User talk:Desg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Clarification of spamming dispute

Complete information about spamming claims resolved in this discussion for the record... "The Lead came and copper foil glasswork"

[edit] License tagging for Image:Hd-web pages-desg-village chapel dove.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hd-web pages-desg-village chapel dove.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spam

Please stop. If you continue to use Wikipedia for advertising, you will be blocked from editing. Hbdragon88 06:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop adding commercial or personal-website links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks. RogerJ 09:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove legitimate warnings from your talk page or replace them with inappropriate content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. If you continue to remove or vandalize legitimate warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. Captainktainer * Talk 15:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'm concerned that since some of your added links have been removed in accordance to the external link policy, it now appears you are removing other links on similar pages that are appropriate. I advise you to familiarize yourself with the guideline of "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point". Perhaps these are good faith removals (and certainly external link spamming is frowned upon), but they also seem somewhat retaliatory given recent events. Please keep this guideline in mind with future edits. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

What is fair for one should be fair for all. The link in question is a commercial site created solely for revenue purposes. If its allowed to remain then comparable links should have the right as well. This spam issue shoul be a zero tolerance policy. What is ones opinion over anothers should be avoided as illustrated by your term "appropriate". I am willing to discuss this further and bring to a higher authority on Wiki to resolve.

I was referring to this edit [1]. Sorry, I should've provided a specific diff. Also, please sign your posts with 4 tildes (~~~~) in order to automatically provide your name & the date/time. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Upon further review, this edit does seem to be close to violating POINT [2]. Another editor reverted your removal of the link indicating that it does satisfy the requirements in WP:EL [3]. If you disagree, you should discuss on talk page, and not simply delete again. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. RogerJ 18:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3 Revert Rule

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Lead came and copper foil glasswork. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The three-revert rule goes both ways. Please reinstate the link after it has been approved by a higher authority. Thank you

I would not hold your breath if I were you. Most of the higher authorities around here are not terribly keen on spammers. Spammers who edit war over their links are even less popular. And spammers who then disrupt Wikipedia to make a pointless are, to be blunt, about as welcome as a fart in a space suit. ZimZalaBim beat me to the block. Guy 18:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

 You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

--ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Being a newbie here I guess I'll wait for arbitration. Again I ask how is an external link allowed to be used pointing to a revenue/ advertising website allowed and others not? The rules should stand for all external links. opinions to revelance and or validity should not be overlooked by Wiki policy. My original link pointing to a well displayed collection of related information to the topic was unfairly removed. DESG

I personally have no strong opinion on the validity of that link (but other's apparently do). The point of the matter is to work out the differences via discussion and to arrive at a consensus, rather then persist with disruptive reverts. As a newbie, perhaps you should spend the time during your block to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia. Here is a good starting point: WP:WELCOME --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your comment at the Administrators' noticeboard, you may also be interested in our No Legal Threats policy. Conscious 18:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

So why the sudden block? Shouldn't the issue been examined a bit more and look into the reasons I felt the link was as commercial as mine or more. Not to mention my original link was removed unfairly and abruptly. Reason given it was spam... Is there a set guideline for this or does it just apply to opinion? As for your condescending remark for what I can do with my time... Your suggestion for me to read up a bit... I am insulted.

Blocking for 3RR is pretty much automatic and should not be taken personally. The spirit and the letter of that policy are clear: do not edit war. Edit warring over links to your own site is particularly problematic (see WP:EL). Please live and learn. Guy 22:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Administrator involvement

Except in cases of vandalism, if an administrator has personally been involved in a content dispute on that page, that administrator should not block the user for 3RR violations. Instead, the administrator in this situation should make a request at the administrators' noticeboard if they believe 3RR has been broken. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Desg (talk • contribs) .

Could very well be termed vandalism, as you readded the link even though three users (RogerJ, Captainktainer, and FreplySpang) before the blocking admin blocked you. Or that you violated 3RR long befor the admin actually intervened. Hbdragon88 20:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
And my only involvement has been in relation to concern over violations of WP:POINT and WP:3RR. I've had no opinion on the appropriateness of that particular link/content. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Friendly Warning

You end your block and go back and have another go at the links. I have now reverted you. A word to the wise. You should be very careful. If you continue to flout the rules here you will end up getting banned. --Spartaz 22:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Who are you? What role do you play in this?

[edit] Final warning

Please stop. This edit (and its edit summary) [4] reads like an attempt to game the system by adding a link to a page on your personal website that happens to not have advertisements. You have been warned numerous times about the external link policy and the general inappropriateness of linking to one's own website. Even after being blocked, you persist to add links that the community have deemed inappropriate. If you continue, you will almost certainly blocked from editing (for much longer than 3 hours), and run the risk of having your site placed on a spam blacklist. Please do not revert or add such links without discussing and building consensus for their inclusion. Thank you. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Linking to your own website is allowed (I checked the rules) if done with a relative and non abusive way. I removed all sponsor ads on the site and wish to share my information with the stained glass community. Is this the building of consensus? I have complied with all of the rules and wish to add my valuable resource to the listing. What do I need to do now? Please let me know what other rules are involved here. I don't wish to get anyone angry and remove my post being so. I'd rather avoid that situation altogether.

Thanks DESG

First, while the page you linked to does not have ads, the main page (which is one link away) appears to be primarily a commercial site. Second, to repeat myself, discuss the possible inclusion of the link on the article's talk page to try to arrive an consensus. (This has been suggested numerous times). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sign your posts

To repeat myself again: please sign your posts on talk pages by typing 4 tildes (~~~~), which will automatically place your name and a date/time stamp. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

What is NPOV? Neutral Point Of View. Please check this page before making further edits.[[5]] RogerJ 12:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last Warning

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. RogerJ 18:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The final warning above was issued after this spamming incident [[6]]. However, after receiving the final warning, you have spammed again, re-adding a link that has been removed several times already [[7]]. RogerJ 11:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add external links that have previously been removed and where no consensus has been established after requesting inclusion on the talk page. Thank you. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 12:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

All links in the article have been removed. See the long comment I left on article talk. Please try and avoid controversy in future as I would prefer to spend my time editing articles than keeping an eye on you and RogerJ. Try to work together can you? --Spartaz 13:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)