User talk:Baruchlanda
June 2014[edit]
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
February 2017[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Baruchlanda (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
There is very, very little information regarding online e-counseling. The e-counseling Wikipedia page itself may be one of the shortest pages in regard to total information. Furthermore and more importantly, the site I linked to is an established authority (type e-counseling into Google). Also, that site is comprised of legal, certified professionals (PsyD's, PhDs, etc.) whom write for the site. For example, the article I linked to about CBT was written by a licensed professional, with noted references at the bottom. If she's not considered a reliable source, what is? While I don't often contribute to Wikipedia, I have been a contributor for a long, long time. I kindly request to be reinstated.
Decline reason:
You obviously have a conflict of interest, and you whole previous wiki-career consists of spamming links. I see no reason to unblock you. Max Semenik (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2017 (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.
Baruchlanda (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I don't have a direct connection to e-counseling.com. And, even if I did, I fail to see an issue with it, *specifically since this article can (and should) academically be considered a reference?* I am asking a legitimate question, and then I won't bother you more: EVEN if someone has a conflict of interest (which isn't the case here anyway) but the article he/she is linking to would EASILY pass as a reference, he/she shouldn't link to it? I would advise you to send it to several clinical psychologists of your choice and see for yourself if the article I linked to is worth of reference. Additionally, as for previous spamming: my email account from years ago was hacked and they ultimately got hold of several log ins of mine. However, that was *not* me. Can't you check IP address from that period and compare it to now for verification, or some other method??
Decline reason:
You note your account was compromised. As per WP:COMPROMISED, it is not eligible for unblock consideration. As to conflicts of interest, WP:PAID and WP:COI answer your question. Yamla (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2017 (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.