User talk:Wiki monitor
Hello, I'm Helpsome. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Helpsome (talk) 10:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
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 websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Helpsome (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Helpsome. I think YOU are a kind of spammer. You removed a link and sent me this message that is a cut-and-paste of a standard message. It seems that you did not even take a deep look of what you did. The page we talking about has no sense without the official report I added in the external links. And aviation-accident dot net is the mai source of official aviation accidents reports in the web. I will be restoring the link I posted until the end of times. Please take time to review your actions and at least take a look of the page and what you are doing, don't just delete and that's it. Thank you.
Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Should you attempt to "be restoring the link I posted until the end of times" you will be blocked. Helpsome (talk)
March 2015
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Hut 8.5 21:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Wiki monitor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I want to tell you - once again - about the content of the page I'm modifying since you are deleting my external links only because it's an external link. I also have the chance to check the IP address of who is downloading reports from aviation-accidents.net and no one of you did it. This means that you don't know what you are doing, just deleting added links , blocking users , not knowing what we are talking about : I really don't know if I'm waisting my time writing down these lines. Any aviation accident is followed by a serious official report and for many of the main aviation accidents someone created a wikipedia page. But of course , to be synthetic , not all the facts can be reported on it. Without reading the official report, reading of the wikipedia page is limited to a brief report and summary : a link to the official report is a must to better understand that accident. I don't want you to understand what aviation safety is and works, but the users interested and involved in it , will. I'm only asking : take a minute to breath and check what you are doing, what is the link you are deleting, and if that wikipedia page would be the same without that external link. Thank you.
Decline reason:
Obviously, several editors disagree with your addition of this link. When that happens, you will need to stop adding it and start a discussion. The best place is on the article's talk page. For example, at the Afriqiyah Airways Flight 771 page, you will need to make some case for why a link to a one-year-old sketchy site with an e-mail scraper is superior to the links to the report that is already on the page. It does appear that you have a conflict of interest here as well, as indicated by your unblock request. Note that the terms of use for this site require you to disclose paid relationships; please do that before making any other edits. Also, what is your relationship with the user:PerkyRabbit account? Kuru (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2015 (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.
Wiki monitor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Dear Hut 8.5 , I still think that I was contributing to Wikipedia and don't know exactly what you want me to do. For example this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SilkAir_Flight_185 is related to an aviation accident. I believe that a page like this, without an external link to the official report has no sense or it's not completed. In the page (SilkAir flight) , the only link to the official report it's broken. In aviation-accident.net instead there is the official report. Can I modify this page, substitute the broken link or you will consider again as spam ?Wiki monitor (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
We don't permit users to canvass links to external sites, regardless of the merit of the site, especially when there is a likely WP:COI. In other words, you're not going to be unblocked unless you agree to stop adding links to your site, and if you resume spamming after the duration of this block, your next block will be longer. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:20, 30 March 2015 (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.
- Wikipedia doesn't allow anyone to add any link that someone considers relevant to the topic. We have various rules about what kinds of link are and are not acceptable, and we strongly disapprove of people adding links to sites in order to promote them, or adding links to sites they are associated with. (If you are the webmaster of this site, as implied by the posts above, then that includes you here.) Various people reverted your additions of this link and asked you not to add it again. The right thing to do if you objected to this would be to discuss it with those editors or other people interested in those pages on the article talk page. Instead you put the links back and declared that you would carry on doing so forever. That's why you were blocked.
- Your block has now expired and you are able to edit Wikipedia again, but I would strongly advise you not to add any more links to this site, at least not unless you have discussed it first with other people who think it's OK. If you do add any more links then you will probably be blocked again, and this block will be longer (and may not have an expiry date at all). Incidentally I did look at the site before I blocked you, and the reason I didn't download any reports is because the site asked for my personal information first. This is one of the reasons why the link wasn't considered appropriate. Hut 8.5 15:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)