User talk:IndusValleyDarvidian

December 2022

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) 17:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

please explain "inappropriate external link". What was inappropriate with the content and the citation I added to back up the information? IndusValleyDarvidian (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been spamming that site on every article you have touched, sometimes replacing existing valid citations to do so. You should stop. MrOllie (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming is a bit of a strong word!

For your clarity, I wanted to expand the context of "Immersive technology today" for this page > Immersion (virtual reality)

The context I added was appropriate because this section does not address the use of immersive 3D technology in ecommerce.

This same section has mention of major brands that could appear self promotion for those brands. In the copy I posted sites a research survey and is non-promotional.

I am well aware that Wikipedia uses nofollow value. I believe the copy block I added only enhances the information and NOT spam it! IndusValleyDarvidian (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Embedded Insurance (April 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Embedded Insurance and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IndusValleyDarvidian! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this is my first attempt at submitting an artcile. However, I also know that I won't be able to dedicate a lot of time to this effort.

"Embedded Insurance" is a new and emerging topic with warrants a Wikipedia entry. I am happy to yeild back to anyone else (including you) if you wish to write/create a wikipedia entry for the topic.

Thanks IndusValleyDarvidian (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't report on "new and emerging topics" topics need to be already notable before we can have an article about them.

Concern regarding Draft:Embedded Insurance

Hello, IndusValleyDarvidian. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Embedded Insurance, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

Please stop. 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) 15:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current citation content does not exist; its removed from the web.: https://web.archive.org/web/20110804064419/http://www.cbc.ca/ageofpersuasion/episode/season-5/2011/01/08/its-not-easy-being-green-green-marketing/

Please explain! IndusValleyDarvidian (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current citation at postion [1] is an external link from CBC Radio which does not exist. It also happens to be an external link.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110804064419/http://www.cbc.ca/ageofpersuasion/episode/season-5/2011/01/08/its-not-easy-being-green-green-marketing/

I plan on lodging an official complaint with Wikipedia about your threats IndusValleyDarvidian (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That a dead link exists is not an opportunity to replace it with linkspam, and in this case it isn't even dead, there is a working archive. MrOllie (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For your kind information the link I replaced it with is from a publisher of similar stature. The webiste publishes content from independent controbutors and is approved as a Google News property.

The content I submitted is original, human written content; and does not serve any advertising (unlike CBC Radio) IndusValleyDarvidian (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, it is not a reliable source as Wikipedia defines it, and repetitively adding it to multiple articles is spamming behavior as Wikipedia defines it. MrOllie (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How does a website becomne a reliable source for information?

In fact the CBC Radio's original artcile is depricated and only the archive remains. This in my opinion is bad for Wikipedia as it becomes the dumping ground for old information which make wikipedia unreliable. Wouldn't wikipedia want to use citation from publishers that are current with recent information about a topic? IndusValleyDarvidian (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't want your spam. MrOllie (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]