Teaweightloss

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for adding spam links. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Gogo Dodo (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2013 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hello there I am new here and today I was adding an article with a link in it and when I published it I recieved a block I was not aware that this would result in a block as I did read link guidelines and didn't pick up that this would happen I am not trying to spam I added a quality informational article I hope this can be resolved

Decline reason:

Looks just like an advert to me, too. Some people's ideas of 'informational' don't match ours, I'm afraid. Please remember that this is an encyclopaedia, not Facebook. Peridon (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2013 (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.

Reply to email

I'm watching this page, so you can post here - email is more for things that shouldn't be said openly. OK. The main point isn't really that you put a link in the text. It's more that the whole page was a lead-up to the link. It looks like what we call 'art spam' - like those 'articles' one gets in free magazines This may not have been your intention, but we have to judge on the appearance. Apart from which, it would be necessary to produce reliable independent sources WP:RS to show that this method of weight loss is in fact notable WP:GNG. Wikipedia does not accept 'how to' articles, and this method would need to be shown to be scientifically evaluated by independent researchers in reliable publications. (I personally cannot see why there should be any reason for a mix of four varieties of tea to be able to counteract a diet over-abundant in calories, but that does not affect my evaluation as an admin here. It's more likely to have a scientific basis than, for example, homeopathy does.) Post here if you are able to produce the reliable sources and can show notability. Peridon (talk) 09:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)