User talk:Johntth

February 2017

Hello, I'm SkyWarrior. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Screenshot without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. SkyWarrior 11:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm DVdm. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Division by 0 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. - DVdm (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Domain Name System. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link. 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. For persistently adding links to https://www.techquintal.com - DVdm (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Your recent editing history at Domain Name System shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Johntth. --Guy Macon (talk)

April 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Domain Name System. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. — O Fortuna^{velut luna...} 15:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing has consisted almost entirely of posting spurious "references" to articles, which in fact do not support content of the articles, and have clearly been posted for the purpose of publicising the web sites they link to. Whether your intention has been to attract Wikipedia readers to those sites or to abuse Wikipedia by using it as a medium for search engine optimisation, I neither know nor care: either way, you have been using Wikipedia for spam. You have also edit-warred in an attempt to prevent constructive editors from removing your fake "references". You have taken no notice whatever of messages expressing concerns about your editing, and it is clear that you have no intention of complying with Wikipedia policies. In view of that, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that in one of your edit summaries you wrote "There are no citations to let the users know about the best available DNS servers. So, added a useful link for listing the best DNS servers." However, citations do not exist to "let users know about" products, i.e. to publicise them: they exist to make it possible to verify content of Wikipedia articles. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I noted that most of your links referred to pieces by the same author. If this is you, that practice goes against our conflict of interest guideline. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Johntth (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #17979 was submitted on Apr 07, 2017 04:48:02. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 04:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Johntth (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

First of all, I am extremely sorry for violating the Wikipedia terms and conditions Unknowingly. I was posted the links because I thought it might be useful for the users. But later only (When you said) I realized those types of links are not suitable (As they are not kind of reference) and I can't repeatedly post the links from the same site. I was a newbie and I didn't know the problems of undoing the edits (I was just thinking that my edits are not being saved. That's why I undo the changes again until I got a warning. (Actually, I even didn't know about the "Talk" page and didn't saw any of the warnings until I checked it now. My bad.)) The whole problem happened due to my incomplete knowledge about the usage of Wikipedia. So, please give me a chance and I will never ever repeat the mistake. If I repeat, you can ban me forever. Again, I am sorry for my stupidity.Johntth (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Ok. I am unblocking you. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But, you still haven't responded to some questions above. Were you posting links to your own pieces? Do you understand that it is against WP:COI. Were you trying to promote certain we pages or authors? Do you understand that Wikipedia does not allow WP:promotion? What kind of edits do you intend to make if unblocked? Vanjagenije (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Answer for your questions. I wasn't promoting my own content at all. I was just trying to earn some trust and become a well-authorized user by helping the people and editing articles (Like already said, due to my lack of knowledge, I posted the links from same sites that I visited frequently.) Now, I completely understand it is completely against Wikipedia laws to post the content from same authors or website again and again (Honestly, I didn't knew that. I swear, I will never ever repeat that again.) I also understand that Wikipedia does not allow any type of promotions. If I get unblocked, I will never again repeat the things that I've done due to my lack of knowledge and will completely follow all the Wikipedia rules and regulations. I will only edit a piece of content If I really found any mistakes in It and only If I genuinely believe that it will help the users. I will never ever use any of the Wikipedia pages to promote any links or pages. Please give me one more chance. Johntth (talk) 04:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]