User talk:Abhiheknathcs

January 2022[edit]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Home improvement. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. FalconK (talk) 10:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Home improvement. Wikipedia is not a collection of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links may include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated 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 article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. FalconK (talk) 10:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022[edit]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Relocation service. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Moving company, 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. [1] Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 12:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Moving scam. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 12:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023[edit]

Hello, I'm Ravensfire. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. [2] Ravensfire (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What your problem? If I have given a good information and given reference of a good article. What do you mean by independent source? Go and check each and every Wikipedia's page all of them are independent source? Stop saying advertisement, promotional etc. 49.207.215.32 (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a link to a source that was authored by someone matching your name is CLEARLY promotional. The site does not meet Reliable Source standards. If this continues, the next option is to ask you be blocked for repeated promotional edits and/or the site put on the spam black list which will block further edits to add that site. Don't use Wikipedia like this, it's not tolerated and will be stopped. Ravensfire (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Graha Pravesh. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 10:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

if I have given the information in the article why I can't refer to the actual reference. Abhiheknathcs (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a reliable source, and so far, you seem to be far more interested in adding that link than helping Wikipedia. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 10:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I have given proper information to wikipedia obviously I will expect something in back. You please give me example of some reliable resources. After your example I will show you the resources presents in wikipedia. Abhiheknathcs (talk) 10:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to learn more about what reliable sources are, please read WP:RS, it may also help you to view the list of commonly used sources and evaluations of their reliability. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No as you are telling it's not reliable so you tell me why it's not reliable? I checked wikipedia I know what kind of links are there in wikipedia. you tell me why it's not reliable? Abhiheknathcs (talk) 11:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you "expect something in back" for anything you contribute to Wikipedia, please don't waste the time of the volunteers who contribute and ask for nothing in return. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 11:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are not considered reliable sources as they almost always lack editorial oversight and fact checking. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - add see contributions from Dharani KG who's also adding links to this site (but stopped before this discussion). If there's any further, I think WP:SPB is the appropriate next step. Ravensfire (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]