User talk:90.152.1.254

June 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Website audit. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 14:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I have asked for clarification on what exactly has made this unconstructive but as yet am not being told.

The changes made point out some important updates to an old article and I shall revert it back again because it is clear that you are not from within the SEO community and do not understand the importance of some of Google's recent changes.

If there is something specific around this, then I would like more than just a copied reply. That isn't what editors are for...

90.152.1.254 (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Website audit shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

I am awaiting information rather than just undoing changes that are being made. And no, I do not agree that this is refspam.

See above.

If I am doing something you perceive as wrong, actually tell me and how I can do it better.

90.152.1.254 (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. bonadea contributions talk 14:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I am awaiting information rather than just undoing changes that are being made. And no, I do not agree that this is refspam.

See above.

If I am doing something you perceive as wrong, actually tell me and how I can do it better.

Really? What value does iqseo.org serve to the encyclopedia? Praxidicae (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had a look at what they published over the last few days rather than just deleting it? Something that the industry needed, but if you are not from this industry, then I guess that is where this lack of understanding comes from.

Actually take a look at it. The main guy there spent days putting together not only this resource but also made his audit spreadsheet available for everyone.

As for my other edits that were not links, this is what Google has been doing and why it is so important what with mobile first.

I have been doing this for almost 15 years now, so know a thing or two about it.

90.152.1.254 (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IQseo

Please stop spamming websites, and please stay off Bonadea's talkpage. Use the article talkpage for polite discussion, otherwise, drop it. Acroterion (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How difficult does it need to be to try and get some help? No wonder Wiki admins have a name for just looking out for each other.

And no, if I have asked a question and I get no answer, then I expect that to be dealt with professionally, not told to "stop whining" when looking for more than just a stock reply.

I see you are also someone who clearly has no idea about the industry, so perhaps some admins that do understand should be assigned?

So yes, where you say it is for polite discussion, that works both ways, wouldn't you agree? 90.152.1.254 (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the third time, use the talkpage, that's what it's there for, and don't spam SEO websites. Acroterion (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am on the talk page!!????

And I am not spamming any sites - I was adding citations trying to make an old page better by adding actual useful information.

Is it because they are an SEO company that this is an issue?

90.152.1.254 (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article talkpage, the one you were editing. And yes, spamming SEO sites is a quick way to get blocked. Acroterion (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was replying to messages on this talk page, nothing more. I didn't realise that when I was clicking on the New Message that it took me away from that page.

But I am really confused because how can anyone add any resource about SEO without it being on an SEO website? Is this just an issue with SEO? How can a genuinely useful article be considered spamming?

90.152.1.254 (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the fourth time, you were advised to make your case on the article's talkpage. Use of commercial sites as references for their own product is a big red flag, particularly for SEO, whose practitioners are notorious for aggressive spamming of this encyclopedia. Such links are routinely rejected. If you're not willing to abide by Wikipedia policies on referencing, conflict of interest and talkpage discussion, there's nothing more to say. If you have a conflict of interest, editing without an explicit declaration is a violation of the terms of use. Acroterion (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am genuinely confused - I have updated that article talk page but I am just replying to messages - what else am I supposed to do?

And I have no conflict of interest as I don't work for them, but I am honestly confused as to why your tone for replying to messages here? I see that this is my own talk page - am I not allowed to use this?

90.152.1.254 (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for an answer at the talkpage. You may have to wait a long time. Don't link to SEO websites, ever, it's a red flag for spammers, whether you are one or not. This is a sensitive topic, as The North Face and Leo Burnett Tailor Made found out the hard way a few days ago [1] when they tried to manipulate search engine results through Wikipedia. We have very little patience for reference spam links, and your edits looked like classic refspam on a topic notorious for abuse, the more so because you were edit-warring to include them. Acroterion (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The daft thing is, you are unlikely to ever manipulate a search result via Wikipedia because the links are all nofollow.

Even if linking to SEO sites is sensitive, there are already links to SEO sites on there but with old and outdated information. All I was trying to do was bring something new and updated to the page.

90.152.1.254 (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You do understand that your IP address is public and visible, right? Praxidicae (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do indeed. And before you try to be all sleuth about this, there are lots of companies here in Regus.

Even if embedded links are nofollow, the articles themselves feature high in search rankings and that then attracts people to the links, and that alone makes Wikipedia articles a big target for SEO. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I do get that, but for this phrase, I don't think that page even ranks anywhere.

Perhaps you can advise how anything related to SEO is ever cited without it being a red flag?

90.152.1.254 (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References are like anything else, sourced to reliable independent sources, like books, journalism and academic sources. We don't source the article on Exxon from Exxon's content, except in routine, uncontroversial matters, and we don't lead readers to websites that are selling a product or promoting themselves (apart from official company websites in article on the company), nofollow tags or not. See WP:RS. Acroterion (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken far too much of mine and your time over this so thank you for the information and clarification.

90.152.1.254 (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.