50.195.17.118

This shared IP address has received multiple warnings for inappropriate edits. Since different users may be using this IP address, many of these warnings may be stale. Click [show] at far right to see all previous warnings and/or blocks.
The following is a record of previous warnings and/or blocks left for this IP. Please do not modify it.
Your recent edits Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC) September 2017 Hello, I'm Drchriswilliams. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Sharable Content Object Reference Model have been removed 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. Drchriswilliams (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC) Hi, thanks for letting me know. I don't know why you are singling out my entry when there are similar ones to mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.195.17.118 (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC) Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Sharable Content Object Reference Model. 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. Drchriswilliams (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC) HELLO!!! ------------------------------ You are not responding to my statements. Why is it that my entry is being removed, yet other entries that are similar remain? I will keep adding my entry until you provide an explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.195.17.118 (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC) Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Sharable Content Object Reference Model. 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. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC) You never answer my queries. Why do other similar entries remain while mine is removed 50.195.17.118 (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC) You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Sharable Content Object Reference Model. 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. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC) You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for adding spam links. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Alexf(talk) 17:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC) 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). 50.195.17.118 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I am adding entries to the SCORM Page which are entirely consistent with other entries, yet my entries are removed and now I am blocked. How is this fair? 50.195.17.118 (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC) Decline reason: You've done nothing in five years here but add links to traincaster. You might want to look at WP:COI and WP:SPAM to understand why we're not letting you do this. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 17:39, 26 September 2017 (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. 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). 50.195.17.118 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Why won't you answer my question? Why are other entries that are similar to mine are allowed to remain, yet mine are removed? 50.195.17.118 (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC) Decline reason: One request at a time, please. Max Semenik (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2017 (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. 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). 50.195.17.118 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I see that you have removed the other links. So, I guess I was justified in my edits. Please remove the block on my account. 50.195.17.118 (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC) Decline reason: You still spammed, and you still see nothing bad about it. Max Semenik (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2017 (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. 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). 50.195.17.118 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: You are incorrect, I am not a spammer. I am simply adding legitimate entries into relevant locations on this site. My previous inserts on the SCORM page had an external link, but I was simply following the format of two other entries which were external links to LMSs. When I added my entry which was also an external link to an LMS, it was removed. It appears that I am the victim of arbitrary exclusion. 50.195.17.118 (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Decline reason: You were IP socking with this IPv6 range to evade this block. We're done. The IPv6 range is hardblocked as is this IP now. Your talk page access is revoked as we don't need anymore insincere unblock requests as they waste our time. You may use the UTRS system as instructed below to file an unblock request but you will have to agree NOT to add the link to your site and you will also have to read and demonstrate that you understand our conflict of interest guideline.  — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2017 (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. Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.    — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Noting additional range used in 2015 - 1.  — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC) This chronic spammer previously used both Special:Contributions/208.253.167.83 and Special:Contributions/208.253.167.13 and had received warnings prior to his use of this IP address.  — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Additional ranges 1, 2  — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

---