Jump to content

User talk:2601:152:301:9C1E:9057:12E:132:D3A9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 2024

[edit]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for adding spam links. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:42, 16 November 2024 (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).

2601:152:301:9C1E:9057:12E:132:D3A9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Decline reason:

Per Graywalls comment below, a link to a page where you can purchase the source is not at all useful here and smells like promotion. To be unblocked, you'll need to agree to stop posting links like that. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:18, 19 November 2024 (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.

Huh?

[edit]
Wikilinked an article to an orphan article on Cuban history
added an interlanguage link to an existing article on Cuban history
added a better reference
Removed an angelfire website and replace with a reliable source.
Cleaned up a reference

@HJ Mitchell: You reversed everything I've worked on this afternoon. As for the angelfire linked book, I refer you to this: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_383#Is_this_self-published_book_a_RS?. I have no affiliation with the publisher, but I set to remove the old link to the angelfire book and replace it with a newer version of the book. I also have to affiliation to Jose Marti.

@HJ Mitchell: I just saw your comment about blacklisting here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#IP_spammer_spamming_product_purchasing_link_to_Boyscount_guidebook. Let me explain. I saw that this book was listed everywhere:

  • Hook, James; Franck, Dave; Austin, Steve (2003). An Aid to Collecting Selected Council Shoulder Patches with Valuation.

I replace the 20 year old link hosted an angelfire to the version now published:

The book I replaced the angelfire link with is published by the International Scouting Collectors Association. Gray whales didn't bother asking. There is no malicious intent here. If you like the angelfire link ... so be it. I tried. 2601:152:301:9C1E:9057:12E:132:D3A9 (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were editing at least one talk archive page and many talk pages and that is considered not bad form (editing other people's comments in a talk page is considered not legit with a few exceptions that don't include updating links or replacing entire books [this one had a different author so you weren't just fixing a link]). You were also editing in another person's sandbox also bad form unless invited to do so (again with a few exceptions). Erp (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What it boils down to is that all of this could have been avoided by edit summaries of the form "Updating non-RS angelfire link" or something like that. We're way sensitive about spamming here, and your efficiency obviously set off red flags. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 01:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What this boils down to is that I think a script was used and let run wild to insert a specific URL which has potentials to raise search ranking and the link is of a type which poses enticement risk of $39 product purchase that will likely result in monetary gain by some party. Since it didn't direct to specific contents, but to a product buying landing page and the way in which the link was disseminated, it's more likely than not there was search ranking and/or purchase promotion motive behind it. What adds insult to this is that it's a self-published book that fails WP:RS, so it was renewing garbage that should have been taken out with a refreshed garbage. Graywalls (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2601:152:301:9C1E:9057:12E:132:D3A9&oldid=1258475538"