User talk:Carlosgrider

July 2021

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. [1] MrOllie (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What part of that was spam? I added a source to an original research study that listed statistics detailing what the digital nomad article listed without sources. I also added information, as taxes were the biggest issue behind loneliness. I also edited the Wikipedia article for conciseness and specificity - so, not spam, just trying to add quality sources.

Just because I produced the research doesn't make it spam.

And Wikipedia links don't even matter for anything. I was making an attempt correct unsubstantiated nd poorly communicated information. Carlosgrider (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The part where you added your website to multiple articles, that part was spam. - MrOllie (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition of spam is your own, not the proper definition according to the Wikipedia guideline, which you linked to.

If the main purpose of the link is self promotion, its spam. That makes sense. If the main purpose of a citation is to link to original data substantiation a point in the article, it is fine that the author of the article adds it as a citation - which i did.

The digital nomad article I edited listed points as soft opinion with no substantiation data - I corrected that and added extra data, clarified the existing ambiguities, and added a citation. THAT is not spam.

Quoted from the rules YOU cited:

Citation spam Edit Shortcuts WP:REFSPAM WP:CITESPAM Citation spamming is the illegitimate or improper use of citations, footnotes or references. Citation spamming is a form of search engine optimization or promotion that typically involves the repeated insertion of a particular citation or reference in multiple articles by a single contributor. Often these are added not to verify article content but rather to populate numerous articles with a particular citation. Variations of citation spamming include academics and scientists using their editing privileges primarily to add citations to their own work, and people replacing good or dead URLs with links to commercial sites or their own blogs. Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia. Carlosgrider (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I did not add the website to multiple articles. I added the website as a citation to ONE article Carlosgrider (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carlosgrider, You web site is not a reliable source as Wikipedia defines it, so none of that applies. You are linking your own site, which is not a usable source. If you continue to do so I would expect that your account will be blocked and/or your site will be added to the link blacklist. RE: 'ONE article', that is simply not true. - MrOllie (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition of an "unreliable source" doesn't go with Wikipedia guideline. The link you deleted was from an unbiased, independent study with results that have been published several other places before Wikipedia. That independent study was THE only one on digital nomads in 2021 and THE only one that surveyed global digital nomads, ever. No educational institutions or publications performed a similar study that could have been cited. Based on Wikipedia's guidelines that makes the independent study an acceptable source.

If you are going to police the pages and claim to enforce the rules, please at least use the rules and not your idea of them. That citation improved the academic quality of the page it was on. You removing it, reduced it from fact to unsubstantiated opinion.

From the Wikipedia guideline:

Isolated studies as sources – Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive and should be avoided. Secondary sources, such as meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context. Carlosgrider (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carlosgrider, Feel free to bring it up at WP:RSN, but they'll tell you the same. Academic research is published in peer-reviewed journals, not on self published websites. MrOllie (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As listed in the guideline above an isolated study is isolated. The guideline above, and the page that describes reliable sources, does not have a being published in a peer reviewed journal as a requirement. Can you point to the Wikipedia guideline that confirms your point, or are you just assuming based on your opinion? I've looked at the Wikipedia editing guidelines and don't see your point in there anywhere.

An isolated study is, by definition, isolated and independent - and a reliable source according to wikipedia. Carlosgrider (talk) 00:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carlosgrider, You can't hang your hat on one guideline, especially if you don't read the whole thing. See WP:SELFPUB and WP:RS/SPS. MrOllie (talk) 00:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hang my hat on the whole guideline. I read the whole thing. As I said before the findings from that independent study which I cited have been published in other independent, respected publications - making self publishing it as a citation, not a problem according the guideline here that you just pointed me back to. The findings have been published elsewhere in other publications. I have been recognized as an SME on the topic.

From the guideline youre citing: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.[8] Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources.[9] Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known..."

Carlosgrider (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. 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. MrOllie (talk) 13:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]