NVcats
Welcome!
edit A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10... 100... 200
And here are several pages on what to avoid:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), which are produced by clicking on the button; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place
This welcome message was sent by TomasBat at 18:53, February 17, 2010 (UTC) |
February 2010
edit This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing their websites from appearing on Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for continuing to add spam links. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may place {{unblock}} on your user talk page to have the block reviewed. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia.
OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
NVcats (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
please review the Barbuda page. The link to www.barbudaful.net leads to a malware site - maybe they got hacked. I wanted to link to www.http://leewardislandguide.com/leeward-islands/barbuda.html which is a clean free resource for the island. Is it possible that the reviewer is also the owner of the www.barbudaful.net and is therefore spamming? The site is malicious. I was trying to add a helpful link. This "reviewer" is also controlling other island wiki pages, and is adding links to commercial sites such as St Maarten, where we replaced a "dead" link
Decline reason:
I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. —DoRD (?) (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2010 (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.
- Note to reviewer: this user was warned about adding these links via an anon IP. They were given an additional warning when they created this account to add the link again, which they ignored and continued to add links. Barbuaful link has been removed. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- I also will point out that blaming other editors will certainly not earn an unblock. See WP:NOTTHEM. —DoRD (?) (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't looking to be damage Wiki and didn't fully understand the process with "edit summary" I should have explained my action instead of behaving as i did. I thought who I now know is Jamie was someone messing around with me. I will not add incorrect links again.