User talk:LaurenRueda

Greetings...

Hello, LaurenRueda, and welcome to Wikipedia!

To get started, click on the link that says "welcome".

I (and the rest of us here, too) hope you like it here and decide to stay!

Happy editing! Skomorokh 23:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to Peter Atkins, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing their websites from appearing on Wikipedia. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continuing to add spam links. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Cirt (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per Cirt's assent

Request handled by: Daniel Case (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

With this unblock, I urge you to review our external links policy so that you may understand how those links might be seen as spam. Based on what you say I believe you would like to contribute constructively; however, if you return to just putting those links in you will be blocked again. Daniel Case (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|1=I would like to contest the block that has been put on my account because each link I made, though many, was very applicable to the page it was placed on. I put links from the individual scientists' and other scholars' Wikipedia articles to the videos on The Science Network's website. Each of these videos is of an interview with the subject, which would be quite relevant as an addendum to the individuals' pages, or is otherwise a video of a speech given by the individual at either the Origins Symposium at ASU or the Beyond Belief Meeting in La Jolla, California. These links were not meant as spam in any way, but rather as a way for Wikipedia users to access content in which the individuals are speaking firsthand about their thoughts, ideas, and research.}}

Hi -- I am not an administrator and I do not know LaurenRueda but I am a longtime Wikipedian who thinks that banning her as a spammer is a big overreaction to relevant links that she added, in good faith, to online resources at the Science Network. I noticed this issue because I noticed that two articles on my watchlist had identical edits to remove an alleged spam link. It is very common for new editors at Wikipedia to come here with a lot of material from a single source that they think is relevant and useful. And in this case, I concur with Lauren that it is relevant. WP:AGF. betsythedevine (talk) 00:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you're receiving warnings for link spam that you'll be blocked, that is the time to stop what you are doing and provide rationale for it. Not after you've been blocked. Maybe it was in good faith and not link spam, but the user needs to learn to use the talk page to justify her edits, or else nobody will be able to know the difference. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 09:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you describe is not what happened in this case. This new editor made multiple edits on May 18 and 19, the last one to Peter Atkins. She got a "one-time" warning for that edit. This warning did not ask her to provide a rationale for her past edits. She did not edit any articles after her edit to "Peter Atkins." She was blocked anyway. Blocking new editors, without ever asking them to use the talk page to justify their edits, seems understandable in this case because of the unusual pattern of edits. The reason we have a procedure to unblock somebody who has been blocked is that sometimes what looks like spamming turns out to be something else. betsythedevine (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC) revised a bit later betsythedevine (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took a peek at the edit to the Peter Atkins article which LaurenRueda made. It is a link to an interview of Peter Atkins on thesciencenetwork.org. What is more, I did not find advertising on the pages. It looks as if LaurenRueda has made a string of similar edits to articles about people, and perhaps has been flagged by an anti-vandalism robot. I do very little editing, and don't administrate Wikipedia. After somehow hitting the radar and being blocked upon joining, I have taken an interest in watching how blocks are given, and how unblock requests are handled. Corwin78 (talk) 04:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from admin

To other admins, please see Special:Contributions/LaurenRueda. Only edits by this account were to introduce links to the same website, across 25 articles. Will defer to judgment of reviewing admin here. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 08:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query to User:LaurenRueda

If unblocked, will you continue to spam links to this one particular website across multiple articles? Will you contribute to Wikipedia in any other fashion other than adding links to this website to multiple articles? Cirt (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible conflict of interest - The Science Network and related articles and individuals

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article The Science Network, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]