User talk:Tanishksingh039
December 2024
[edit]
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) 14:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)- @HJ Mitchell, I've reversed this one, since the editor made no edits after being warned. -- asilvering (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Asilvering I wish you hadn't. There was another account spamming the same link and I'd bet good money I'll find more when I get to a proper computer to run a CU. Spammers don't need warnings; they're not bored kids on school IPs, they're often professional SEO firms operating multiple accounts (sometimes dozens or hundreds). This account has all those hallmarks. For example, they tend to operate a different account for each link or client, and they tend to link the client site from any Wikipedia article even loosely connected to the field or the name. I know you're trying to right a perceived wrong but throwaway accounts adding external links to commercial sites isn't where I would start. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- My understanding of our blocking practices is that we only block users for spam after they've been given sufficient warning or if they also have a username that is promotional. At WP:AIV we remind people that
The warning(s) must have been given recently and there must be reasonable grounds to believe the user(s) will further disrupt the site in the immediate future.
This user took no actions whatsoever for a week before being blocked, so I don't see how that applies. Is this incorrect? -- asilvering (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)- There is no requirement for warnings before blocks in any policy. Even the blocking policy mentions warnings but says they're not required. Warnings are great for vandals (a lot are bored schoolkids and even in 2024 some people don't realise they can edit and their changes go live straight away) but someone making a living by backlinking a website for a client isn't going to forego potential revenue because of a talk page message. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- My understanding of our blocking practices is that we only block users for spam after they've been given sufficient warning or if they also have a username that is promotional. At WP:AIV we remind people that
- @Asilvering I wish you hadn't. There was another account spamming the same link and I'd bet good money I'll find more when I get to a proper computer to run a CU. Spammers don't need warnings; they're not bored kids on school IPs, they're often professional SEO firms operating multiple accounts (sometimes dozens or hundreds). This account has all those hallmarks. For example, they tend to operate a different account for each link or client, and they tend to link the client site from any Wikipedia article even loosely connected to the field or the name. I know you're trying to right a perceived wrong but throwaway accounts adding external links to commercial sites isn't where I would start. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)