Gabyth

August 2010

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. [1] MrOllie (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Please elaborate on why you believe the link is inappropriate. Gabyth (talk)

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, 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.

Nothing indicates this is a notable list. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

How are you defining notable? Just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't mean it's not worth adding. Sometimes the best information on a topic doesn't come from the shortlist of sources that you know. Also, I have yet to see anything in the spam section that would place the added link into that category.

In the most basic sense, mentioned by another in a significant way. You have provided nothing to indicate this is considered a notable list by anybody, anywhere, at any time. Whether or not I've heard of it is irrelevant, and quite frankly, beyond your ability to judge. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added an article on the Daily Beast where it was mentioned prominently, another article where I actually found out about the list is subscription only, but in a respected industry publication, and I've seen more than a few blogs on the list who've included it among their press section or covered in some way. For an article about fashion blogs, why do you consider fashion blogs and publications mentioning it "not notable" or "significant"?

Additionally, here's a link from the Mississippi State University library's collection of fashion reference links that includes a link to the list. http://guides.library.msstate.edu/content.php?pid=48394&sid=407243

I'm sure you'll say it's not respectable or notable enough because it's not Harvard or Yale, but good, relevant information comes from plenty of places that you may not personally find "notable." I'm not trying to create an article on the list, but it gives up to date context to many of the statements in the article that are out of date. Not to mention, no one has yet to mention what would constitute it as spam.

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. MrOllie (talk) 02:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Fashion blog. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Phoenixrod (talk) 02:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries

Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field – please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you. -Phoenixrod (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits, such as this edit you made to Fashion blog. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing without further notice.   — Jeff G.  ツ 03:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

My edits are not the problem. Users removing edits because of personal biases is. Also, I have not spammed or vandalized anything. Please re-read the guidelines. You are mistaken

Block evasion

If you disagree with your block then you should follow the instructions at User talk:74.73.156.96 on how to appeal. Simply using another account and ignoring the block is not an acceptable procedure. I do not know the rights or wrongs of your original block, but I am going to block this account for 31 hours so that, if you wish to be unblocked, you can go through the proper procedure. I shall also restart the 31 hours block on 74.73.156.96. Please note that I am not judging the merits of your original block, and you are perfectly welcome to appeal against it if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note that I have closed the unblock request at the IP address in favor of the discussion here. I don't see any reason to have two parallel discussions. Kuru (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Blocked as vandalism for removing untrue information - not any true vandalism violation

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information.  Sandstein  18:26, 10 August 2010 (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.

Are you aware that Wikipedia automatically logs you out of your account when you open a new browser session? At least in my case it does. I created an account specifically because I was trying to provide a more accountable place for the edits I make, but have been accused of spamming for trying to do so. I don't feel I should be blocked because none of the edits I've made constitute vandalism. I'm also not trying to evade the block, but sometimes I start a new session and have been logged out automatically. I don't care if the IP is connected to my account, and I'm not trying to hide behind either. I'm trying to make an old, out of date and in some places false article better, and at every point I've gotten nothing but abuse from people accusing me (without merit) of spam, vandalism and all kinds of other things which are not the case.

I have not accused you of trying to evade the block, and you certainly were not trying to "hide", as you have made it perfectly clear all along that you were the same user. In fact I have no reason at all to doubt that you have been acting in good faith all along, which is one of the reasons that I am convinced that it is a mistake to call your editing "vandalism". (You will see, if you care to look, that at User talk:Fastily#Unfair blocking I said that the accusation of vandalism was not justified.) However, whatever your intentions were, the effect of what you have done is to get round a block, without asking for an appeal and thereby getting your block reconsidered by an administrator. The action I have taken is intended to ensure that, if you are to avoid the effect of the block, you will have to do so by that process. It is not intended to be a punishment, and does not reflect at all on your motivation. With hindsight perhaps "block evasion" was not the best expression to use, but it was the one which came naturally to mind as it is the one normally used in Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I tried updating this to appeal based on the reason that was listed. Is this incorrect? I can see how it looks like I was trying to get around the block by using the IP account, but as explained, it's an unintentional result of not always realizing when I wasn't logged in. Is this considered an appeal? I read that the text in the bracket should be brief, so I've tried to respect that. I admit, I'm new, so I'm not saying I haven't made mistakes, but I have tried to follow the process for everything.

Also, I'd like to say that in the appeal, I put the reason for what I believed to be the original block - that some people marked everything I did as spam or vandalism, even when this was clearly not the case according to the guidelines. I gave up on trying to add content, and my last edits to remove out of date and incorrect statements, were still marked as spam. As an example, I tried to remove a part about Variety and the Sydney Morning Herald having a fashion blog. Variety's fashion blog closed in 2008, and Sydney Morning Herald's closed in 2007, so to say they have fashion blogs is false as a result of being outdated. There are a lot more examples, but I haven't found anything that would suggest removing incorrect information is spam or vandalism, but all of my edits to do so were marked that way out of existing biases rather than actual spam or vandalism.