User talk:68.54.56.198

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "::(edited to remove personal attacks--Ben^chat 12:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC))! If you would take 3 seconds to check your facts you'd see that I haven't added so much as a period to the page in question, so how could I have been adding links, inappropriate or otherwise?! The information I've been putting BACK has been on that page for months without problem. Mr. Nascar didn't like his edits being undone, so he labled me as a vandal. now you, mr. Haemo don't give a damn whether I'm doing what I was accused of. I say again, there is no definition of spam in the known universe which covers Preventing something from being removed which has a Long-Standing History of being where it is. The fact that I'm being kept from moderation isn't bad enough but the block will be upheld based on...? NOTHING. I didn't add anything to the page! You didn't even look or you would have quickly seen that!"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: ""A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia to produce a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia, and the potential motivations of an individual editor. COI editing often involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote yourself or the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups. When an editor disregards the aims of Wikipedia to advance outside interests, they stand in a conflict."

There is no incompatibility. Wikipedia, SUPPOSEDLY wants to produce a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia. That's exactly what I want. There is no interest in promoting myself or the interest of other individuals, companies, or groups. I aim to provide the best resource both here and on my site. That's my primary motivation, it overrides every other motivation which could be brought into focus here and of all the people involved in this "edit war" I seem to be the ONLY one who cares most about the stated purpose of Wikipedia. All the care about is:

"There are three types of wikispam. These are: advertisements masquerading as articles, external link spamming, and "Wikipedian-on-Wikipedian" spamming or, "canvassing" (also known as "internal spamming" and "cross-posting"). Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website. However, a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities."

My site is not an advertisement. I spend countless hours editing my site for the same reason as is stated in paragraph one. I gain no profit of any kind, nor any fame, or any other personal benefit beyond feeling good for having done something good for the community. You can't FIND another motivation, because one does not exist. This is no solicitation for a business, product, or service. There is no "promotion" of a company or individual. The site is a very good resource about First Person Shooters.

A "personal hobbyist site" has absolutely no bearing on the usefulness of a resource. In fact, having a commercial interest clearly violates the neutrality standard espoused. FirstPersonShooters.net has nearly as much information as any other site on the internet. It has information about lesser-known and older titles that most of the commercial sites do not have. Most importantly, it's genre-specific so the information is all easy to locate and non-commercial.

Decline reason: "WP:EL states the following: "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked." — Yamla 18:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "Once again let me say I've added the link in question only one time, about a year ago, and it was fully accepted by a vibrant (at the time) community. Now I'm preventing vandalism by preventing the link from being removed. All the "against policy" and all negative are on the side of those removing it. It wasn't spam when I put it here, and since I've not ever added it again, only preventing it from being summarily and improperly removed, it's not spam now. The people constantly having me blocked and labling me as a spammer or vandal should have their accounts deleted as they obviously do not care about what's good for the community here, and use the rules only to fit their ego, not the good of the pages they're editing. Most of them have not done even the most rudimentary research to see whether they were accomplishing a positive goal on behalf of their position of power, they have merely used the "appearance of impropriety" and "argument from power" to make a decision in line with those they followed. In any case, a most valuable resource is being removed from a wikipedia page on it's subject. This should be cause for concern amongst whatever policy-makers care about the usefulness of Wikipedia."

Decline reason: "You appear to not yet have a full understanding of the external links policy; specifically, you appear not to understand that you really cannot add a link that the community consensus doesn't support, and that you cannot add a link to your own web site. Since you appear to be planning to return to inappropriate edits if unblocked, it would be unwise of any admin to unblock you. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.