry could use the extra information about a real life and working cattle station providing the trainee service. Jphdesigns (talk) 09:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You did not just add a link to it, you spammed the article with it multiple times, and added a clearly promotional section about it too. So no, you will not be unblocked to continue your blatant marketing/advertising. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:05, 30 April 2017 (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.

Also, your username appears to represent a company, and that is not allowed. If you make a new unblock request, please use...

{{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}

In it, please specify a new username that is compliant with Wikipedia's username policy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Harsh but fair

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Jimmy at the Blocked (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Requested username:

Jimmy at the Blocked (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

You guys don't mess around do you... Good for you. Although i think it's a bit harsh to be blocked for "spamming" - I understand the strict approach you would need to take. In my opinion, what i did was not spamming... In my industry i come across spam all the time, and a couple of links and a small appropriate paragraph that directly relates to an entry is not what i'd call spamming. If I had filled it with links to subjects and places that had no relevance, such as where to find the greatest Viagra pill ever made, then yes, I'd agree... However, if you have policies to follow and what i did happens to fall within said policy, then I can only applaud you for being true to your standards. I receive over 50 spam emails a day, and it drives me crazy. I think i'm more upset at myself and at the fact that I've been labelled a spammer when i have such a loathing for it... As this is the first time I ever tried to edit something, I would urge you to please reconsider the blocking. Can we chalk this up to a first offence notice, and on probation? Also, if the username i have is not appropriate, why aren't usernames being reviewed upon creation? Maybe that's something for you guys to look at in the future. Anyway thanks for your time. Jphdesigns (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Technical close, superseded by new request below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Well, you linked to that one company *four* times in the article (including linking a key word to it), and you wrote a paragraph about it - can you imagine what Wikipedia would be like if everyone was allowed to do that on every article in which a company was vaguely relevant? We'd have nothing but a business directory and SEO nightmare. Anyway, I've renamed your account (from User:Jphdesigns), and I would support an unblock if you agree not to write about, or link to, that site again. As for reviewing usernames on creation, some people do indeed patrol the new user log, but there are many thousands created every day - there were 11 in the minute of 22:07 UTC alone this evening - so it's not remotely possible to catch every disallowed one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Jimmy at the Blocked (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Thanks for your time concerning this matter of my being blocked. I understand everything you have said, and agree to not edit entries regarding the site/URL I linked to, and to not conduct myself in the manner that resulted in me being blocked, that being editing entries with Spam/Advertising and links for SEO purposes. I'm sorry i've added to what must be an already heavy load in monitoring this sort of activity. Again, I appreciate your time. Jimmy at the Blocked (talk) 07:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Unblocked, welcome back. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: How do you feel about an unblock in the light of the discussion above? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: A second chance is fine with me.

Jimmy, go carefully. GoldenRing (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: @GoldenRing: Thank you. Jimmy at the Blocked (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)