User talk:YuriM865

Pongr[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Pongr, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://wikimobipedia.org/index.php?title=Pongr. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Jamie Thompson has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://twitter.com/jamie_thompson,. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Jamie Thompson 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.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://twitter.com/jamie_thompson. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. 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 will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Jamie Thompson 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.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://twitter.com/jamie_thompson. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 02:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Pongr[edit]

The article Pongr has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable tech business. References supplied are an internal site, a manual page, mention the subject only in passing, and the last does not mention it at all. I found nothing more promising, only announcements that the game, service, or whatever you call it, was available. Obvious promotional intent.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010[edit]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Mobile advertising. 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. bonadea contributions talk 17:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning. If you insert a spam link to Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 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. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019[edit]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. This doesn't seem to be the first (or second or third) time you've inserted potentially inappropriate links. Please discuss before reinserting them, thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Las Vegas Strip. 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. theinstantmatrix (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. aboideau^talk 18:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.selfieyo.com[edit]

Further spamming from other accounts will result in blacklisting[edit]

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia for continuing to add spam links. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may place {{unblock}} on your user talk page to have the block reviewed. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).

YuriM865 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

IAR request review. Nothing was done in bad faith. All of my updates were done to try to improve Wikipedia. When I made mistakes with external links, I tried removing and reposting. All of the content I added is genuinely appropriate, useful and meets the criteria of the pages the additions were posted to. I did insert some external links as I thought it was appropriate to link to the sources, but I later modified them to proper citations. The community seems to think that everyone adding content is a spammer. If you look at what I added, especially in the context of each respective page, you will see that they're all useful, thoughtful and valid contributions. YuriM865 (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You appear to be deliberately evading the conflict of interest issues raised here. Any unblock would be absolutely conditional on you openly declaring your conflict of interest. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:25, 9 April 2019 (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.

Your last 15 edits have been to either add or restore links to selfieyo.com, and your previous edits where either promoting Pongr or a non-notable Canadian musician. All of this strongly suggests an undisclosed WP:COI. A Google search yields some clues. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are not exactly correct. Those edits were 9 years ago. I have not tried to edit something for 9 years. Today I tried to contribute to an area I am well read on and I tried to cite appropriate. The 15 revisions are based on the reverting/fixing others were doing. Again, did anyone bother to look at the content or is the assumption that anyone other existing editors must be spammers or have some kind of paid agenda? If I had a paid agenda, I guess I've been on vacation for 9 years. Jeez. YuriM865 (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every single one of your edits is easily traced to a single individual. Either you are that individual or you are writing on his behalf. Furthermore, please only open one unblock request at a time; I've converted your second request into a comment. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I will not open a second unblock request.

Based on my reading of Wikipedia process, I should have been using the request for edits method in areas where there is any question of COI. That said, I do not believe any edits I made were unfounded. But for avoidance of doubt, I see that the request for edit method is better.

Nevertheless, I standby the positive contributions, but if Wikipedia admins choose to make it more about the bureaucracy, we all end up with a less credible Wikipedia.

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

YuriM865 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #24644 was submitted on Apr 08, 2019 21:05:19. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]