User talk:May09dream

January 2011[edit]

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. Them From Space 01:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you insert a spam link, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Them From Space 01:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used mainly for spamming or advertising. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

I have indefinitely blocked your account because all its activity has been concentrated on adding a certain personal web-site to numerous wikipedia articles. That website, among other issues, contains commercial links like this (My Amazon.Com Store, follow me on twitter, best price, etc.). Also worrying were your mass reverts of an editor who was removing your links. (Note: the unblock message below was posted before I have actually written the block message)Materialscientist (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2011 (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).

May09dream (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

not spamming - trying to contribute to the sight

Decline reason:

Please make ONE unblock request at a time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:40, 5 January 2011 (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.

My opinion is that this user does not understand our external links guidelines or spam policy and shouldn't be unblocked until its clear that he does. Them From Space 01:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

May09dream (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

76.5.79.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Using Wikipedia for [[WP:Spam|spam]] or [[WP:Advertising|advertising]] purposes

Blocking administrator: Materialscientist (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

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).

May09dream (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not associated in any way with the site to which I have added some links. I was simply attempting to add value to the Wikipedia site by adding a link. I have added linked to sites that already have external links to similar sites. Those links still remain, so I am puzzled.

Decline reason:

Please amke ONE unblock request at a time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:40, 5 January 2011 (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).

May09dream (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Sorry to continue. I was undoing edits only after I contacted the person who had reverted my edits on there talk page and clarified my purpose. The response was that she had no problem with my additions. Only after getting that response did I revert some edits. Thanks for your consideration.

Decline reason:

Please don't make multiple unblock requests at the same time. Come up with a rationale for unblocking, including how you understand our policies and how you won't violate them in future and why you repeatedly added those links, then make a single unblock request and wait for an admin to review it. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:40, 5 January 2011 (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).

May09dream (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi - I have read the guide to appealing blocks and hope that this request meets those guidelines. I was blocked this evening because I was undo-ing the reverts to my previous additions to wikipedia, but only after first contacting the person who reverted my edits and gaining what I believed to be permission to add those links (see the talk page of Deli nk under "Recent Edits" in which Deli nk replied to my inquiry by saying that my edits came across as promotional, but if I thought the links were valuable to Wikipedia, she did not object to them). I realize now that once again my edits appeared to be spam, but my intentions are only to add value to Wikipedia by providing another source of information that I found personally to be valuable to me, and I assure you that I am not associated with that website in any way. Most links were to the specific page that pertained to the subject of the Wikipedia article. The linked page provides information about the site, beautiful photos as well as directions to the site and a link to a Google map with the site placed on the map. There is no advertising on these pages, no attempts to solicit any money or anything in return, only information that has to my knowledge has been thoroughly researched and documented in photos. Here is an example: www.megalithicireland.com/Hill%20of%20Slane.html and you can page through the site by hitting "next page" at the bottom of each page. That information was perfect for me when I traveled to Ireland on a pilgrimage to many of these sites, and I thought it would be useful for other travelers or persons seeking greater knowledge of the historical monuments in Ireland. Perhaps my mistake is in also providing a link to the main Megalithic Ireland webpage, but I did that only so that any additional sites can be researched. And on a few Wikipedia pages I did just add the link to the main megalithicireland page, because many of the sites listed in the Wikipedia article were also found in the megalithic site, but would require some navigation to get to them. If I would be allowed to edit again (unblocked), and if my previous edits that were reverted could be undone, I would be happy to remove any links directly to the main page. Again I apologize if my actions tonight appeared to be spamming - it certainly wasn't my intention to spam - I am not associated with that website in any way. I do spend at least 6 hours each day researching various subjects on the web, and I have found Wikipedia to be invaluable to my research. After conducting a Google search, I will almost always click on the link to a Wikipedia article first, before any other article. My intention is simply to add to the site, with information and links that have been invaluable to me, thinking that I can provide a service to others by bringing this information to them. A favorable reply to my request to be unblocked is respectfully submitted. May09dream (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

What you are doing is adding identical links to a site to multiple Wikipedia articles; this is not acceptable. Please familiarize yourself with our external links policy; it might help you understand better. Wikipedia is not a web directory. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:11, 5 January 2011 (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).

May09dream (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please reconsider my request to be unblocked. The reason provided by jpgordon stated that I was adding identical links to a site to multiple Wikipedia articles. But this is not accurate. I added links to specific pages related to the subject of your article, none of which are identical. For example, on the Wikipedia page for Carrowmore, I added an external link directly to the Carrowmore page at www.megalithicireland.com/Carrowmore%20Complex.html. And to the Wikipedia page for Kilfenora, I added the link to www.megalithicireland.com/High%20Cross%20Kilfenora.htm. Both of these external links can be viewed as adding more information than already provided for these sites. Please take a minute to look at these links before determining that this does not add value. Also please consider that I have never intended to do damage to the Wikipedia site, or to cause disruption, or to self-promote. My only intention is to share knowledge that I have gained, which I believe supports the principles of Wikipedia. Thank you for your time and considerationMay09dream (talk) 07:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You make a distinction without a difference. You added the link to the same site, megalithicireland.com, to a wide range of articles. It matters little in that light that you deeplinked to different pages within that site. That alone might have been excused, despite its scope, on good-faith grounds. But then, rather than discuss with the removing users why it was removed and what you might be able to do about it, you went and put it back in. Over a period of several weeks. This is your last request; you've been allowed to admin-shop longer than you should have, so I'm cutting off your talk page. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2011 (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.