Kennyeliason
|
Don C. Tingey edit
I can understand why you think this article should exist but please read WP:BIO. It's not easy but you have to explain in the article why Don is notable, not just in Nevada but set against a much wider audience. For example I'm in England so why should I be interested in a Las Vegas lawyer unless there is something about him that makes me think 'Wow, that makes him stand out'. NtheP (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Nthep. I see what you're saying. I was looking over the guidelines, and I think he does meet the requirements for any biography in that he has received numerous awards and is widely recognized as being an outstanding figure in Las Vegas for over 40 years. I am still working on some more links, so maybe I should temporarily take the page down until I finish those. What do you think?--Kennyeliason (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
If it's already been deleted then recreate it but as a subpage of your user page. It's safe then until you have it worked up into a state to go public with. Ask around when you've edited it a bit for opinoons as to whther the notability is met. If it is then and only then move it to the mainspace and there shouldn't be any problems with notability. As the old stage intro goes "he's world famous in Nevada". If it hasn't been deleted stick {{underconstruction}} at the top while you improve it NtheP (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
February 2014 edit
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to John Edwards. 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 websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. By all means fix dead links at Wikipedia, but please do it by adding archiveurl links to archive.org, not links to sites that you are trying to promote. John of Reading (talk) 07:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "SEO spamming - a heads' up". Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by John of Reading (talk • contribs) 02:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Kennyeliason (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hello, I am writing to hopefully appeal my editing ban. I didn't intend to be considered spammy, I thought I was helping by fixing dead links. I will be more careful going forward. Is there anything I should have done differently in order to avoid this in the future? Or is fixing dead links a frowned upon practice? Sorry for the issues, I'm a newby at contributing to wikipedia in this way. Kennyeliason (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were clearly replacing dead links with spam links back to blogs and other sites you manage to draw traffic. This is clearly problematic, and there appears to be a long history of SEO editing with this account. Kuru (talk) 02:17, 7 February 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.
Kennyeliason (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi User:Callanecc! A while back you blocked me for adding spammy links to wikipedia, and I definitely don't blame you for that. I didn't actually realize that I was doing something incorrect but now I totally can see it wasn't good to do. Is there any way I could get a second chance at editing again? Anything I can do to help? I'm pretty new to the community and kinda unsure if I'm even doing this right. I read up on it and I think I am! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennyeliason (talk • contribs) 18:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline due to the question asked by Callanecc has not been answered. PhilKnight (talk) 19:24, 18 December 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.
- Make sure that you sign your talk page posts but adding four tildes (~~~~) after your post.
- Why didn't you think that what you were doing was wrong? Where you following Matthew Woodward's advice? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hey Callanecc! I'm sure hoping I'm doing this correctly. To answer your questions, I had received advice from a blogger about "helping" wikipedia by replacing dead links. It wasn't the Matthew Woodward article you sent, and I can't remember the exact source but it was probably pretty similar to that one. I sincerely thought it was a good effort and didn't think anything of it as I was hopefully improving the user experience on Wikipedia by resolving those issues. I was actually trying to get more familiar with becoming a contributor and getting used to the inner workings of Wikipedia and thought that would be a good first step. I clearly see that was wrong! Any other advice would be greatly appreciated. Hope to get back into the good graces soon! Kennyeliason (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'd be willing to unblock you if you agree to stay away from dead links and when you add URLs you are very careful to ensure that they are reliable sources and you get no benefit from adding them. If you agree to that place another unblock template (example in the template above) below this stating that you agree. To the admin reviewing it feel free to unblock with those (or similar) conditions without checking with me first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Kennyeliason (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Yes, for sure. Won't be doing dead link fixes EVER again. Thank you. Kennyeliason (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Abuse of Wikipedia for SEO is not, and never will be, welcome here and I have no confidence in your ability to abide by our Terms of Service. (Reviewing admins, please ask me for details.) MER-C 07:02, 20 December 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.