User talk:Lamicone

May 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Spencer^T♦C 05:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

You blocked my IP address for spam. I will tell you that the admin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Winner_42) for the pages that we submitted our link is wrong. We are the largest Shale Related Network on the planet, and own the following domains Bakken.com (Related to the Bakken Shale Formation in North Dakota) Marcellus.com (Related to the Marcellus Shale Formation) EagleFordTexas.com (Related to the Eagle Ford Shale Formation in Texas) Haynesville.com (Related to the Haynesville Shale Formation in Louisiana) The first 3 sites are official Google news sites. On the Eagle Ford Formation Wiki page, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_Ford_Formation) Oil and Gas Journal (ogj.com) has an external link to their site regarding their information on the Eagle Ford, and on the Bakken Formation page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_formation) OilShaleGas.com has a link to their information on the Bakken. Being the fact that we are the largest network of oil and gas news sites on the planet I don't see why these links would not be relevant to your users, and I certainly don't see why he would have called them spam and removed them and then indefinitely blocked me. Those links were up on those pages for a while and I just happened to notice they were gone. Our links to our Permianshale.com site and our Niobrarachalk.com site are still up on the respective pages in Wiki and have been there for a year now. Please let me know your thoughts on this. I feel that the removal of these links and calling them spam is unwarranted and I request that they be put back up as very useful resources for your users and I request that I be unblocked. Sincerely, Lewis C. Amicone III Lamicone (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

For a start, 'we' do not edit using this account. Accounts on Wikipedia are for individuals not for companies or other organisations, and password sharing is not allowed. If this account has been used by more than one person, it may be regarded as compromised. Second, any adding of links by anyone to things they are closely connected to are regarded as spamming. This even applies to universities and world-renowned experts. WP:COI applies too. However, you are actually blocked for evading a block on another account. I'll ping the blocking admin about this. Peridon (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@Spencer: Peridon (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I don't understand something. The following websites that are also News sites as an example BakkenDispatch.com on the Bakken Formation Page, Oil & Gas Journal http://www.ogj.com/unconventional-resources/eagle-ford-shale.html on the Eagle Ford Formation page and many others are in the same news industry that we are. So why are the links to Bakken.com, Marcellus.com and Eaglefordtexas.com which are the certified experts on those formations in news are spam and the sites mentioned above on those pages are not and have external links on the page. As far as "evading" the block, I didn't. I just logged in from my home computer because my work computer got blocked. My home IP address was not blocked so I was able to respond to the block from home rather than work. 69.178.252.51 (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're not going to be unblocked if your only intention is to add conflict of interest links to a site you are affiliated with. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 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).

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

Request reason:

@Ohnoitsjamie That was not my only intention. My intention was to create a great resource for Wiki Readers. Why can nobody tell me why other news organizations are allowed on those pages and ours which is the best in the industry is considered spam? Why won't you admins answer that question? Look through the archives, those links were up there for a year and then were taken down. 69.178.252.51 (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I have never been keen on the use of the word "spam" in Wikipedia, as people who come here to promote their businesses usually do not regard doing so a spamming, and the word serves only to antagonise. However, whatever word is used to describe it, you are clearly here for the sole purpose of using Wikipedia for promotion and publicity, and have added links for the purpose of attracting people to your web site, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The fact that in unblock requests you add promotional language (such as "ours which is the best in the industry") shows clearly that you have not grasped the point that such promotion is unacceptable. It is also clear from what you say that you wish to be unblocked in order to continue the same kind of editing as before, so of course you are not being unblocked. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

We created the policy page WP:ELNO so that we don't have to answer the same question fifty times a day. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]