User talk:Vision3001
I apologize for my confusion. A better wording of the text by the hyperlink is ".... maintained by the Singapore Government", or something of that sort - the word "FREE" in your first edit is very typical of Wikipedia spammers. Happy editing! –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 05:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
No worries. I'll keep your kind comment in mind. Thanks. Vision3001 08:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Page Creation[edit]
Hi there. Are you creating pages for each person who died on September 11? -203.219.227.6 12:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- My wife & I just watched United 93 (film) and were most touched by those who lost their lives in that flight. Thus, I did some linking to the victims of that flight between (1) Wikipedia, (2) http://sep11memories.org/wiki/Tributes_to_individuals and (3) IMDB. Try to watch the movie if you have the chance, it's rated 7.9/10 in IMDB. United 93 (Movie) @ IMDB God bless their souls. Vision3001 13:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
What exactly is Dhammavadaka Sutra? It seems to be taken directly from [1]. Before it can be copied to Wikisource, it needs author/translator information. Thank you. --Benn Newman 19:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
External links = link spam?[edit]
I checked out your link added to Foreign exchange market which is constantly bombarded by linkspammers. The linked papers were interesting looking, but certainly not central to the topic. I do want to keep linkspam down on that article, so I might remove it tomorrow. Any thoughts? Smallbones 19:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Response: Thanks for the message. Traders in Forex are constantly looking out for methods to boost their trading performance, therefore, the selected publications will help to educate them to some extent. However, if you feel that the bulk of the visitors to that page are non-traders, then I guess the link is probably of little value to them. I leave the final call to you.
Speedy deletion of Thomson data analyzer[edit]
A tag has been placed on Thomson data analyzer, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Dethme0w (talk) 06:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Lauren Grandcolas[edit]
I have nominated Lauren Grandcolas, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Grandcolas (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? VegitaU (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference[edit]
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.
On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.
For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.
Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
The article Thomson Data Analyzer has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- This article clearly fails WP:PRODUCT.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Vision3001 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been making contributions to Wikipedia over the past 9 years and it is unclear why I am block? Please help as I am planning to update info on 2G phasing out in Singapore
Decline reason:
It may be "unclear" to you why you are blocked, but it is clear enough to me. You have been adding countless spam links, some of them with this account, but most of them with throw-away accounts. The fact that you have been getting away with it for years before you were caught out does not somehow make it all right. Spammers are not welcome here. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
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.
Vision3001 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I read from my account profile that 'This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sock puppet of Craytonconstanceb'. I am not sure how CheckUser works but I am definitely not related to Craytonconstanceb or other spammers - this is because other than this account, I have not used any other accounts for the past 9 years (not even anonymous editing) - was my account hijacked by Craytonconstanceb or others - if so, then the IP address of the spamming links will DEFINITELY be different from my usual group of IP addresses (between 2006 to 2015 Feb)? My Wikipedia account password is definitely not a dictionary word, thus a low probability that it is being hacked. My contributions to Wikipedia include both verified content as well as relevant links. I don't understand why many of the relevant links posted by ME are deemed as spam. It is certainly disappointing that people here higher ranking than me are putting down a genuine Wikipedia contributor like myself - have you really seen the actual content and links (from the similar groups of IP addresses, 95% originating from the same country, before I used a VPN). I have taken much effort to improve the entries that I have interest in. I am a university lecturer and have been telling my students that they can quote (contrary to most of my other fellow lecturers and uni policy that discourage Wikipedia references) Wikipedia entries due to its numerous editors who are able pinpoint and remove dubious/spam content most of the time - it is most definitely an irony that my support & belief for Wikipedia system have worked against me instead. Looking at the current situation, it seems like all my efforts in the building up of my Wikipedia as an contributing editor is going down the drain. Therefore, if Wikipedia does not bother to identify real spammers and is on a killing spree, I will stop struggling with the higher ranking administrators, be killed and move on.
Decline reason:
Given that most of your edits involve adding links, it seems a little too coincidental that you are an "innocent" user that just happens to be using the same IP as a number of prolific spammers. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
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.
Vision3001 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Jamie, regarding your point on the my adding of links, let me explain. As an academic, those links are references, just like academic referencing which is meant to add quality to support a particular point. I recall that usually when i add links, I would also add content (happens in probably more than 50% of my wikipedia contributions). Case in point, I only know that I was blocked when I tried to edit/add to the 2G wikipedia entry that Singapore is also going to stop 2G connection come April 2017 - in this instance, it would be a 1 or 2 liner info about piece of news, with a web link to the announcement in the local press. http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/more-singapore-stories/story/singapore-pulls-plug-2g-mobile-networks-reuse-airwaves-n
What can I do to demonstrate that I am not a link spammer but rather a genuine Wikipedia contributor?
Decline reason:
We can see your past contributions. Wrongly claiming that the links you added were remotely similar to academic referencing, or that you added content "in probably more than 50%" of your contributions, will not help. Rather, your contributions show all the usual signs of link spamming. Huon (talk) 04:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
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.
Vision3001 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
For fellow genuine wikipedia amateur editors who have been wrongly accused of by a Wikipedia bot CheckUser and have your treasured account being permanently block by super-humans, I share your pain and frustration but you may seek solace that you are not alone. Perhaps Wikipedia will shine once again in the future but for now while this bot has done a good job blocking many real spammers, it has also block genuine editors (ie. false positive) - a sad day for humans and AI. This is very painful for me but that's just life - full of justice and injustice. Namaste.
Decline reason:
An unblock request is not a soapbox. If you make a similar unblock request again, your talk page access will be revoked as well. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
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.