User talk:Paperbroke1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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
- Policy on neutral point of view
- Guideline on spam
- Guideline on external links
- Guideline on conflict of interest
Welcome
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.
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
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! Admiral Norton (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Paperbroke1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
To whom it may concern (likely Sandstein or another adminstrator): After posting some external links in various Wikipedia pages, my username and IP address was blocked from editing. The reason cited was spamming. I realize that you have stringent guidelines for all edits, but I don't believe representatives from legitimate news sources (Opposing Views) should be barred from participating on Wikipedia. Opposing Views is a website that presents debates/hot issues of the day and allows experts to debate all sides of a given issue, anywhere from the presidential election to the legalization of marijuana to the merits and drawbacks of low carb dieting. As such, Wikipedia and Opposing Views operate within the same realm. So as long as my edits/external links are relevant to the Wikipedia entry in question, my edits/external links are not spam. I would like to appeal the decision to block edits from both me and my IP address. Opposing Views' participation on Wikipedia could easily benefit both parties, and more importantly, could easily benefit the digestion of information. So please allow me to edit again. If you'd like to further investigate Opposing Views, please take a look at OpposingViews.com. Also, you can follow up on my talk page. Paperbroke1 (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You haven't given an indication that you will cease the behavior that led to you being blocked, in fact you basically say you would continue it. Unless you address this behavior, you will not be unblocked. Articles are not a link repository for all links that may have some content related to the subject, links must only be added if they add information related to the subject that could not be added to the article. We're talking factual information, not opinions here. — Kevin (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2008 (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.
Paperbroke1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
To Sanstein, Kevin, or another administrator: It certainly must appear that I am an unscrupulous spammer. Although I don't enjoy being blocked, I understand your position. Please allow me elaborate. Opposing Views just launched, I'm new here, and we're trying to figure it out. So please help me. One of my now deleted links was on the Gaming Law entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaming_law). It was an external link to Opposing Views' debate about whether gambling should be legal or not (http://opposingviews.com/questions/should-gambling-be-legal). Our link indeed adds "information related to the subject that could not be added to the article." There is no "Gaming Law debate" page where that type of content or link might seem more appropriate, but I still felt we had something to bring to the table. So I posted the link there because I felt there was no other place to go. To clarify, Opposing Views is a hub for Experts to debate issues they are well-informed about. Although our Experts might have opinions, those are backed by the Experts' experience in a given field. So our content is original, legitimate and we ensure civility and respect in our debates. On a Wikipedia entry like Gaming Law, our contribution would prove valuable. Admittedly I was a bit loose on the trigger with the external links. If unblocked, I won't do it again. I would still like for my account and IP address to be unblocked. I will continue learning about Wikipedia's policies, will obey your rules and will be more careful in general. We would like to make a legitimate contribution to Wikipedia, and I am willing to dig deeper into the entries and etiquette so that our content doesn't continue to come off as spam. Thank you, and we appreciate your response. Paperbroke1 (talk) 23:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
What are you going to contribute given that all your edits so far have been adding external links against our policies? — Stephen 03:07, 29 July 2008 (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.
Paperbroke1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
To Sanstein, Kevin, Stephen, or another administrator: I have original content from (in many cases) high-profile experts in any given field. Quotes, elaboration, arguments. That doesn't mean I'm going to overhaul every entry, but it does mean I have valuable discourse to contribute when appropriate. I made a mistake initially; please allow me a chance to rectify it. Thank you. Paperbroke1 (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This request for unblocking has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:
- Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules.
- Pick any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
- If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas.
- Click edit this page on that article and scroll down past the message informing you of your block.
- Copy the source of that article and paste it to the bottom of your talk page under a new top-level heading (like this:
= Article title =
) and save the page before you improve it. - Propose some significant and well researched improvements to your article by editing your personal copy of the article.
- When you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
- If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.
If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{helpme|your question here}}" to your talk page. Thank you. — Okiefromokla questions? 18:35, 29 July 2008 (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.