Welcome!
Hello, Stacyjj, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
Seraphimblade
Talk to me
01:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Edward Hirsch, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the
external links you added do not comply with our
guidelines for external links and have been removed.
Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for
advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses
nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
OhNoitsJamie
Talk
15:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive regarding your
disruptive edits. The next time you insert a
spam link, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites
blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all
Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines.
OhNoitsJamie
Talk
18:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Connormah (
talk)
22:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Stacyjj ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am not spamming. I am adding links to lectures done by speakers from the Forum Network site. All links are relevant, and are not for advertising purposes. Check them for yourself.
Decline reason:
You were appropriately warned that the external links you were adding were not according to WP:EL, and that you needed to stop. Rather than heed the polite warning, you continued - that makes it spam. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:53, 10 September 2010 (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.
{{
unblock|I didn't see the email warnings, which is my fault. I was not aware that wikipedia was used as a social forum as well. I was just trying to link appropriate content to appropriate speakers, which is what I feel I did correctly. Please show me which links I have made you mad with.}}
I am sorry, but I do not see how this user has engaged in any activity that merited a block. The user was not spamming rather was engaged in constructive editing. The links point to http://forum-network.org which is, and I quote, "The Forum Network is a PBS and NPR public media service in collaboration with public stations and community partners across the United States." The links identified as "spam" are videos produced by NPR and PBS. The videos are 100% relevant to the article in context and content. The videos are noteworthy and academic.
The parties involved in the warning and blocking should explain and discuses why they took those action clearing because this new user has been wrongly accused of spamming without any reason or cause. -- Joel M. Chat ✐ 16:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe the bot reverted you only for using the word stupid. In this case it was a false positive for ClueBot, but spawned the issue in link spam instead. mechamind 9 0 02:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Stacyjj, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
Seraphimblade
Talk to me
01:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Edward Hirsch, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the
external links you added do not comply with our
guidelines for external links and have been removed.
Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for
advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses
nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
OhNoitsJamie
Talk
15:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive regarding your
disruptive edits. The next time you insert a
spam link, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites
blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all
Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines.
OhNoitsJamie
Talk
18:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Connormah (
talk)
22:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Stacyjj ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am not spamming. I am adding links to lectures done by speakers from the Forum Network site. All links are relevant, and are not for advertising purposes. Check them for yourself.
Decline reason:
You were appropriately warned that the external links you were adding were not according to WP:EL, and that you needed to stop. Rather than heed the polite warning, you continued - that makes it spam. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:53, 10 September 2010 (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.
{{
unblock|I didn't see the email warnings, which is my fault. I was not aware that wikipedia was used as a social forum as well. I was just trying to link appropriate content to appropriate speakers, which is what I feel I did correctly. Please show me which links I have made you mad with.}}
I am sorry, but I do not see how this user has engaged in any activity that merited a block. The user was not spamming rather was engaged in constructive editing. The links point to http://forum-network.org which is, and I quote, "The Forum Network is a PBS and NPR public media service in collaboration with public stations and community partners across the United States." The links identified as "spam" are videos produced by NPR and PBS. The videos are 100% relevant to the article in context and content. The videos are noteworthy and academic.
The parties involved in the warning and blocking should explain and discuses why they took those action clearing because this new user has been wrongly accused of spamming without any reason or cause. -- Joel M. Chat ✐ 16:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe the bot reverted you only for using the word stupid. In this case it was a false positive for ClueBot, but spawned the issue in link spam instead. mechamind 9 0 02:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)