That is what I assumed would work Sean. When I sought community help to get me along the rules of engagement here, I was told different things by different people. Accordingly I took away links to personal blogs. Made the answers short and very specific to the questions. Was told that giving links to reference manual pages of various programming languages is fine. It seems everyone has different yardstick to label people/behavior in a bad way. Also there are far too many tags that can be given to people "Rep hunter", "Site driver", "Spammer and Abuser". The one I am looking for is a "Campaigner for a cause". No one is willing to get into the contents of the responses before hitting the reporting button it seems. I am working for a cause of popularizing the Internationalized Domain Names and ensuring that the domain validation and email validation implementations do not discriminate between latin based domains and Unicode based domains. That is severely affecting their adoption worldwide. Hence I was trying to respond to all the questions (old or new) that talked to the subject. CodeProject was one of the forums which I had insisted to be included as a part of the effort. Unfortunately I will have to walk away.

Thank you for the useful insights CHill60. Will follow up on that.

Thank you for the genuine advice Chill60. I had said it before and I will say it again. I am working towards sensitizing the developer community about Internationalized Domain Names and I was only answering questions which had that background. The links I was giving were to the libraries which were specific to the Questioner's programming language and the question itself. They were from different websites because they were talking to different programming languages. I am not crying over being put through moderation everytime I post something. I understand that it helps the site be a better place for collaboration to ward off potential spammers. My persistent request remains that moderators take that into account before taking summary actions. Kat2510 reported me for posting a link to GNU.ORG website. Which subsequently deleted all my genuine answers, including those which did not have any links at all. I totally agree with your suggestion of going to the site Admin. Only if I knew how to, I would have.

It was a link on the gnu.org site. Specifically it was pointing to the libidn2 library. Libidn2 is an implementation of the IDNA2008, TR46 specifications (RFC 5890, RFC 5891, RFC 5892, RFC 5893, TR 46). Posting here for everyone to judge if it is site driving or giving technical information. Anyone who wants to see that link, can search libidn2 and that is the first link which takes you to the libidn GNU.ORG website's page. It is a GNU.ORG website for god's sake ! You scrolled that page. Found the "Shop" link by the "Free Software Foundation" and clicked over there yourself and are accusing me of driving people here to that site?

It was a link on the gnu.org site. Specifically it was pointing to the libidn2 library. Libidn2 is an implementation of the IDNA2008, TR46 specifications (RFC 5890, RFC 5891, RFC 5892, RFC 5893, TR 46). Posting here for everyone to judge if it is site driving or giving technical information. GNU IDN Library - Libidn - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation[^] It is a GNU.ORG website for god's sake ! You scrolled that page. Found the "Shop" link by the "Free Software Foundation" and clicked over there yourself and are accusing me of driving people here to that site?

Which was that link? Please do provide. I had not posted any such link whatsoever. I would request site moderators to please look at this and decide who is being truthful here. If even one of my answers seemed to have any such links, I would totally own it up and leave the forum myself. If no such link is found, I would definitely want you Kats2512 to reconsider alleging others with such grievous accusations.

@Kats2512, I was opening questions which had a very specific background. The criterion was not them being old. A careful look at the questions would have given a good idea.

Kats2512 wrote:

Opening old posts and posting solutions.

I definitely was posting solutions with all the understanding I had developed through the interaction I got from the thread (you quoted) that I myself had started. Sad that you think that that thread was about warning me.

Kats2512 wrote:

Some answers also contain links to an external product of some sort.

"External product of some sort" ??? Really? Let me list those external products of some sorts: 1. Link to MSDN (.NET) 2. Link to python libraries from PyPI Where is the due dilligence? Why is just getting reported in this forum automatically makes someone liable for action?

Kats2512 wrote:

Opening old posts and posting solutions.

I was told by Mr. Richard Deeming (who closed all of my articles this time ) following thing: Re: IDN Awareness Raising answers getting tagged as "Spam". Why? - C# Discussion Boards[^] I quote:

Quote:

It's been raised in B&S before. The conclusion is that adding new answers to old questions is perfectly fine, so long as you're adding something new to the discussion.

The reasoning I got in the mail is: "This is not an answer to a question". I was told that adding something new to the question is acceptable. I was adding new information. Sadly I will not be access any of the answers that were closed. This time there were absolutely no links to any of the personal blogs. It would have been good if my answers were accessible/visible in some restricted space itself so that they could be put to others to judge.

As I said in my last message, I do not wish to drag this beyond a point and I will not.

Eddy Vluggen wrote:

Humor me, link to it now.

Here goes. Just since you asked for examples of links that I was posting, I will give those and let you judge them for what they are. The answers were only given to questions which were specifically asking for "validation" of domain names and e-mail addresses. Initial part of the answers involved directly addressing the question posed. After that, as additional resources, the links were given. For some answers following links were provided: 1. UASG 018A UA Compliance of Some Programming Language Libraries and Frameworks EN - Universal Acceptance Steering Group (UASG)[^] 2. UASG 037 UA-Readiness of Some Programming Language Libraries and Frameworks EN - Universal Acceptance Steering Group (UASG)[^] And in some cases, to discuss in detail the general problem of why programmers end up implementing validations and cannot avoid doing them, I had linked a blog written by me on on the topic. - Ultimate goal of the Domain Name and Email ID Validation?[^] Posting it all here in the interest of full disclosure.

Eddy Vluggen wrote:

These "mods" as you call them put a lot of hours in answering questions. You did not.

The term "mods" was not meant in any disrespectful way as you seem to have construed it. Of course I understand the immense amount of contribution they do. As far as not putting in the number of hours, I did not claim to either.

Eddy Vluggen wrote:

You can either adhere to the rules of the group, or you elephant off.

Of course I know where I stand as a mere user on the forum. I assumed certain rules and got rebuked, hence asked in detail. Asking got termed as pushing the limits.

Eddy Vluggen wrote:

And I can call in favors to achieve just that :)

As a power user (hope this term does not get double quoted and taken in a wrong way) you can do what you feel like Eddy. :)

Eddy Vluggen wrote:

So, one last time and I'll make it simple. Can you play nice, or no?

Thank you for making it simple. Playing nice was the intention from the very beginning, still is. I hope asking questions is not considered as "not playing nice.". Good day. :)

I guess I will not push this beyond a point. The links I was trying to put were not always to a personal blog. They were also to a community page which is constituted by an international collaborative effort to boost the overall perception about Internationalized Domain Names. Even when they were linked to the personal blog, it was only because there was no MSDN Page or a CP article which gave that kind of information. I often said that looking into the contents of the answers, the content in the link, and the nature of portal to which it was being linked, would have helped before making judgement about it being a spam. The way it is going, it is appearing that I am being pushy or trying to take it to maximum limits till I can. I sincerely do not wish to do so. I will not put any such links. It certainly limits my effort but I guess that is how it has to be. :)

Once again, thanks for the detailed response OriginalGriff. I do understand what you are trying to convey. From where we come from, police do not directly shoot. They take him into custody, enquire and if it comes out that there is a new hockey stadium has opened nearby and he is going towards that, they let him go. Afterall, prospects of "site-driving" are not so serious a crime, especially when as Mods you have full authority to remove all the activity one does with account suspension. I was only requesting to be assessed based on the nature of content of my response. Coming to giving external links, I would really require your guidance about how to point users to additional sources of information, especially when the whole intention of your activity is to right a wrong that happens when people seek info from QnA forums for implementing stuff like validating domain names and e-mail addresses. I am happy to write an article on CodeProject if linking that article in response does not amount to proverbial axe wielding. Would that be a right thing to do? Thanks for your thoughtful and thorough indulgence.

I was updating domain and e-mail validation questions with new approaches that need to be taken due to advent of the Internationalized Domain Names. With answers specific to the programming language mentioned in the question and the specific APIs they can use for the IDN compliant implementation. If that is not "adding something new to the discussion", what is?

Thank you for the reply OriginalGriff. I have already been through one account banning. Thank you for not banning this account of mine outrightly. My endeavor behind answering 10 year old questions is for the new developers who might have similar questions, from taking that old approach which is not correct. I sincerely do not care about bounty points. What I do care about is the overall user awareness. These kind of Old and highly visible questions, when one searches with relevant tags, keep on coming at the top of the search and end up misguiding the naïve implementers. Your suggestion to "Ask a new question" though valid, can cause a new issue, as I imagine. I would be again flagged as spammer for "Asking the same question". Won't I? It is indeed unfortunate that we cannot connect directly through profile in DMs. I would have loved to do that to thrash out this detail. I am not trying deliberately to be "link-heavy". But to avoid that, answers would needlessly get heavy. Please guide.

I have been trying to answers "Email Validation" and "Domain Validation" kind of questions with a perspective of Internationalized Domain Names with relevant answers. I wonder why all the answers which I post, despite following community guidelines get flagged as spam??