User talk:Dariusisdaman
|
This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. (info: block log • contributions • deleted contributions • page moves • current autoblocks) |
Dariusisdaman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
blocked due to a different opinion, administrator was biased and has censored me
Decline reason:
What would be the difference of opinion? That you shouldn't be spamming and using sockpuppets? — IrishGuy talk 18:50, 22 January 2008 (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.
did not use sock puppet. that is an allegation. how was i spamming. the link was relevant to all the topics. please review actual actions and not alleged actions. thanks.
Dariusisdaman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
did not use sock puppet. that is an allegation. how was i spamming. the link was relevant to all the topics. please review actual actions and not alleged actions. thanks.
Decline reason:
All edits seem to consist of spamming links to littlegoldenman.com. Can you please point to some edits which were not in violation of WP:SPAM and/or WP:EL? — Yamla (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2008 (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.
Dariusisdaman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
firstly, i did not know that repeated source linking was a violation. given that the rules indicate that there are exceptions, i can't understand why i am blocked indefinitely. furthermore, the allegation that i am a sock puppet is untrue. in any case i understand that repeated source linking is considered spamming, however, in my case everything was relevant and totally non commercial.
Decline reason:
Linking to an external site in a repeated manner is considered spamming. It doesn't matter if the external site is commercial or not. As it happens littlegoldenman.com has google ads. Regardless, all of your edits were adding external links and this isn't acceptable. — Addhoc (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2008 (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 left a request at the original blocking admin's talk page for further input with regards to this matter. As yet, I have not seen any sign of contrition or understanding of the rules with regards to spamming commercial links, so I do not think an unblock is appropriate at this time. However, the blocking admin also mentioned inappropriate use of sockpuppet accounts, and that probably needs further explanation. The block will stand, pending review by the admin that left it initially. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
{{unblock|Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. there was no intention to promote a site and the site does not sell a product. the sole intention was to provide a source and alternative information for wikipedians. furthermore it says, Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed. i agree and understand now. however, if you look at the topics i linked to and the provided external site, you will see that it is all very relevant. the sock allegations have much to do with a heated debate concerning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao:_The_Unknown_Story. i am being accused of acting as a sock because i disagreed with one administrator who has been unrightly censuring a valuable source. the same source which i am trying to link otherwise and understand that effort as a mistake and hope that you can excuse my inexperience. nevertheless, the indefinite block implemented against me is solely political to shut out people who are voicing their concern over censurship. politics do not belong in wikipedia and i hope to be unblocked or at least for a limited time period. thank you.}}
If there is no sockpuppetry...please explain the connection between this account and Dariusdaman. IrishGuy talk 20:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
{{unblock|that is simple. Dariusdaman was my original account i used a year ago or more. i forgot the password and thus needed a new one. i have edited with my ip number in the time in between to prove that there was a time when i did not use Dariusdaman because i could not log in.}}
- Dariusdaman last edited at "17:22, 15 January 2008". That is not quite a year. Woody (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
give me the password because i don't have one. these insinuations are really ludicrous. i doubt i managed to open the account. otherwise i wouldn't have created a new one. and why would i use a sock account which basically is the same one. that would defeat the point. can the administrators please use a bit of logic by looking into this before coming with another genius piece of evidence. we really don't need to waste time.
{{unblock|give me the password because i don't have one. these insinuations are really ludicrous. i doubt i managed to open the account. otherwise i wouldn't have created a new one. and why would i use a sock account which basically is the same one. that would defeat the point. can the administrators please use a bit of logic by looking into this before coming with another genius piece of evidence. we really don't need to waste time. isn't there a logics test for becoming an administrator?}}