Midian93
Welcome!
edit
|
November 2018
editWelcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Night Doctors has been reverted.
Your edit here to Night Doctors was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://illuminating-shadows.blogspot.com/2017/12/fear-of-dark.html) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Bridgewater Triangle 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.
Your edit here to Bridgewater Triangle was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://illuminating-shadows.blogspot.com/2016/09/sex-satanism-and-sacrificial-slaughter.html) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Charles Walton (murder victim). 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.
Your edit here to Charles Walton (murder victim) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://illuminating-shadows.blogspot.com/2016/06/ritual-murder-in-rural-england.html) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Mummia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Your edit here to Mummia was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://illuminating-shadows.blogspot.com/2013/07/mors-medicina.html) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 04:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 07:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Midian93 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #23133 was submitted on Nov 04, 2018 19:05:56. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Midian93 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was blocked for contributing external links. Each link was relevant to the subject, well researched, and included extensive footnotes. I do not have time to edit or add to the articles themselves at the moment (but I would like to eventually, if I can get my block removed), so instead provided supplemental information that people could link to if they wanted further information. I assumed that was the point of having a section for "external links," not sure why it's treated as "spam" and I was blocked.Midian93 (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
All of your edits to articles appear to add the same link to a blog to various articles. Blogs are not usually considered reliable sources as they lack editorial review and fact checking. Wikipedia is not for telling the world about original research; it summarizes what third parties state about article subjects. If the blog has sourced information, we need to know where it got those sources. If the blog is your own blog, it is a conflict of interest for you to link to it, and you should not do so without talk page discussion. External Links sections are not for simply adding any and all relevant links; links there must comply with policy in that area. If you don't have sufficient time to edit an article, you should wait until you do, or post on the talk page to inform other editors. To be unblocked, you will need to indicate that you understand these points and tell how your editing will be different going forward. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 11:26, 5 November 2018 (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.
Midian93 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Yes, it's a history blog that features research of fairly obscure topics. Once again, each article is extensively researched with footnotes that cite both scholarly and primary sources. Anyone can verify these sources. That's the point of footnotes. I don't understand the points you have raised, at all, as I have seen multiple Wiki pages with external links that have far less validity in the depth of research and source citations. The block is completely arbitrary. Midian93 (talk) 21:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
No, that's spamming. I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. To be unblocked, you will need to affirm that you will not post links to your web site. I agree with 331dot's decline above. To reiterate what 331dot wrote below, . If you know of other similar inappropriate content, please point it out so it can be removed. Other stuff exists, but that does not mean we want more. As this is a volunteer effort, inappropriate content can go undetected for years. Regarding the posting of your link, Wikipedia is not a forum for posting original research. If you have the sources that the research uses, those can be used in Wikipedia articles, but not research that summarizes sources and conclusions- that's what Wikipedia does. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2018 (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.
Someone else will review your block. If you know of other similar inappropriate content, please point it out so it can be removed. Other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer effort, inappropriate content can go undetected for years. Regarding the posting of your link, Wikipedia is not a forum for posting original research. If you have the sources that the research uses, those can be used in Wikipedia articles, but not research that summarizes sources and conclusions- that's what Wikipedia does. 331dot (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)