User talk:Wikirich222

Welcome!

Hello, Wikirich222, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Factory service manual, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! RES2773 (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Factory service manual

The article Factory service manual has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not sure if there is enough substance for this article to exist.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RES2773 (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

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 ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:07, 26 December 2019 (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).

Wikirich222 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm adding sources to pages. I also included information about OBD trackers work. You're missing a key feature for tracking notifications which is SMS. Wikirich222 (talk) 04:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The sources that you have been adding to pages do not meet the standards for reliability on Wikipedia. They all look like self-published websites that either you or someone on the Internet created one day, and it appears that you are adding them into Wikipedia in order to promote them. Mz7 (talk) 04:57, 26 December 2019 (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.

Sockpuppet investigation

The technical investigation has been closed as "unrelated". I'm sorry for the incorrect suspicion. You may freely ignore or remove this message. It is now unrelated to your main block reason, operating a spam-only account. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikirich222, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you are currently unable to edit the investigation page, you may present any answers here, on this page, below. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

spam

Hello, @ToBeFree:. For the sake of thoroughness, could you please elucidate the spam thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfriedokra (talk • contribs) 04:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deepfriedokra, sure. This seems to be a case of citation spam, where encyclopedically useless self-published promotional websites like justrepairmanuals.com are linked in articles. Instead of improving the encyclopedia in any way, edits such as Special:Diff/714072550 and Special:Diff/932466568 add low-quality links to a high-traffic website, Wikipedia. While Wikipedia itself uses "nofollow" links to prevent this from having any effect on search engine rank, Wikipedia is mirrored by countless websites that remove this attribute from their copies. As a result, such edits sadly probably do have an effect on the low-quality website's search engine reputation, making such behavior attractive to spammers. The community prefers reliable citations to no citation, and no citation to spam. Adding spam links to Wikipedia is disruptive; this account seems to exist for the sole purpose of doing this. The block appears to be required to prevent further similar edits. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]