User talk:Rubendesh

Speedy deletion of SAVE THE FROGS! Nonprofit Organization
A tag has been placed on SAVE THE FROGS! Nonprofit Organization, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. — BradV 19:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

June 2008
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 web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since 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 rather than re-adding it. Hut 8.5 20:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Hut 8.5 06:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Your mass linking
This is considered spam. You are placing links to a place that you use to sell. Wikipedia is not a general directory, external links must have some relevance to the article. You have been warned about this by admins before. Please refrain of adding you site again. If you have doubts, please consult Wikipedia's policies or contact the admins above that have left comments for you.--Ljvillanueva (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You get what you give
You have been from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continuing to add spam links. 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  below. Daniel Case (talk) 04:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Rubendesh (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You're not blocked at this point, so you don't need to use an unblocking template. It might be good if you posted a note asking what people think on WT:EL, which is the talk page for our link policy, and will likely give some good clarification. -- Ned Scott 05:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

As noted above, this block has expired. However, the link to savethefrogs that you kept inserting into so many articles (see WP:LINKSPAM for why this is considered spamming no matter whether the linked site is commercial in nature or not) seems to me come under several of the listed criteria for links to avoid: it "does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article" (#1) and was intended mainly to promote an organization (#4). Daniel Case (talk) 07:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Reread what I posted above. It has to do with what the article would contain, not what it does contain. All that info really ought to be in the article itself. I'd get cracking finding the sources the webpage used and bring the article up to snuff. Daniel Case (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)