Jump to content

User talk:Rickie rich

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the Hip hop page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --esanchez, Camp Lazlo fan! 23:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome - please learn about the external link guidelines WP:EL

[edit]

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising in articles. For more information on this, see

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Nposs 15:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you have a whole catalogue by a commercial company on the nusrat fateh ali khan page it is a kelkoo style advert why cant I just add a link to video content that is not selling anything and it is ok for two full commercial sales driven catalogue that is ridiculous. that content should not be there. And my video content should there is no money involved.

Links to video (your webpage appears to be posting material from YouTube) are only acceptable when you are the owner of the video content. In this case, it appears that you do not own the video content and it is unclear what the copyright status of the material is. As for the other links, there probably needs to be some work to remove the promotional aspect, but a list of videos and recordings (discography) is a valid addition for the article of a musician. Perhaps the external links to the sellers could be removed, but the content maintained. I would also suggest bringing up the issue on the talk page of the article. A mass deletion of content without prior discussion and consensus is discouraged. Please take some time to look over the guidelines linked above and let me know if you have any questions. Nposs 16:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look my ip is blocked for adding links to a page of video, the page the link was on has full on catalogues for commercial sites if it is ok for them to have full on catalogues which is on no other page then I can have an external link, you can not monopolies the pedia for friends of the administrators. The page in question is nusrat fateh ali khan.

It appears you are talking about this IP address: User_talk:89.241.237.105. If you feel like you have been blocked unfairly, you can contest the decision on that page by adding an "unblock" tag and your reason. The instructions can be found in the block message. You should know that using another account to get around a block is a violation of Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry guidelines and is strongly discouraged. There is no conspiracy here. I agree that the external links to commercial websites are problematic. Removing the links, but keeping the list of videos and recordings is a possible solution to this problem. Please discuss this on the talk page of the article. Nposs 16:58, 19 April 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

The approach to be taken is discussed above. Dont entirely agree but it is a good compromise. The artist did 200+ albums and I have met his musicians. As for the video I am in touch with the channel owner. And I have blocked flow to the site linked from. I will take more care in future, I have offered varied content to wiki over the years. I will also remove the video from the page. The catalogue is not a discography and is the usual industry remix of his material over and over again and represents the companies good sellers

Decline reason:

Not blocked directly. If unable to edit, please follow these instructions. You'll need to provide evidence that you did not make the edits that resulted in the block, though. — Yamla 17:18, 19 April 2007 (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.

Actually, you need to post the unblock request on the blocked IP address page: User_talk:89.241.237.105. You should remove it from this page and place it there. Nposs 17:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still can not see it. but haven considered it. It is a good idea because some of the editors do harass and recruit others to join in. And generally make things difficult

Still can not see it. but haven considered it. It is a good idea because some of the editors do harass and recruit others to join in. And generally make things difficult A deleted comment doesnt count

Blocking my website from being added is wrong I know my stuff and you have a dam good case study from being added to one area Regardless of the fact that all the other links offer less depth

You are blocked for making legal threats. Do not user the {{helpme}} notice to further disrupt Wikipedia. - auburnpilot talk 19:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning - vandalism and continued insertion of inappropriate links

[edit]

The warnings on that page provide an important record of previous activity and deleting warning is considered a form of vandalism. Please read Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines for more information about the use of talk pages. Furthermore, you are continuing to insert links to your own website in violation of WP:COI. This link repeats content that is already present in the article, and in fact in part is a word for word copy of the Wikipedia article. Since the page does not properly cite Wikipedia as a source, it is a clear violation of copyright. Pages that violate copyright and do not contain more or different information than the article itself should not be linked according to the external link guidelines - WP:EL. Please reconsider your current pattern of editing.

The page is about the videos not the text, the text is there so as not get bad link from an inappropriate site. As is clear this is about ego. and nothing else. there are hords of links from my site to wikipedia that is enough. respect sent back. Some rules are beyond daft. You have company catalogues on this page so why cant I have a link to an external site that adds. Stop quoting rules and regs. the other sites add content for a fee. which is ok apparently but the free sites that add well we can not have that can we. Get real if you were right in common sense you would not be quoting rules. If i have something to sell then I will add to this section like everyone else

You are welcome to contribute constructively to Wikpedia, but adding external links to your own website does not fall into this category. The webpage you link contains text copied-and-pasted from the Wikipedia article you want to link to without proper citation of the source - a clear violation of Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content. The webpage duplicates content in the article making a link unnecessary. The video on the page is scrapped from YouTube and of dubious copyright status - another reason not to link. Wikipedia does not work on a "link-back" model - editors contribute freely without the potential for being compensated through recognition, links, money, or other forms of compensation. I suggest you take some time to understand how Wikipedia works and what Wikipedia is not: WP:NOT. Nposs 14:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Like i said about common sense you keep quoting your rules. and I will keep winning the argument. citation but dont want recognition. hmm. I have explained the content issue and copyright is youtubes issue not yours. And talking about copyright I know for a fact that the catalogue stuff is in massive violation of copyright. Without any of the statutory rights payments being made I know this for a fact. Yet you still have the catalogue which contains alot of other musicians on. FACT dont talk about copyright in the indian music industry. You will have to remove all the dvd and cd selling on this site. And half the other sites have done the same thing on this page. LIKE I SAID this is about ego.

Warning: Spam on Reggae. using TW

[edit]

April 2007

[edit]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Reggae. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Nposs 21:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trim your ego you are harrassing me now. You are not god to decide whether something is appropriate. I have told you already leave me the hell alone and stop singling me out. You do not know the culture of the areas you are talking abou I do. I am better knowledge to determine what is appropriate than you. NOW stop harrassing me. and stop singling me out you are not god FUCK OFF.

And furthermore I have told about the catalogue and you have paid no attention so you are harrassing me. I do an education site the basics etc etc. Get off my case there are bigger fish for you to fry. and as it is ok for whole copyright infringe catalogues you have no case. Again FUCK OFF and leave me alone

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: User_talk:Rickie_rich. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please read and abide by the Wikipedia external link guideline.➪HiDrNick! 08:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Your recent edits could give editors of Wikipedia the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that this is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a genuine dispute with the Community or its members, please use dispute resolution. Thank you.➪HiDrNick! 08:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely for making threats of legal action against other editors, as well as being uncivil. If you are willing to withdraw the legal threats and work civilly with other editors, please place {{unblock|reason here}} on this page (which you may still edit while blocked), and the situation will be reviewed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:03, 21 April 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

Nposs chose to decide the application of wikipedia rules and further to that question the validaty and copyright status of an external site, using that as a reason to pursue and abuse his position as an editor. His reasoning if valid is applicable to other editors who if you used his reasoning put that same position stated about an external site, on wikipedia. This was and is not a question of wikipedia user conduct but harassment on the part of NPoss. I validate this with the statements and reasoning he and yourself have given. In chosing the applicability of rules on different editors on this site. And going further still attempting to apply those rules to an external site.

Decline reason:

This does not address your legal threat. You are not permitted to edit any Wikipedia articles until you have resolved your legal action. Thank you. — Yamla 17:03, 21 April 2007 (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.

Basically, here's the issue here. You've threatened to sue another editor. When this happens, we block you from editing, both for your protection and that of other editors, until any potential legal action is resolved. We have to take such threats seriously. If it is something you said in haste or anger, and are willing to retract it, I'm certainly willing to unblock you. However, you still will be expected to work civilly, even with those editors you may disagree with. We have dispute resolution procedures if you and the other editor can't agree, and they tend to produce much better results than cursing and threatening lawsuits. Please leave your response here, I'll receive it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

where is the lawsuit you have been lied to I can not see any lawsuit how can I sue someone I do not know yet. What lawsuit. show me quoted text Nposs is harrassing me and used the lawsuit concept to initiat a ban

That would be this edit, in which you made the statement that you would "sue...for harassment." That's about as clear of a legal threat as they come. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hiphopjazzproduction.com spam on Wikipedia

[edit]

Adsense pub-7280967257355669

This is your only warning. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing their websites from appearing on Wikipedia and other sites that use the MediaWiki spam blacklist at all.

Domains:

Accounts adding these links (probably incomplete):

Articles (probably incomplete):

Other:

  • Abusive behavior[1]
  • Content deletion[2][3][4]
  • Legal threats[5]
  • Promised continuing sockpuppetry[6]

--A. B. (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

sockpuppetry is a fact of life, no one use static ips.Ip servers dont use them Domain names cost money real money if you blacklist someone and that is used by someone else you are asking for a world of pain. You can not make that list public use your head. My links were and are appropriate I do a sound engineering site geared towards the basics, I added relevant links to topic areas on wikipedia a site I have donated to, and provided content for. Nposs and cronies have taken it upon themselves to block my external links because it was felt my site looked professional. While doing this they have chosen to pass judgement on sites they have no expertise to decide whether or not. It is appropriate. Pedia is all well and good but sometimes people want an overview or geniune depth. I offer both on certain topic areas. Areas that this pedia doesnt get. Example microphones. And being from Trinidad calypso music etc. I want my domains unblocked, I do varied content that is readable. After adding links to wikipedia my visits went up but time per visit went up. While click through went down way down. So my pages where directly appropriate and being West Indian I understood knowledge areas like Dancehall etc. just look at these too links and it proves that my links were appropriate and proving useful. My time per visit will no doubt slide. but for a none commercial site that has donated monies and content, I do not want respect but the disrespect of NPoss and cronies is ridiculous. They have allowed full commercial catalogues to stay on. While links they have removed of mine have been more appropriate. No one wants traffic not interested in content. http://hip hopjazzproduction.com/modlogan/m_usage_200704_000_000.html I have added my links appropriately and I know my domains of content. I have done a specific site. and it has its place in the external links. I am a knowledge engineer I understand what people want and how they want. Everyone has there place. For example you talk about samplers but skim over mpc1000 which are the main thing. In that area. Calypso music Coming from trinidad my article was pertainent and included technology in genre CarnivalComing from trinidad my article was pertainent and included technology in genre Dancehall I work with dancehall act and your piece did not catch the spirit Hip hop Hip hop production Microphone Case study comparing the main condenser microphones over the main dynamic shure58 it is also described in to detailed away. I work in studios etc. This is not the level of detail people are going to want.

Music industry A list of 90 indsutry contracts, and a list of uk charity status organisation to do with music industry that all artist/musicians have interact with your list was not complete Musical Instrument Digital Interface Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan I manage classical musicians who have recieved awards etc. Record producer Recording studio Reggae Sampler (musical instrument) Synthesizer I could go on and on. I know my domains dont threaten me with blacklisting the fact that you put this project in jepeordy, that I have given money to and content by doing a public blacklist is ridiculous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.13.255.71 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were blocked for making legal threats. Considering that you continue to not care about the policies on linkspamming and threaten to use more sockpuppets, I see no reason to unblock. Denied. 

— IrishGuy talk 19:44, 23 April 2007 (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.

I do follow policy on linkspamming all my links were pertainent. Someone decide my site looked commercial. so decided to block my ips etc. When it turns out they were wrong they went on a harrassment mission without even considering what the articles were doing. It was opinion. If my facts were no good then people would hit back but they dont they stay on for 13mins reading the page. I know my content. I am trained in it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.255.71 (talk • contribs)

Using your IP to get around a block will only lead to another block. Please stop. IrishGuy talk 21:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER doesnt use STATIC IPS. this is a personally attack on me by NPOSS. and cronies HIS points for blacklisting my site which has reduced my rank on google etc. IS a personal attack. Understand this not everyone is honarable. He complained I use you tube on my site. Wikipedia has 150 you tube links. He complained and lied about my reasons for removing some content that was a commercial catalogue. I know the shop been there they reside in my town. And do not pay there artists. It was valid to remove a full commercial catalogue. He knows that it is. I am allowed to complain when someone is blatantly attack me and my site domain. I have contributed to wikipedia. There is no justification to treat me different to others. He slandered my site and has used double standards.

You were warned repeatedly to cease adding the link, kept right at it, spammed across multiple Wikipedias, and threatened to use sockpuppetry from dynamic IPs to keep it right up. Basically, you left no choice but to blacklist it, and you have nothing but your own choices and actions to blame. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing wrong with my links there were just as valid as others if not better than a lot. he made a mistake on my links looked at one page saw branding and just blocked them all. If you thought one was inappropriate then we argue about it. I took your advice and just added microphone links which was a case study of 6000$ of microphone by an international artist as subject. I had a basic guide 90 free music industry contracts. a better organisations list for music etc. Some things were better somethings were different. But if it was not useful then I would not have had an average of 13minutes visit without click through


sockpuppetry what is this dont know what it is

Nposs had to lie and embellish the truth to make his point

Unvalid Points

[edit]
  • Persistent spam additions despite warnings
  • Use of multiple IPs. This is not in itself wrong, since IPs can change, but harder for us to manage and watch for spam.
  • Cross-wiki spam
  • Content deletion to make a POINT[3]
  • Abusive attacks[4]
  • Legal threats[5]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.241.230.45 (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC). Spam has to be useless links all my links were for particular pages all of which I have added to.[reply]

Hi Rickie. Following up on some of the questions you've asked, take a look at Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest Guideline -- you're not supposed to add links to your own web site.
Bill Gates does not get to edit his own article or add links from here to his web site. The Queen of England doesn't get to add links in Wikipedia to her site or work on her own article. Ditto for the leader of the Birmingham City Council, his web site and his Wikipedia article. None of the editors you've been interacting with gets to do these things either (one of my own web sites has been widely quoted in its field but you won't find links to it on Wikipedia.)
So when someone keeps repeatedly linking to their own web site in spite of the Conflict of Interest Guideline and in spite of requests and then warnings not to, then that meets our definition of spam -- see our Spam Guideline. If they're persistent and belligerent, then that ratchets up the reaction further.
I hope this helps clear up the confusion. --A. B. (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody does and that has been overlooked It is not a site about me. And you have overlooked people adding catalogues. This is going the next step up. Because you know and understand what nposs has done and have just decided to participate with him. So you admitt to harassment also

Summary: flo2flo.com accounts and behaviour on Wikipedia

[edit]

Accounts:


Domains spammed and blacklisted

Additional domain preemptively blacklisted:

Comments left for other editors on their talk pages:

See also:

--A. B. (talk) 14:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rickie_rich&oldid=1140270493"