Mrweb2010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Adding an official and related resource to an article in support of own country and providing further information to the reader based on a specific article is not marketing or spam attempt. How dare I be blocked for adding valuable information, not to mention an OFFICIAL resources to the provided section of the given article.
Decline reason:
Er, that looks like a textbook example of linkspam. You joined up specifically to promote this website, by the look of things. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:44, 11 March 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.
Mrweb2010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The problem which I see with your ignorant replies and action's towards my updates, is that I am a long time user and reader of Wikipedia (mainly within the NZ section) and first time editor. I came across some NZ based articles which I added further resources too, of a website which I like to use and support and had re-added this resource as I believe it to be of value, an official information portal to New Zealand and I do not appreciate being labeled as a 'Spammer', from some uneducated people who do not understand the meaning of providing information, content and resources by simply calling a valid link, linkspam. I suggest you take some time to review the meaning of 'spam' and 'content resources' before acting upon incorrect facts and labeling someone a 'spammer', you give people a little bit of power on a website and they believe they are good and can act how they wish... it's amusing how those people have accomplished nothing in life... so go ahead and block me for which ever reason you come up with as I have clearly not lost any thing from this site and the ignorant people who seem to run it.
Decline reason:
Let's look at the WHOIS information:
- admin_contact_name: DB Freelance
- admin_contact_address1: PO BOX 33298
- admin_contact_city: Christchurch
- This is clearly not an official information portal to New Zealand, and is not sanctioned by the government of New Zealand. This would be quite clear to anyone who has viewed the site in question. Its addition is a WP:SPAM link. It's re-addtion after valid removal is WP:DISRUPTion.
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.
)
- "Official" how? As far as I can see there are already links to what appears to be an official tourism site, and the one you're linking to doesn't seem to claim it's official from a quick skim. If you're at all unsure of why we're so paranoid about this sort of thing: you say you've been a long time reader of Wikipedia, but about how useful do you think the site would be if we allowed our content to be dictated by the whim of every commercial interest that happened to wander by? They certainly do try, but if we didn't do a very persistent job keeping them out I'd daresay the encyclopedia wouldn't be nearly as useful or successful as it is, today.
That's not to say that I think your site is unimportant or anything else of the sort; that's not really relevant, per our guidelines on external linking. – Luna Santin (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Mrweb2010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
You believe the added resource link (website) is mine? Haha I am no designer, I could only dream of having a site like that, I am only a user, which once again is being labeled by your so called administrators as a spammer and self promoting a website, please review the facts as per my previous statement - "I came across some NZ based articles which I added further resources too, of a website which I like to use and support and had re-added this resource as I believe it to be of value, an official information portal to New Zealand". The site is officially registered in NZ, has the official domain extension and provides content only targeted and marketed for New Zealand, thus making it an official representation of New Zealand. However this is beside the point, I understand why I was blocked and gave my point of view, why I'm still blocked is not known?
Decline reason:
One request at a time, please... You can make additional replies without using this template. Hersfold (t/a/c) 14:26, 11 March 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.
- So it is officially a website? That's not quite the same as being an official website, I'm afraid. What organization with standing to do so has endorsed this website, and in what capacity? – Luna Santin (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Mrweb2010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Yes of course it is a website and also a resource to further information based on New Zealand, therefore it was added to those articles I had chosen. The site provides official information on New Zealand, businesses, travel etc... and has Government websites listed as well, thus providing valid information and official content in my eyes. However if you seem to have such a problem with this, we'll let it be. What has frustrated me the most is how this has been handled and how I have been accused of being a 'spammer', this is not only rude to me but also very offensive.
Decline reason:
One request at a time, please... You can make additional replies without using this template. Hersfold (t/a/c) 14:26, 11 March 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.
- As you've now admitted the site is not an "official information portal" as you described above, your earlier claims seem somewhat disingenuous. I'm sorry you're offended, but please bear in mind the issues I brought up above: Wikipedia is not a directory, and attempts to turn us into one detract from the usefulness of the site. In the meantime, you've given every indication that your sole purpose in editing is to add links to this site, which we're probably not going to unblock you to do. Is there anything else you're interested in editing? – Luna Santin (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Mrweb2010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
That is incorrect, Wikipedia is a site to share information, resources and adding further content, which I had done... however you seem to think that I came here to promote links, what is this based on? I had produced other updates on the Trade Me article then just adding a related resource. This proves my point in my previous statement that you are providing incorrect information towards myself. I will repeat myself in saying I am a long time reader and user and first time editor, I had planned to add some information to another article 'football based' which interested me, which did not involve adding a linked resource. However it seems I can say what I want, I get incorrect facts thrown at me and labeled something which I am not. I understand your thoughts and why I was blocked, however you do not seem to wish to understand me and why I had added the resource in my mind.
Decline reason:
I believe you misunderstand Wikipedia's purpose. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not an indiscriminate collection of information (in fact, there's a long list of things it's not). Our belief that you're here only to add links is a simple conclusion from looking at your edits, every single one of which is adding links to these directories. The username "Mrweb2010" isn't helping your case much either. Now, before appealing again, I would strongly recommend you read through what Wikipedia is not, our policies on external links and advertising, and get a general grasp of what Wikipedia's mission and purpose is. Continuing to defend your addition of links is not likely to get you unblocked. Hersfold (t/a/c) 14:34, 11 March 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.
Mrweb2010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hersfold, you simply confirm my statement that you and your 'so called' administrators do not even slightly accept that my given argument and understanding of Wikipedia is correct. You also prove my point that you will use anything to say against me in order to not give me my freedom to read and edit, for example: such a little thing as my username, this is laughable. What is it of your business what my username is called? Is it rude? No, is it offensive? No, Mrweb2010, tell's you I like the web, another word for internet or net as you may wish to call it. Once again it's clear to see how ignorant the people of this site are, as mentioned in my very first post. I had informed you that I had also made other changes, for example the Trade Me article which was not link related. You are producing incorrect facts, labeling me in an offensive manner as a 'spammer' and wording around every statement I made, simply because I added more information and resources for the potential readers of those articles. I listened to Luna's side and how she saw it, however non of you wish to see my side which I had mentioned a number of times now and advised I wont be linking any resources, spare me your excuses and policy talk, I listened, I understood, yet you don't seem to listen or wish to understand why such content was selected and added from my prospective... you need to listen first to be heard.
Decline reason:
I have seen enough here. The continued re-addition of a link that is to a commercial site is the 100% definition of a spammer - nobody says you own it or contribute to it. If you were to stop trying to either justify the link as "official" (which it's not) or to continually assert that you have a right or freedom to add whatever you want to Wikipedia, then we may further consider your unblock request. Right now, you're WP:WIKILAWYERING, and very poorly. The site is NOT official to NZ, it's commercial - MILLIONS of such sites exist around the world, and that does not justify them as external links. Your arguments are wholly disingenuous, and offensive. Claiming otherwise is wrong. Because you simply do not get that what you are doing is inappropriate, I will be removing access to your talkpage. Unblock requests may be made in other ways. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:58, 11 March 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.