User talk:Stacyjj

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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

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)[reply]

August 2010

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.

Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
Cluebot produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Edward Hirsch was changed by Stacyjj (u) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2010-08-24T18:27:20+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link canvassing

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

September 2010

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for spamming or advertising. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Connormah (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2010 (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).

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)[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.

{{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.}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Agreed to stop adding links without prior discussion.

Request handled by: Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

The warnings were not sent by email, and Wikipedia is not a social network. However, this talk page is used for Wikipedia-related communication by other editors. They appear above. Any posting to this talk page will cause the "You have new messages" banner to appear at the top of every page you view on Wikipedia while logged in. If you are to be unblocked, you must stop inserting these links altogether. If this is clear to you, an unblock may be considered. We do not allow external links just because they are tangentially related to the articles, as this would quickly cause external link sections to become massive and unwieldy. If that's all you were here to do, an unblock request will not be granted. Do you understand that further inserting any of these links, anywhere, is unacceptable? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Additional unblock converted to reply) I can agree to that, but would still like to know which of my links were offending. I read the WP:EL section, and the "in a nutshell" resonates with me: "This page in a nutshell: External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." - This statement applies to all of the content I have posted, which has been minimal. The content is original, from reliable sources, and are all directly relevant to the topic on the wikipedia pages. I am not trying to start an argument but would just like to be clear on exactly what I have done wrong here. I appreciate you getting back to me so fast.

I converted your second unblock request, which appears to be a reply to me into a comment—I didn't respond to your unblock request as yet, since I'm asking you for clarification to determine how I will. You don't need to post new unblock requests to reply to me, just reply below this paragraph. I'm also not stating that your links could never conceivably be valid. What I am stating is that they shouldn't be added indiscriminately, and when several other editors expressed clear concern about them, the proper course of action is to stop adding them and discuss it with them. You may also wish to consider using the talk page of an article if you think a link is valid but others have questioned it. At this time, however, with several other editors having expressed concerns that the links are unacceptable, it would be inappropriate to continue adding them unless you can gain consensus that the link would in fact be acceptable on a given article. Regardless, we heavily discourage mass link additions to the same site across a large number of articles, and that will generally be found to be inappropriate. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, and to be clear, will not be posting links anymore. I'd still like to request that my block be removed. Thanks.

Since you were certainly willing to discuss the issue and come to a reasonable solution, I discussed with the blocking admin, and your block has been removed. I've added a welcome template above that contains several of the policies and practices most often encountered by new editors, which may help you. You also can ask for help here if you're unclear on anything. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accusation of Spamming

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)[reply]

I don't have a problem with the link per se, but we do not permit link canvassing (per WP:EL and most likely WP:COI in this case), regardless of the value of the link. I stand by my warnings and block, as the user had plenty of warning. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The two polices you mention don't match the situation at hand. Can you show me specifically how WP:EL or WP:COI is applied to this situation? The link points back to a video that is relevant to the article. In each edit the user made, they added a relevant video in the external links. Thanks, -- Joel M.Chat ✐ 17:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate someone else questioning this, because I still don't understand how I was posting spam either. I keep being told that I had "plenty of warning", but as I stated before, I was unaware of the social aspect of Wikipedia, and didn't know that I had to check for "email" on the site. I'd like to know exactly what links are/were considered SPAM, but was never given an answer. I have asked others to look into this for me as well as I feel this is an unjust situation.

ClueBot.

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)[reply]