User talk:Stacyjj

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.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

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.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=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. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=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. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=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. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

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]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

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.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=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. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=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. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=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. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}