User talk:Websterius

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Websterius! Thank you for your contributions. I am Doug Weller and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Doug Weller talk 15:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Websterius, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Websterius! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like AmaryllisGardener (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Links

Hi, you might want to read WP:OVERLINK. Doug Weller talk 15:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. MER-C 10:00, 28 June 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

Why did that happen my friend? You banned my account for not agreeing with your labeling this page as spam? No, it is not spam in my opinion based on Wikipedia rules. Where is your action based? My action was based on the following: Information was verifiable with content sourced-back to outside reliable sources. No personal experiences, views, understandings, or opinions were expressed there. The page was balanced, neutral, and encyclopedic, containing comprehensive, notable and verifiable info for someone that is a Consul of Norway in another country. Aren't for example Norway.no (The Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs) or Embassypages.com (the internet’s authoritative source for information about embassies and consulates) assumed as reliable and independent sources? Did you also ban my account because it is almost one month old? Wasn't your account one month old in the past? I didn't even create that page. Please give me your reasoning of your actions considering all the above. Thank you in advance. Websterius (talk) 10:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please read WP:GAB to understand how to craft an acceptable unblock request. You need to address your covert advertising and sock/meatpuppetry. Yamla (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2019 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

My last edit/action was based on the following: Information was verifiable with content sourced-back to outside reliable sources. No personal experiences, views, understandings, or opinions were expressed there. The page was balanced, neutral, and encyclopedic, containing comprehensive, notable and verifiable info for someone that is a Consul of Norway in another country. Sources like Norway.no (The Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs) and Embassypages.com (the internet’s authoritative source for information about embassies and consulates) are assumed as reliable and independent sources. Websterius (talk) 12:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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
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 the guide to appealing blocks for more information. I came very, very close to removing talk page access right now but decided to give you one more chance to address the reasons for the block. Huon (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2019 (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.

If you are unwilling to address your covert advertising and sock/meatpuppetry, there's nothing more to be done here and we'll revoke your talk page access. I very, very strongly advise your very next edit modifies the above unblock request to address these. --Yamla (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]