Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Little Green Footballs do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://lgfbannedandblocked.blogspot.com/2010/09/dont-trust-lgf-archives.html. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Need help with learning how to do the citation structure please. I have put links but I am seeing that this is the wrong way to do it, it is not coming up correctly like the other citations do?
See WP:CITE for how to do references, and WP:EL for policy about linking to external sites. If XLinkBot is reverting you, it's probably because you are trying to link to sites on its blacklist. Read the notes in its warning notice above. JohnCD (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must 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) 11:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{helpme}}
Please help: regarding [1], I need help to open an rfc or whatever it is to report the section I believe to be plagiarized so we can get more eyes on it.
Thanks!
If you find sections that are a copyvio, then delete them and quote the url in the edit summary - note you have to make sure that...
The text has not been copied from Wikipedia (it's useful if the web page has a date you can compare with the date added here)
This is your last warning; the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourceddefamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Little Green Footballs, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Not a clever idea to revert an admin removing unsourced and poorly sourced BLP content as a violation of WP:BLP. If you find a reliable source, you can add this information. No reliable source, no adding. Adding without reliable source = block. Are we clear.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:31, 5 November 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).
"Blocked" for a two day old edit? Elen of the Roads is just out to harass me.
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request 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
understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
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.
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 block is completely unjustified. The edit is days old, and was not even considered controversial until someone left a "note" on Elen of the Roads page asking her to block me on their behalf. In answer to your bullshit points: #1 - The block WAS NEVER justified or necessary, #2 - See #1, #3 - Yes, I understand perfectly well that the block is because Elen wanted an excuse to harass me, and #4/#5, I plan to continue making useful contributions to the encyclopedia. In other words, this entire situation is a joke.
Decline reason:
No, the edit was 10 Jan, the block was 11 Jan. There is no statute of limitations on BLP violations, and there is no way to see such an edit as anything other than bad faith. The unblock at this point is kind of moot in any case as the original block was 48h. If you feel harassed, perhaps you shouldn't vandalize the encyclopedia. Syrthiss (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2011 (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.
So I check to see that you're behaving yourself, and I see this. Source describes the site as "very professional, user-friendly and well written. It is mainly a compilation of news from publications all over the Internet, aimed at combating the pro-Israeli, pro-American spin the EI creators feel is generally found in press accounts" which somehow you manage to translate as hate site. You've just come off a block for adding attack materials, do you want another one? If not, do not put unsourced attack material into articles. I am watching you. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
lists.wikimedia.org Beeblebrox (talk) 04:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)