Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!
I unblocked you because you indicated that you understood what linkspamming was and that you did not intend to do it again. Apparently I let the spirit of the holiday season affect me and I fell for your "oh poor me I've been treated so badly by these abusive administrators" routine. If your only goal here is to add links to a particular website, which I can only assume at this point you have some financial interest in given your persistence in doing so, you will not be allowed to edit Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
insane puzzle box of collapsed threads containing long block discussion
A tag has been placed on Obscure Sound, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because it is an article about a certain web site, blog, forum, or other community of web users that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on Talk:Obscure Sound. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.|}
This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you add inappropriate external links, as you did with this edit to Foreign Born. Netalarmhappy holidays! 00:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Repeated Vandalism. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY(TALK) 00:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|}
Extended content
== Vandalism? ==
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).
I do not see how posting links to relevant, original, and non-profit web sites is an example of Wikipedia's "vandalism". The articles that I supplemented with each respective artist provided in-depth information that is entirely reliable, as it derives from primary sources that include the artist's record label and other representatives. There is no selling of items on the linked site, nor is their any monetary motive. It exists to provide information and legal audio tracks. The site contains MP3 audio files that the artists gave permission to post, which is yet another aspect most Wikipedia articles lack along with other unique bits of information regarding musicians. It just is alarming to me that I am considered a "vandal" because I want to post relevant links that could help people out in their search for obscure musicians. I posted the link to Obscure Sound alongside other linked sites with very similar rank and prestige, which were already on Wikipedia. If they are allowed to be featured, then why is a site with accurate information, longer history, and unique content being ignored? For instance, it is startling to me that this site (http://www.theartssection.com/2009/09/music-neon-indian.html) is able to be featured on Wikipedia but this site (http://obscuresound.com/?p=2901) is not allowed to be featured directly under it. It is obvious by looking at the two web sites which qualifies by Wikipedia's guidelines more. Obscure Sound updates 4-5 times per week, the other updates 1-2 times per month. One was labeled incorrectly as a review despite being a short interview, while Obscure Sound's addition was accurately tagged as a review. I am confused why Wikipedia is not abiding by their own guidelines when determining which sources are permissible and which are not. It seems that because I posted a dozen or so different links within a few hours it alarmed some administrators, which caused them to rashly and prematurely disregard the site's content. When you are able to tell me what possible benefits I would have had in posting those links other than to provide information, then feel free to do so. You obviously are implying that I am posting links to gain some sort of revenue or page rank, which is impossible considering the site I posted does not make positive revenue and all external links on Wikipedia utilize the "nofollow" tag so the link value is useless. I personally find this and my banning to be a rash overreaction. I have never had an issue on Wikipedia and this being considered against the rules is appalling to me. I look forward to your response.
Decline reason:
You started linkspamming in 2007, took a break, then returned in 2008 to linkspam some more, took another break and returned again to linkspam. People who are blocked for that kind of behavior simply don't get unblocked with a simple apology. Blueboy96 03:38, 26 December 2009 (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.
COMMENTI would like to see you be able to have your block rescinded. However, for that to happen, you need to understand the policies that your edits today violated and why the block was applied. Your edits violated: WP:RS, WP:EL, and WP:ELNO.
Specifically, when you look at the About page at Obscure Sound, it is a blog written and maintained by one man. Despite being generally informative and well-written, as per WP:RS and WP:SELFPUBLISH, blogs are generally not considered to satisfy Wikipedia’s reliable sources policies. If it were a blog that is part of an actual media company (e.g., the ArtsBeat blog at The New York Times), or written by a recognized authority, then it might be considered a reliable source. At first glance, I think that Obscure Sound does not qualify. (Nor do I think that The Arts Section satisfies the requirements.)
Finally, as regards its placement in the External Links section of a wikiarticle, at WP:ELNO#11, the policy is that such links to blogs are not permitted, “except those written by a recognized authority.” Is Mike Mineo — the author at Obscure Sound — a recognized authority? Nowhere on that website, that I can find, does he provide his C.V. so that we can determine this. (For instance, a blog by President Carter on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be a blog by a recognized authority.)
Finally, you were blocked because after receiving your first two warnings — which specifically told you that your edits violated WP:EL — you persisted in continuing to edit in the same manner. You should have begun a discussion with the person who issued the warnings on his talkpage. The block was for persisting after receiving warnings to stop.
If you want to have your block reversed, you need to show that you understand this when using the the {{unblock|Your reason here}}, or your request will be denied by the Administrator handling it. Be sure to read WP:GAB first. — SpikeToronto 00:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note:Contristo, you probably do not want to have two {{unblock}} requests on your page (I am referring to the one above (↑) and the one below (↓)). The reason I say this is that the unblocking admin may only look at the one above, and that will not get you unblocked. You want him/her to focus on the one below. So, I suggest removing the coding from your initial response above (↑). Whether you leave your comments or not is up to you. But, I would remove the coding, namely the {{unblock|1= at the beginning and the }} at the end. Lastly, it can take a while sometimes for {{unblock}} requests to be processed when there is either a backlog or a holiday. Be patient. Once you have your privileges restored, if you ever have a question about contributions that you would like to make to the Wikipedia project, feel free to contact me at my talk page. Good luck! — SpikeToronto 02:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)|}[reply]
Extended content
== Blueboy96 ==
{{unblock|1=This is in response to Blueboy96, due to his previous explanation for disabling my account: "You started linkspamming in 2007, took a break, then returned in 2008 to linkspam some more, took another break and returned again to linkspam. People who are blocked for that kind of behavior simply don't get unblocked with a simple apology. Blueboy96 03:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)"
I assume he wants me to stand on both of my hands to prove my sincerity or something, but how exactly were my links "linkspam"? Is it normal routine for administrators to deny one's request because they posted a link three years ago to a relevant web site? I mean, if it was so bad and detrimental, then I am sure Wikipedia would have spotted it three years ago. I could understand if I am posting links to sites that are completely off-topic to the respective Wikipedia entry, but as you can see by my contributing history every one of my links is entirely relevant. I added those links to Wikipedia pages of various musicians, and upon clicking the link visitors would see an entirely original, 1000-word article detailing that specific band with legally authorized audio samples.
The previous explanation from SpikeToronto was great in showing me why solely run blogs are not generally considered a reliable source. But this user who is taking an issue with me, Blueboy96, seems to be abusing his administrative power. I am tech-savvy enough to know that a link appearing on a Wikipedia page has no bearing on a site's Pagerank or monetary status, so I am confused why Blueboy96 is unable to get off his high horse and recognize this was due to a lack of knowledge on my part which SpikeToronto clarified and enlightened me on before. I then proceed to apologize and correct my error on judgment, but all I get is a snappy response accusing me of being a spammer and an insincere apologist. I am posting links to relevant content in generally obscure Wikipedia articles (since the feature of the article is often an unsigned or independent artist), so the 9 or 10 extra hits gathered per week from Wikipedia really is not substantial enough to ban me. Even SpikeToronto agreed that the link I notedbefore (http://www.theartssection.com/2009/09/music-neon-indian.html) was not in compliance with guidelines, and since it is a personal blog how am I supposed to gather that a site with a longer history and more frequent updates than "theartssection" would be considered "linkspam"? I understand the issue now that SpikeToronto told me, but I have not had ONE warning on Wikipedia prior to today. I explained earlier why I did not comply to the first warning today; I did not see it in my inbox until I had edited two more articles similarly.
Any input would be appreciated. I plan to take this issue to a higher power if need be, since I find the response of Blueboy96 to be highly unprofessional. Wikipedia would be a better place if the administrators would be more coherent and approachable, just as SpikeToronto was with me, and I know Wikipedia grows with the average user's experience with it. I do not know how anyone should be encouraged to contribute positively to Wikipedia if they have to deal with representatives as rude and incoherent as Blueboy96.
Thank you.}} |}
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
