User talk:Valaprise

December 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Water heat recycling 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. Thank you. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 14:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Circulator pump. 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 web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site 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 article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 23:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Talk: Water heat recycling

Re your message: No, I will not reinsert that link as it not appropriate per the external link guideline. Please stop spamming Wikipedia. Thank you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

This is your last warning; 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. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it has become apparent that your account will be used solely for unconstructive editing, you have been indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest it by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} to this page. Kuru (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please unblock my contribution-as no link was added, I simply added relevant and benificial information (which was referenced). The reference provided is a reliable source that provided a concise location for this broadly known information which can also be found in several other valid sources (Gas Appliance Manufactures Association, uspto.gov, toolbase.org, homeenergy.org, nachi.org, askthebuilder.com, greenhomeguide.com, centralplumbing.com, doityourself.com, finehomebuilding.com, plumbingengineer.com, and etc.) Valaprise (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Valaprise (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were blocked because, as a user who is using Wikipedia solely to add links to a specific web site, you are in violation of the rules against spamming. At Wikipedia, we all avoid linking to our own web sites, and instead seek to improve the content of articles. Since you ignored all warnings to stop, the block was necessary. You seem to indicate that, if unblocked, you would continue adding links to your web site, so unblocking this account would be counterproductive- if that were acceptable, you wouldn't have been blocked in the first place. - FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:28, 20 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.

I note that the reasons this link is unhelpful were explained repeatedly to you at Talk:Energy conservation, but you seem to have ignored those explanations. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:31, 20 January 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

Your initial review of my contribution is inaccurate. You stated my contribution was "to add links to a specific web site" and therefore in violation. This is incorrect. As I previously stated "NO LINKS WERE ADDED"! I simply provided some relevant and beneficial information to improve the content of the article (and even provided the reference). The reference provided is a reliable source that provides a concise location for this broadly known information, which can also be found in several other valid sources (Gas Appliance Manufactures Association, uspto.gov, toolbase.org, homeenergy.org, nachi.org, askthebuilder.com, greenhomeguide.com, centralplumbing.com, doityourself.com, finehomebuilding.com, plumbingengineer.com, and etc.).

Furthermore: I took every "talk" comment and "warning" seriously, and made the appropriate corrections BEFORE I posted my last contribution (which is valid and does not violate any Wikipedia Rules). Please reconsider allowing this beneficial contribution, which I carefully researched and provided for Wikipedia. Valaprise (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unless you can understand and act on the valid comments given by FisherQueen you are goint to stay blocked. The fact that you do not agree is, I am afraid, not relevant.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:39, 21 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.

What do you think a 'link' is? I see you adding an external link to a blog, www.hotwaterlobster.com, in every edit of yours that I have looked at. Your claim that 'no links were added' indicates that you mean something different by the word 'link' than Wikipedia does. A 'link' is a connection to a different web site. You can read Wikipedia's external link guidelines to learn more about what kinds of links are helpful and what kinds aren't helpful, and you can read the reliable source guidelines for more information about what kinds of sources are and aren't useful. It's important that you read and understand those, because I don't think you will find an admin willing to unblock you until you demonstrate that you understand the rules. You might also find the conflict of interest guidelines useful if www.hotwaterlobster.com is your own web site. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I finally looked at the actual web site- it's an individual business, selling a specific model of hot water valve! That's much worse- you certainly can't use the encyclopedia to try to advertise your business. Definitely read the conflict of interest guidelines, and think about whether you're even interested in helping to write Wikipedia if it involves not writing about your company. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]