User talk:Back Creek Creative Media

November 2023

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][2] MrOllie (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback Mr Ollie. Can you please advise in regard to which edit/external links I have made this note is referencing. I apologise as I was under the assumption that my contribution may have had some insight into the topic based on something I had read earlier today whilst doing my own research, however obviously I am incorrect in thinking so. I look forward to hearing from you again. Back Creek Creative Media (talk) 14:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both of your edits added inappropriate links. MrOllie (talk) 14:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How can that be when on the one regarding tree pruning, the referernce listed last on the list of of the exact same kind of source - a tree care specialist who is passionate about the care of trees and surrounding environment? It was simply a Blog article regarding Tree pruning - how and why it is important to the trees well being and the benefit that comes from it?

Also, on the topic of social/government procurement, here in Australia, this is a very sensitive topic right now with the issue of indigenous employment and the site url I listed as a reference because they have many articles and references around this topic? Does this not qualify as a suitable reference? Back Creek Creative Media (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have found other problems on Wikipedia, that is a reason to fix those problems, not to make the problem worse by adding spam links. MrOllie (talk) 14:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read either source before deleting it? I can probably understand removing the one about the procurement as I probably should have linked the articles themselves rather than the main source page - however the article regarding the tree pruning, is quite informative and most accurate in every way. Anyone who reads that article would actually benefit greatly and learn how to care for their own trees without having to hire anyone. In no way does it actually encourage to you the sites services in any way?

Can we agree that, this specific one regarding how to prune correctly does actually benefit the article it was attached to? And in the future, I will only link the specific articles that relate to the topic IF they are directly beneficial to the article at hand rather than the home section of the blog or article host? Back Creek Creative Media (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Link spam is for the benefit of the spammer. It does not benefit Wikipedia. If you keep adding links like this, you can expect that your account will be blocked and/or the sites in question will be added to Wikipedia's spam blacklist, which may damage your SEO efforts. MrOllie (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a videographer and photographer - I don't even work in SEO or Websites. But that is ok. You have made it clear that I have not met the criteria with these two links. Is there somewhere I can check in the future if they are going to be classed as beneficial or not before linking them? I actually thought they were helpful articles. Back Creek Creative Media (talk) 14:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many people come to edit Wikipedia with mistaken ideas as to the nature of Wikipedia, and in perfectly good faith do things which are not in line with Wikipedia policies, and unfortunately you seem to have done so. The account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to Wikipedia's content policy, and both your editing history and your username indicate that the account represents a business or other organisation or group or a web site, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing. If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of this page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use.

Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:

Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked. To save wasting time asking for a name that's already been taken, go to Special:CentralAuth, type your name in the box, and click on the button. If the name is already in use you will see some details about the account with that name, and if it isn't in use you'll see a red message telling you there is no global account with that name.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

Before making any unblock request, you should read the guide to appealing blocks. JBW (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]