Wscorpion

Wscorpion, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Wscorpion! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 17:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. 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. Diffs: [1][2][3][4][5][6] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link. 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. Widr (talk) 07:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:45, 2 March 2016 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

i m sorry and now i understand what i did... just unblock me , will never repeat same, thanks Wscorpion (talk) 12:51 pm, 2 March 2016, Wednesday (17 days ago) (UTC+1)

Decline reason:

This is procedural decline. No answer to questions posted below after waiting for 6 days. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2016 (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.

• I have two questions. If you can give satisfactory answers to these, it will be likely to make an unblock much more likely.

1. You say that you understand what you did, and that you "will never repeat same". Can you say exactly what you understand to have been wrong with your past editing, and what it is that you won't repeat? I ask this because experience shows that blocked editors who just say that they understand what they did wrong, and won't do it again, without actually saying what they won't do again, very often then go on to edit in ways which make it clear that in fact they don't understand, and because of this administrators tend to be reluctant to unblock in that situation.
2. Since virtually 100% of your editing so far has been the same thing, which you will not be doing from now on, can you give one or two examples of what you think yo will do? I ask that because if you can indicate that you are likely to do constructive and helpful editing, that will increase the likelihood that an administrator will decide that unblocking you will help the project. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe somebody should have explained why these were "inappropriate external links". It's not obvious why links to imazlyrics are spam but links to discogs or IMDB aren't (those even have their own templates). Or why editors remove links to a lyrics website but don't remove the links to videos and social networking sites, two examples specifically mentioned in the WP:EXT. And warnings about "search engine rankings" and "blacklisting", how helpful are those? Does anyone really believe that the editor is the owner of that website? Of course not, but WP:Twinkle is so easy... One could at least post a link to the (abandoned?) Wikipedia:WikiProject_Song_Lyrics, which mentions: "Only links to the lyrics found on the artist/bands's official website can be used". Prevalence 07:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Prevalence - Your comment is fair, and I'll take that under advisement for the future. That said, some forms of spam are more obvious than others, and when the most prevalent form of spam I see daily takes the shape of cookie-cutter, content harvesting blogs that are added as external links and as references. Lyric spam is one of those, and is additionally problematic because they represent likely copyright violations. Having said that, the user's "Scorpion" moniker appears all over this blog. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Oops, foot in my mouth... My unreserved apologies, you're more observant than me. Prevalence 08:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• ok i know, i will not post anything to a external link like imazlyrics... i can only post official sites.... ok i got it... now please do me a favor— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wscorpion (talk • contribs) 05:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

  You will not be unblocked until you answer the two question posted above by JamesBWatson. And, stop posting new unblock requests while the previous one is still being under review. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)