Richardmnewton

July 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Whey protein 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. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to England and Wales Cricket Board. 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. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to Men's Health UK, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:45, 21 July 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 our guide to appealing blocks first.

Materialscientist (talk) 22:46, 21 July 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).

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

---

Request reason:

The links were not intended as spam as they are all relevant to either the article or the brand. Some are sponsors, and some are being linked to a site of high relevance to the topic page. As a result I didn't think or realise it was against the span policy and was intended to be used in the correct sense.

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, those were clearly promotional links added to tangent articles. Your attempts to rationalize their inclusion below makes me uncomfortable in unblocking you. Kuru (talk) 23:14, 21 July 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.

You received 3 warnings before this, didn't respond, and now you can respond within a few minutes? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know I had messages before until I saw it on a separate page, and at that point looked to find I had received several messages! It does not detract from the intent of the links and the relevance of the content.

So by "does not detract from [...] the relevance of the content" you mean you will continue to add them? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Being blocked prevents me from doing that. However if it is the case that the purpose of the site is to not relate relevant information under advice then clearly no I would not continue to add these links. My understanding however is that the site itself is designed to provide comprehensive, accurate and relevant information to the user they may find beneficial? Perhaps I misinterpreted the core functionality of the site?

It seems you do. Links to product-sites are considered spam. The only exception are those pages that are about the product, and even in that case there are restrictions. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Then clearly it is the user who must suffer. To direct people to a site or a page related to the product/content as was intended by deep linking to an article reference (granted one of them was added incorrectly but I was blocked before editing). It was still not considered spam and as it is a no follow link, there is little benefit to deep linking to a non product page other than exposing quality content that may be of interest to the user. Perhaps I should have made the description clearer to avoid it being flagged but what's done (in naive error) is now done.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Still don't agree, as there was no intention to intentionally do anything against the terms of the site, nor any intention to repeat the previous scenario. I am disappointed that at no point was a fair consideration for a genuine intention and obvious mistake considered

Decline reason:

Your disappointment is understood, but as an employee of Maximuscle Ltd, you may not insert links to Maximuscle into Wikipedia. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:22, 21 July 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.

Something else I am unaware of but have found out too late :(

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Any chance of being unblocked?

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.  Sandstein  10:56, 22 July 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.