User talk:SHVseth

September 2018[edit]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. KH-1 (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In no way is this reference spam. If you took the time you read the article referenced, you'd see this. Did you read the post? --SHVseth (talk) 03:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the same link to multiple pages, especially when it's your own digital marketing agency, is by all definitions spamming. -KH-1 (talk) 04:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are not the same links, one link was for Quality Score and one was a separate link on Marketing Plans. Did you review the content on the links? Each post was 3,000+ words of well researched and highly relevant expert level content. If it was spamming, then the content wouldn't be relevant and by definition spamming is not two links to citations that are better than the existing citations. Spamming is posting low-quality content that is not topically relevant. --SHVseth (talk) 04:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop and read WP:COI, WP:REFSPAM. -KH-1 (talk) 05:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not an accurate reference. These are not the same citation. Please review the citations provided and stop. --SHVseth (talk) 05:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Marketing plan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Do not continue adding this - as it has been explained to you, it's spam and you've violated 3rr by...a lot. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Widr (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

The two citations I posted are extremely relevant to the content even if they were written by my company. We know there is not SEO value in a citation from Wikipedia, I added the citations because they are high-quality SHVseth (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your massive edit warring to insert links to your company blog sure look like promotion to me - and "How to" links are not what Wikipedia citations are supposed to be about anyway. If you want to be unblocked, at a minimum you would need to agree to not link to anything to do with your company. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2018 (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.

If you look at this post on quality score it's not a "How to" article https://www.digitallogic.co/blog/quality-score/ - I'd be happy to agree not to post to my company site --SHVseth (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a blog and despite being told by several editors to stop, you persisted...your companies thoughts on any given topic are not relevant to an encyclopedia. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The comment you made, "your companies thoughts on any given topic are not relevant to an encyclopedia" if our citations are not relevant, then none of the other citations on the page that are not directly linked to Google are also not relevant. --SHVseth (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to understand what an encyclopedia is and what we require as a source; your companies blog is not a reliable source. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]