User talk:Wwsurfers

Welcome

I welcome you to my Talk Page. Leave a message; I love hearing from you.

RE Dubai Mall revert

There are two main reasons that I reverted your edit:

Though some of your edit was constructive, large portions of it inserted promotional language, which is not permitted. See WP:PROMO, especially point 5.
You seem to be representing a company with an interest in tourist sites in Dubai. This is more apparent with the lnik on your talk page, which has been inserted into the articles you have edited. See WP:COI and WP:PAID.

Note that no edits in Wikipedia are truly deleted (though in some cases where they are hidden from public view for legal reasons). If you want to edit the page as it appeared before I reverted it, you can use this link. That gives you the opportunity to remove some of the promotional language while

If you are still not satisfied with the explanation, you can ask for discussion on the article's talk page, Talk:The Dubai Mall. LynxTufts (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replying LynxTufts

Hello, LynxTufts; first up, I'm sorry for my harshness and my gritty expression, however wrong I thought you might be. How are you?

No need to stress why you reverted my edits. You said that right at the onset. What I wanted were specifics.

You said: "large portions of it [the edit] inserted promotional language"

My question had been what is the promotional language? Dubai Mall is the world's biggest shopping mall, or the most amazing one? I never strayed away from the cited sources; I never hyped Dubai Mall or said what it isn't as already cited on the article.

You also said: "You seem to be representing a company with an interest in tourist sites in Dubai."

The statement is 50/50, not absolute. But if you look up the site the link links to. You'd discover it's a content site which publishes articles about Dubai's attractions and Dubai travel guide to guide Dubai holiday's travellers, and not at all a company's site -- notwithstanding it runs ads by Google AdSense to get maintained and sustained (Please see it's "About Us"). Given that you've not ascertained that the site is a company's site, do you really think you should sweep the painstaking task of editing a full Wikipedia article away? This is what stirred me. But it's past now.

You said: "This is more apparent with the lnik on your talk page."

DubaiTourPro.com is a Dubai Travel Blog and is relevant in the articles it has been inserted. Since I know a lot about Dubai's attractions, I have taken to editing them where necessary. I can't edit articles I'm not grounded in because they're not my area of specialization (And in fact, before editing any article I make sure I know about it thoroughly). So, it shouldn't be of surprise to you that I edit Dubai related articles or insert a particular link which is relevant. It is niche related, to reiterate. I hope you understand this. I can't insert the same link on an article about the computer, or even in the tech industry or category as a whole, nor can I insert it on articles on the broad category of tourism, but only on Dubai tourism as necessitated.

And LynxTufts, I think you shouldn't blithely accuse me with the link on my talk page. These things are sensitive and so we must be critical. There's sth appended to it which has to do with availability. Notice that since you replied me I'm only seeing it now. If I were promoting the link on my talk page, how many people can actually see it from here? Only those who have my username can locate it (the very reason it's placed there). If it's inappropriate, you can advise me to take it down.

I have got what you said. I'll see that my writing doesn't sound promotional. Thanks for the review.

Please Note LynxTufts

I just noticed the notification that the article contains content that is written like an advertisement; it is even so on the copy before my redaction. This might make me edit further (not tampering with the facts) to make its language neutral. Thank you.

March 2019

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. MrOllie (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, RE: Your threat to unarchive my talk page Archiving talk pages is a normal process on Wikipedia, and all users are allowed to archive (or just delete) messages on their own talk freely. If you edit it war with another user on their own talk page, you can expect to get blocked quite rapidly - I would advise you leave my talk page alone. - MrOllie (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly will leave your talk page alone. But it pleases me that the ugliness you're trying to hide is more glaring in your heart, for though they may not be seen, you see them in your heart and you know that truth. I as other Wikipedians you treated blithely brusquely have given up on editing Wikipedia pages. Continue victimizing editors; they are surplus. Because they're surplus and Wikipedia isn't looking for them, they should suffer felony, their persons thoroughly insulted. Wwsurfers (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie, I was reading an article on Wikipedia and found typographical errors. I tried futilely to edit it. But crap I'm blocked. You give the impression that others but you and members of your clique are not needed in this platform. Since you can handle Wikipedia on your own. I guess you should go and quickly and effortlessly correct the errors and bad formatting on Chapman (drink). Wwsurfers (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 ~~~~}}. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:29, 24 March 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).

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

Request reason:

This is a long story between me and MrOllie. Due to our encounter I have found that he is a swift breaker of the guidelines upon bogus and yet frantic assumptions. I hide nothing I do. I demand that my action as well as his should vetted. That he has blocked me is simply victimizing me. I edited some articles and included links for further studies in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines (Reliable Sources, External Links and Spam). He removes them on no founded bases and gives none. I give every reason in accordance with the guidelines but he doesn't refute me. Instead, he without reason reverts my efforts and archives my conversation with him on his talk page to conceal what he is doing. Yet, there are talks before and after mine. He has done the same to others over the years. This chap is an unfair dictator. He archives my conversation with him but replies it on my talk page. His last message on my talk page shows that he didn't mean for me to be blocked. But as he is, he later took a recourse to it. Here again, this is a breach of the Blocking Policy: "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute". He does not show reasons with the guidelines; he only employs brute force. I urge that his approaches be addressed. You should see his contributions (The History of "The Dubai Mall", "Dubai Trolley" and "Burj Al Arab") on the articles I have contributed to. And especially his frantic and cold approaches. I am accused for an advertising-only account, but see the date this account was created (back in 2012) and see how many advertising has been made. Shall I create an account far back then only to advertise now? And while I maintain this account, I have contributed to Wikipedia even before I thought it wise to create an account. If the disrespect from people like abusive MrOllie would continue, I'd rather not be unblocked. The most important to me is that he should be vetted of his actions and approaches. Wwsurfers (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You will not get yourself unblocked by attacking other editors. You need to address *your* edits, and *your edits* only. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I were a spammer and here for promotion, I should be particular about your unblocking me, but I don't care whether or not I'm unblocked. Wikipedia is good without me. My primary concern is that MrOllie's action be assessed. If you consider that attacking other editors, good for you. Evidence shows that he is a bully and a brute. Besides, he is not at all "other editors". This whole things directly involves him. If you understand the concept of "causality", you shouldn't be telling me not the mention MrOllie (the cause) for the sake of being in accordance with the guideline. I am blocked because of him, not because of some links. The links have been there. And, for the record, I am not the one who added all the links in question; this must be stressed. It's good to follow guidelines (You need to address *your* edits, and *your edits* only). That, I am not unaware of but it is necessary to stress the context and rationale of my being blocked.

I don't want the account anymore. It'll suffice me that MrOllie be assessed or probed, his archives well vetted and he be made to know the right way to behave, the way to handle humans. For example, he blithely made a contributor whose English isn't so good but acted in good faith fetidly dejected. It was pathetic, heinous, hideous, aberrant and abhorrent. I put a premium on my integrity and won't be insulted for acting in good faith. They own Wikipedia; let them govern it. Wwsurfers (talk) 17:14, 24 March 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.

(Non-administrator comment) First off MrOllie is not an Admin and cannot block anyone. 2. Removing comments off ones own talk page is normal practice and nothing posted to a talk page can be "concealed" everything is recorded in the page history. 3. Wikipedia:No personal attacks. 4. WP:NOTME. Good luck, - FlightTime (open channel) 14:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction. How do you say one has made another person block you. You're sticking to the literal meaning but I hope you don't defy pragmatics. There's no concealing in archiving but there's certainly undermining or relegating something to the background. How about that? Why does he archive especially debates that don't go in his favour? Wwsurfers (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]