Dmitryp123

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. 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 websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website 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 page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Mean as custard (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

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 may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Sro23 (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ian.thomson (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Spam disguised as references are still considered spam. Also, you were edit warring big time. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

If you are interested in contributing positively, using professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources (instead of commercial sources), go ahead and file an unblock request. Do not try to blame Sro23 or Mean as Custard (they were in the right here). Do not try to argue that the website you were citing wasn't a commercial site or that we don't really have a problem with it. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand

Ian I don't understand

I see other companies like laserplasticwelding.com and lpkfusa adding their websites. More than that Laserplasticwelding.com even has Plastic welding keyword right inside the link in the body of the text. I am adding our website as a reference on the bottom. Is it the plastic laser welding keyword that's bothering you? If you would like I can put simply CMS Laser as a reference.

How is my

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).

Dmitryp123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am not using wikapedia as an advertising vehicle. Adding Heat Conduction Welding to the page is legitimate. How is my addition different from laserplasticwelding.com and lpkfusa who have links to their website. Is the word "Plastic laser Welding" a problem? I can put "other applications" and make it a link just like lpkf is doing with "Common Applications". Lpkf is a commercial website that sells lasers. So why do you have problem with our website? I am not trying to be argumentative here. I'm just trying to understand. I work directly for the company and I am not an SEO agency or anything of that sort. I'm posting to Wikapedia for the first time so maybe a little guidance would work out a lot better than blocking me. I am not spamming and our company actually makes laser welding machines. We've been in business for more than 30 years and this text was written by an engineer. Please advise..

Decline reason:

We don't get to promote our businesses on Wikipedia. I've removed the "laserplasticwelding" link; where is the lpkfusa one so I can remove that too? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:52, 26 July 2016 (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.

Most of the links in Reference section go to commercial websites. Also the ones in Further Reading.

Looks like someone's taken care of that. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

You really did not need to ban me you know. I was just following example that was already on the page.

{{unblock}} (Now removed) mistakes by others do not justify further mistakes by you. Commercial links are not appropriate references. if multiple editors who know more about this site than you are telling you to stop doing something, you should stop until you know what you're doing. You are going to have to accept and admit that you screwed up if you're going to have any hope of being unblocked. Polite ignorance will not get you unblocked: you must demonstrate that you know what you did wrong and let us know how you will avoid making those same mistakes in the future. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Dmitryp123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I accept and admit that I screwed up. I honestly thought that the problem was with validity of the content and not the fact that a link back is considered advertising/spam. I figured that if the other content had links to commercial websites and that content was accepted by editors then my content would be accepted as well. Furthermore, I followed the path of other people on this page in order to avoid any problems. I now understand precisely what I've done wrong. According to Guidelines this is considered spam/advertising and users who engage in such activity will be banned. Commercial links are not appropriate references. I know that this is a long shot and the odds of being unblocked are very slim, I still want to acknowledge that I accept and admit that I screwed up. I followed what other people have done wrong and assumed that I was doing it right. I guess the fact that baby ducks follow faithfully along doesn't prove that the mother knows where she is going. Thanks again for your consideration.

Accept reason:

Ok then. Remember, advice and warnings from experienced editors is generally a better guide than existing article content. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

{{unblock}}