Latest comment: 15 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing their websites from appearing on Wikipedia.
By the way, the above automated warning is the first time we call your link, and your actions, spamming, the main reason to remove the link is because it fails our policies and guidelines. Thanks. --Dirk BeetstraTC09:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
You read what I said here, and explained you that though your link is not spam, that it fails our policies and guidelines. I have blocked you for 31 hours to give you time to read those Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, and I hope you understand, that further additions may result in immediate blacklisting for abusing our edit privileges for continuous insertion of external links, which may indeed result in a perfectly suitable link being excluded from use. Your approach is NOT the way. Thanks.
W You have been blocked for a period of 31 hours from editing Wikipedia for continuing to add spam links. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia. --Dirk BeetstraTC09:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
I came along as someone who is not versed in Wikipedia but who is 100% involved in the Mod subculture. I looked at the links that had been added in this category (most of which i have myself added to the Open Directory Project) and added one of my own. After a while my link started being removed by User:Mike.lifeguard who states: If I removed your favourite link, I consider it to be spam. If you disagree, revert me. If you'd rather talk about it, please do so on Meta. So i reverted it and i noted that this user subsequently withdrew their objection. Recently my link started to be reverted again so i did the same.
Just to be sure you know - i spend several hours per day maintaining the site `the mod generation` as well as contributing to several other mod sites and maintaining the Open Directory Project category for Modernism/Mod - this is done without any financial incentive (there is no advertising or requests for donations on this site - unlike some of the others which are linked to in the Wikipedia category). To be refered to as spam and accused of disruptive edits is therefore quite insulting.
If you could be more clear on what your objection is and what you want me to do it would be quite helpful. At the moment, as far i can assertain, all of the links currently in place should be removed as they are either repeated on several categories, contain an abudance of advertising, contain copyrighted material, are not maintained regularly or properly, have not been party to any discussion, or are not enitirely specific to the topic. Note, however, i have no objection to these links and i have included most of them myself elsewhere but i would like to be judged under the same criteria that has judged these links to be acceptable.
If you simply tell me how i can resolve this matter i would be grateful
Hi, Glasgowmods. Since I'm a senior editor at the Open Directory Project and I have a lot of experience at Wikipedia, I think I might be able to help you understand what's going on.
The Open Directory is a categorized directory of internet links (with short descriptions), so it is totally appropriate to create lists of weblinks there (that's what it's for). Internet links are welcome there.
In contrast, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia consists of text information about specific topics. Wikipedia's policy specifically says it's not a directory and it has external linking guidelines that explain that weblinks should not be listed in an article unless they add substantial informational value above and beyond the contents of the article. Few weblinks meet that test. If you add links that do not meet that test, you may be accused of adding spam (this is what happened with you). No one is saying there is something wrong with the links, only that they don't belong in the encyclopedia. Similarly, if you tried to write an encyclopedia article in the Open Directory, you probably would be warned for violating the Open Directory Project guidelines -- because the Open Directory is a web directory, not an encyclopedia.
It's possible to contribute to both ODP and Wikipedia, but you need to remember that the two webprojects have different purposes. --Orlady (talk) 03:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Orlady, many thanks for your input on this matter which i really appreciate. I would certainly accept any decision based on the contents of the website, although i do feel, as it is in fact documenting aspects of the mod subculture, The Mod Generation[1] would certainly add value to the article. If the matter could be reviewed I feel sure The Mod Generation could suitably be placed alongside the other links already in place. In any case, it is at least of some comfort that the site is not considered spam!
On the subject of the Open Directory Project, i mentioned that i edit the Modernist subcategory (as 'troublewithid')in Society/Subcultures[2] - i have asked for this to be renamed 'Mod' or perhaps 'Mods' which is more likely to be used as a search term and would tie in with the title of the article in Wikipedia. I have made a requests through the boards. If you can help with this i would again be grateful!
I've looked at the ODP category, the Wikipedia article, and your request on the ODP internal forum, all with your concerns in mind. I have some ideas regarding recommendations, but I do not yet have time to write them out in full. I did, however, remove some "related categories" from the ODP category because they were redundant with other linked categories. Also, I added several URLs to the unreviewed queue in the ODP category. --Orlady (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Orlady - as you'll have guessed i'm still feeling my way on DMOZ (and may have lost it completely on Wikipedia) - i am therefore most grateful for your input and assistance. i've already added those URL's and am interested in taking on anything that developes the Mod category - for instance i would like to take on the http://www.dmoz.org/Arts/Music/Styles/P/Pop/Mod/ category which currently has no editor.
ps i've got to add that i still believe 'the mod generation' would adds as much to the Wikipedia Mod topic as any of the other links in place.
After reviewing the items listed in Mod (lifestyle)#External links, it is my considered opinion that none of the links listed there meets the criteria of WP:EL#What to link. All are commercial websites, blogs, personal sites, and other content that is not normally linked. None appears to be a uniquely valuable informational addition to the article.
Instead of trying to select a few mod-related websites to list as ELs in the article, I see this as an instance where item 3 under WP:ELMAYBE is the best advice. That section says: "A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. Long lists of links are not acceptable. A directory link may be a permanent link or a temporary measure put in place while external links are being discussed on the article's talk page. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the Template: dmoz template." In accordance with that guideline, I would suggest that the list of links in Mod (lifestyle)#External links could be replaced by a single link to http://dmoz.org/Society/Subcultures/Modernist . HOWEVER, because both you and I are associated with dmoz, I don't recommend that you follow that route until there has been additional discussion with unaffiliated editors. If there were more activity on the article's discussion page, I would suggest that you post a proposal to do that on Talk:Mod (lifestyle). However, because there is little evidence of activity on that page, I suggest that you post a proposal/query on Wikipedia talk:External links, and post a message on the article's discussion page notifying others that you posted a query on Wikipedia talk:External links. Note that if you take this route, you need to commit to keeping the dmoz category as comprehensive as possible. --Orlady (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
You have been warned over and over first to discuss, and to use other ways. Hence:
W
You have been 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. --Dirk BeetstraTC18:13, 10 June 2009 (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).
the site has been blocked as spam but it relates 100% directly to the topic and contains nothing but relevant and useful information about the topic - as far as i can see no other links have been discussed before their addition (or subsequently reviewed and castigated in this way). I spend several hours per day maintaining the site `the mod generation` as well as contributing to several other mod sites and generally doing my part to keep the scene alive and in the news[3]- this is done without any financial incentive (there is no advertising or requests for donations on the site). I would be grateful to have this block removed and the link restored. Thanks
Glasgowmods (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Decline reason:
There is no point in your pusuing this line of argument. On your own website you can, presumably, do as you like; but here you have to do it in accordance with our policies, which prohibit the addition of the links which you have been adding. Are you prepared to abide by this policy? --Anthony.bradbury"talk"20:48, 15 June 2009 (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.
Ok, given this agreement, I've unblocked you. Since you've been blocked before for this issue, you can expect that if you return to linkspamming, the next time your block will be indefinite. I suggest you develop editing interests other than posting this link. Mangojuicetalk18:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. 
