Mayavis
January 2010
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added such as to the page Mohanlal do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Dædαlus Contribs 06:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Mohanlal. 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 web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site 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 article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Community website cannot be used as sources for anything. — Dædαlus Contribs 21:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Mayavis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
user 'Daedalus969' is doing injustice to the website added by me, if this is the reason many of the links existing under reference must also might have removed, why he is targeting only the site posted by me?, this is a deliberate attempt to promote the other site completeactor.com which they claim as the official site. It is not at all justifiable to block me for adding a reference to that site. As mentioned in the previous waring, i added the topic under talk, but that also got removed. please unblock me.
Decline reason:
I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. -FASTILY (TALK) 08:12, 24 January 2010 (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.
- If the complete actor is not an official site, I'll gladly remove it, but, from what I have read it is. As to your site, it is a fansite, and thus not allowed. Further, it even says in the disclaimer that the site is unofficial. We do not post unofficial sites.— Dædαlus Contribs 08:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Mayavis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
hi, i read the wiki policy policy yesterday and that is why i removed myself the link which i added under external links (please refer the history). But is it against policy to link to an article about the play 'Karnabharam' and 'biography' from same website under the reference section. In that case many of the links under reference must be against your policy. From the behavior of the Wikipedia admins i feel, this is a planned attempt against mohanlalonline.com and the blocked admin has some personal issue with this site. If you still feel it is against the policy, I am sorry. but please advice why you are not removing other sites and doing only this to me?
Decline reason:
Assuming malice despite evidence that none is intended suggests to me that you would go right back to spamming your fansite were you unblocked. Dædalus has twice told you why we cannot accept your site as a source. I suggest you stop ignoring him. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 11:16, 24 January 2010 (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.
First of all, I already told you why I was removing the ELs. As for the references, I already told you why as well, but I will again. Your fansite does not meet our policy on reliable sources, and thus cannot be used as a source.— Dædαlus Contribs 09:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
{unblock|sorry, i will not add any link to that site any more and my ban is now more that 1 month. my apologies. If you can unblock me, i can contribute some other contents to wikipedia. Hope you will do the needful.}}
{unblock|sorry, i will not add any link to that site any more and my ban is now more that 1 month. my apologies. If you can unblock me, i can contribute some other contents to wikipedia. Hope you will do the needful.}}