User talk:Throwbacksc1: Difference between revisions

Hello, I’m Larry Hockett. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a “soapbox” are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Larry Hockett (Talk) 11:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Throwbacksc1! Your additions to Goudey have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license—to request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it’s important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

• Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (“) and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
• Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source’s wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
• Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file’s eligibility.
• Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § Licensing.

It’s very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. The4lines |||| ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 19:52, 11 June 2025 (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).

Throwbacksc1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hi, I have a sports card website which contains over 100 pages of vetted info regarding many years of sets including 1952-1969 Topps, 1933-1938 Goudey, all major tobacco releases, ect. As you can see by my edit history I have been adding legitimate information that would be helpful to anyone trying to discover more about the sets/cards I posted about. It appears I was blocked for spam but nothing I posted encouraged users to go to my website or even mentions my website. For these reasons I am requesting to be unblocked. Thanks Throwbacksc1 (talk) 03:36, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have not proposed a new username as instructed. That you don’t think you were spamming at all when you clearly were is concerning. You should not be using your own website as a source, even if you are an expert in this topic area(see WP:EXPERT)- we need to know where you are getting your information, rather than just posting your website as a source. As said below, you won’t be permitted to link to your website; please see conflict of interest and tell us what will change about your editing in a new request. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 9 October 2025 (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.

Hi Throwbacksc1,

Literally every single edit you made prior to being blocked except for one included a spam link to your website. We’re not talking about a gray area; this is blatantly promotional against Wikipedia’s rules. You don’t need text that says something to the effect of “go to this site!” for it to be spam. What an admin requests to feel comfortable to unblock you may vary depending on who reviews it, but I wouldn’t be surprised if you’ll need to, at a minimum, agree to never link to or promote your website on Wikipedia and propose a new username that isn’t connected to your business. Also, please post new messages at the bottom of the page so that things stay roughly in chronological order. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Please also click “edit” and not “reply” to edit this page, the Reply function is imperfect and doesn’t work well in every situation; its formatting interferes with the unblock request formatting(I fixed the errors) and it doesn’t always permit posting at the bottom. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]