User talk:DenisatRRR

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, DenisatRRR! I am South Bay and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

South Bay (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review Rinse Repeat

I have observed you posting this website to many pages today, and am here to let you know that if this in fact your website, Wikipedia is not the place to Advertise it.

I posted this at an IP address' talk page earlier, perhaps you are one in the same, anyway I shall repost it just so you know what you must do to prove this source is in some way reliable. It is beyond questionable and i see no gorunds for it to be seen alongside what should be there.

Please provide information about how it is in fact, professional. We're talking professional as in alongside its contemporaries; Rolling Stone, Billboard, Blender. More specifically, are they accredited and/or respected music journalists or even qualified journalists in general? Does the website have any validity; meaning has it been covered in third party sources, or does it feature some kind of notoriety which separates it from the other 10,000 websites which have exactly the same figures in relation to size/content/users/staff. If you can provide anything which indicates any kind of reliability, maybe we can consider keeping it. But as for now, WP is an encyclopedia, and should only be publishing things which have some sort of actual value beyond a fan's opinion. Please bear in mind, I am not required to prove that your source is not reliable, you are required to establish its reliability when in question. If you cannot meet these requirements, then i shall begin removing your additions and you will have wasted a couple of hours. Sorry to be an ass, but this is an encyclopedia, not a signpost. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 12:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was not at all a personal attack on your site, don't get me wrong. I respect you for creating a neat site, and completely understand your viewpoint. This is however an encyclopedia, and things should not just be included because there is nothing better. They need their own justification, their own validity to the topic at hand. I came across you originally through an album page on The Used, I would not call The Used 'underground'.

People are clicking your link out of curiousity, wanting to see a review, in this modern age, I don't think 'people' really care if it is Rolling Stone or RRR, they just want toget a fair idea. But Wikipedia is not 'people' in this case, it's supposed to be an encyclopedia that maintains standards. 10,000 was of course a massive exagerration, but there is many sites which do cover the same things as you guys, I wouldn't even be able to remember half of the sites which have employed a similar marketing strategy as you (posting reviews) - they don't really have any distinguishing features tbh. What exactly makes you 'better' than them? Apart from face value? Do I just take your word?

In the future, I will be moving to create more ellaborate and potent guidelines on this matter, but for now I recommend you don't go adding every single review (avoid adding to pages which will fill up with reviews, such as The Used or AFI) because it could plain and simply put your site on the chopping block if the wrong person sees it. Thanks for the reply, and good luck with your site, I will be sure to let you know if any action is to be taken. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, it was Saosin, In Search of Solid Ground, same deal though, popular band. Thanks for understanding, I'll be sure to check out your reviews. Have a good one. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

Hey, I see you've had some past trouble with posting record reviews from your website. I've noticed the Wikipedia guidelines for record reviews are governed by size and popularity rather than quality, so I want to say I understand your plight. Additions to articles should be judged based on their benefit to people looking for information rather than on absurd rules, especially in an age when the "reliable" sources of music opinion will soon all be gone (see: Blender, Vibe). Spidercomrade (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by some search engines, including Google. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DenisatRRR / http://.reviewrinserepeat.com

Accounts

DenisatRRR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)"Denis (ReviewRinseRepeat Staff)'[1]
95.156.150.173 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
68.203.232.94 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
95.156.159.25 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
140.158.34.235 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended or used for publicity and/or promotional purposes. Please read the following carefully.

Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, celebrity or other well-known individual, or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements, and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but it is considered inappropriate for such groups to use Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.

Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?

Probably not. See WP:FAQ/Organization for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, or organization. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.

What can I do now?

You are still welcome to write about something other than your company or organization. If you do intend to make useful contributions on some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:

Add the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} on your user talk page.
Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy.
Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:

Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, please see how to appeal a block.

--Hu12 (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]