User talk:Cloudreviewer
You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for continuing to add spam links. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may place {{unblock}} on your user talk page to have the block reviewed. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia.
OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Cloudreviewer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
this is extremely disappointing, I have been sending donations to Wikipedia for the last couple of years. Today I trusted myself to edit a page for the first time. It took me a while to figure out how to do it and finally somehow managed to add a reference, and just when I though I was done I got a message stating that my account has been blocked....??? What is this? Who decides what is right to post and what isn't? Somehow I thought Wikipedia was a place for Democracy. Now I know that I was wrong - I just feel fooled - you guys link my money, but not my editing....? Cloudreviewer (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
We don't get to put links to our own websites onto Wikipedia -- which you've done now with three different accounts. --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:22, 13 February 2012 (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.
Cloudreviewer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hmmmm!!! Honestly, the more I read and the more I think about it the more I feel sorry for this project. I just can't help but laugh to myself about the irony of this whole situation. The IP address is of a university with 70.000+ students, all going in internet using the same IP address. The suggested URL is a very reliable source of information backed and financed by the European Union with no commercial banners, advertising or whatsoever...even the NIST, fedRAMP, EC Comission publish their press articles, white papers, etc. there. I would like to see which of the URL listed on the same Wikipedia page is more reliable than the source suggested. The link was redirecting to a page full with worthy tech articles and useful information, vendor independent and free of advertising. If you don't want it - fine - I guess it is your platform and you do whatever you want with it. It is your land, it is your rules. I am OK with that. But, if you ask my sincere opinion - I truly believe that you are a bunch of self convinced guys harrasing a new user. If you were to apply your own rules, you'd have to detele all URL's listed on the same Wikipedia page. But, I guess you know better.... You don't want me here - fine - I usually don't stay where I'm not wanted - the way I see it - you loose. You loose a serious contributor who was just learning to get along with this CMS (which by the way it, might be easy, but very confusing at the same time).
It took me hours to figure out what a pagetalk is all about, or how to join the conversation...I guess you guys just got it - in no time. I personally believe that there is a learning curve involved... Did I post the same link several times? Yeah sure!!! Who wouldn't? It is a good source and at the same time I was thinking somebody is fooling around undoing and/or deleting what others are doing...?
Sockpupetry...? I don't know where you guys are learning that jargon, but yes your system advice me to open a new account instead of asking to change the username.. But then again, one thing is to have to deal with a new user who is not familiar with the whole system, and a whole different thing is to harrass a newcomer... Until now I have not read a single reason of why the suggested URL was deleted in the first place...as for me It is a very good example of why this platform is not working and why some people think that the quality of its contents is so low...and getting lower....
And last, but not least. you seem to care a lot about rules, laws, guidelines....well, in that case if I was you, I would be a little bit more careful about naming names, connecting names to enterprises, etc. whithout knowing for sure. Under European law, it is called defamation, and even if it wasn't, you might not be allowed to connect real names to account names whithout the user's written permission. Cloudreviewer (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
No reason for unblock provided. I understand that you consider your website to be a good addition, but that's a good reason to keep you blocked, actually. You've been pointed at policies numerous times, please try actually reading and understanding them. Max Semenik (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2012 (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 is extremely ridiculus, absurd and annoying. I have no affilation with the suggested website other than been reader, almost on a daily basis.....why...? Because I like it and consider it useful....so useful that I wondered why it hasn't been added to Wikipedia yet....?
I've been an financial supporter for years and YOU invited me to contribute as editor....so, I thought about starting with some minor contributions - after lots of reading and clicking there and there, somehow I managed to add a link - just one link - because I thougt it was the easiest way to start the learning curve. Was it spam...? (read definition of spam: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_(electronic) ) no, it wasn't.
It was a totally valid URL linking to an independent, non commercial website, I have no affiliation with it, it offers high quality content, and in no way violates Wikipedia's guidelines. I was actually very surprise when I realized that the link has been deleted.
When I tried to find out the reason why the link has been deleted, somehoe I was redirected to a page with a message stating something about username policy - the message adviced me to change my username, but when I tried to do so another message adviced me to better open a new account rather than apply for a username change....
I opened a new account and inserted the same link - I also thought that somebody might be playing games undoing things just for fun - I also spent hours clicking around trying to find out if I was doing something wrong. Then I got blocked again...
The only reason why I keep writing here, is because I really feel harrased and also feel as if I was inside the film U Turn (Sean Penn/Jennifer Lopez) where I keep asking me: what's wrong with these people...
You keep writing I that I broke the rules. But, nobody seems to be able to tell me which ones. It is like telling a person: you have to go to jail because you broke the law, and when the person asks: which law...? everybody answers: you broke the Civil Law - here are some books read them, everything is written there...in the main time, you go to jail....
I think you should show at least a little bit of respect for the users in the same situation and tell me why was the suggested link deleted in the first place.
And last, but not least I would like you to read this: http://www.economist.com/node/21536580/comments the same is happening to me right now
- "I have no affilation with the suggested website other than been reader, almost on a daily basis"...Really? Then why are you editing from the same IP as an account with the same name as the owner of that website? Just coincidence? --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
My God!!!!! What is wrong with you people...? I keep on writting the same again and again...why don't you just read....yeah, I googled the site's rankings, stats, etc. the owners' name came out...I thought it was a funny name and somehow use it to create an account...and then it happened...when I realized that what I did was stupid, just tried to change the username...and then your system adviced me to rather create a new account....bla, bla, bla....I see this makes no sense...I think by now I have a pretty good idea of what kind of people are running this platform, and I am quite surprised. Negatively surprised. Beware!!! The community will let you know of your mistakes...