Nicolas wik

August 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page 10-cube do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Hepteract. 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. 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 article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links, as you did with this edit to Simplex. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Donald Duck (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

This is your final warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you add inappropriate external links, as you did with this edit to 10-cube. Donald Duck (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for spamming or advertising. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Favonian (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

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).

Nicolas wik (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello, editor! I am sincerely surprised by being blocked forever. All I did I added a link to me website "www.asymptotus.com", dedicated to the method of displaying multidimensional images, which I never seen anywhere else. I promote new knowledge, which is absent in wikipedia. If it is not permitted, please let me know why. Regards, Nick Maltsev

Decline reason:

Several reasons. First and foremost, I don't get to put links to my own website in Wikipedia articles; neither does anyone else. Second, we frown strongly on putting identical links in multiple articles -- that's what we call (perhaps incorrectly) "spam". Third, you were warned repeatedly and chose to ignore the messages. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:23, 22 August 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.

Additional comment on your block

In addition to the arguments given above for declining your unblock request, there is also another problem. You were warned by three different editors about the links being inappropriate, but your only response was to continue adding them. Only when I blocked you did you see fit to respond. This does not demonstrate a willingness to collaborate with the Wikipedia community. Favonian (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

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).

Nicolas wik (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I must explain that your three warnings came delayed and I stopped contributing when I noticed that something is in my mail. I do know that my original method of displaying multi-dimensional images is original and worth to be known. If it is not original, please, let me know where it published. You did not answered me why promotion of new knowledge is not welcomed in wikipedia.

Decline reason:

Wikipedia is not a place of first publication. Any article here needs to have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. What you're describing is similar to a neologism. While it may become notable in the future, it is not now. Adding the material yourself is a conflict of interest and is discouraged. TNXMan 20:08, 22 August 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.

Another comment

The timestamps on the warnings and your edits tell a different story! Regarding originality, please be advised that Wikipedia does not publish original research. That belongs in scientific journals. Favonian (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Beside the Original Research rule and the conflict of interest, the site in question doesn't even appear to say what's special about the projection. —Tamfang (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

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).

Nicolas wik (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The special about the projection is that nobody done it for n-d space before. I will be happy to know that I am wrong.

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
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Kuru (talk) 16:36, 28 August 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.

Nobody done what for n-d space before? —Tamfang (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)