User talk:Adamos68

The link you are posting again and again is pointing to a website that has a lot of advertising and should not be here. I have read that page and it has no useful information. It looks you are posting your links for advertising revenue. If you post the link again I will report you. If you are really interested to help and improve this post then you are always welcome to edit the side effects section. Please do not post your advertising link again otherwise I will have to report you.

You have to take these kind of edit wars to the discussion page instead of continuously undoing changes. Please discuss first and then modify article. As the link was part of the article for long enough time it should stay until other editors submit their pov and agree / disagree. Craynesworld (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spam or not spam...[edit]

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 Beetstra ^{T C} 13:40, 29 March 2010 (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).

Adamos68 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Section Side effects and risks was written by me couple of months ago and I extensively used the information found on the page that I placed a reference link to at ILoveLaser. I believe that either the section needs to be completely re-written, or if we leave it as it is, the original source deserves to stay there as reference. The link was first removed by link spammers; they tried to change it several times to other low quality websites. Also, a third opinion has been requested regarding link (please see bottom of discussion page) and user Anaxial found the link to be NON spam as well. I got into an argument with one of the link spammers recently and user Beetstra, without any warning had my account blocked. Please unblock account asap. Thank you, Adamos68 (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Spammy as it is, the even bigger issue would be edit-warring. Wikipedia runs on WP:CONSENSUS - multiple editors removed the reference, you may not re-add it as it's against consensus. WP:BRD applies. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:09, 29 March 2010 (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.

ilovelaser.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.ilovelaser.com

This link was first placed over and over in the external links section, then it was used as a reference. You only purpose here is to include that link, while others keep disagreeing. Note that Anaxial does refer to WP:CITESPAM. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We both know that this is not true, but if this is how you think Wikipedia should work, so be it... Simply look at the others who were disagreeing: only user Kintetsubuffalo is an actual editor, all other disagreeing users (3 users) were link spammers; all they did is changed this link to another site's link. Even Third Opinion was asked, and site was found not to be spam. Now you decide as the consensus that it will be considered as spam. I find this to be pretty shocking... I devoted time and energy to create the Side Effects and Risks section, and as I mentioned above, I used the page in question as a resource. If you call that site spammy, why don't you remove the Risks and Side Effects section as well? If the resource is spammy, so should the content be, no? Adamos68 (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]