Petark~bgwiki

August 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Favonian (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2019 (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).

Petark~bgwiki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have been a long time member, and rarely contribute, but when i contribute information in Wikipedia it is all useful and 100% correct. Please review my posts so far, and let's discuss it 1 by if they are spam? The latest one, i contributed today, was about the SMS Birthday. I have been in the SMS industry since 2001, and know very well what to post. The reference you had was to non-existing, parked domain, which is NOT useful in Wikipedia. I contributed a LEGIT, SUPER USEFUL blog post, where readers can learn even beyond the "SMS Birthday" date. Readers can learn about history of SMS, and technical specs. The previous Wikipedia contributions were about Vintage Watches. I do collect vintage watches and the information i provided, via blog posts, was verified by watchmakers and rarely available.

Decline reason:

In order to be unbocked, you'll have to commit to no longer using blogs and using reliable sources instead. PhilKnight (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2019 (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.

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).

Petark~bgwiki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Yes, i AGREE to use only reliable sources going forward, with additional review of guidelines, authors and information provided

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you. You've completely not addressed the issue, which is SPAM. Please affirm that you will not edit about or link to the organization whose web site you linked to, or any subject with which you have an off-Wiki connection. Please read Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming and explain in your own words what you did wrong, what you will not do, and what you will do in the future.All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking. Please explain what this means in your own words. -- Dlohcierekim 11:13, 21 August 2019 (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.

That sounds good, but your definition of a reliable source might not match our definition. After taking a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability, please tell us, in your own words, what kinds of sources you will use from now on. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)