User talk:Dlvseomadlvf

Recent edit to Immigration law

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the Immigration law article, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. You may find our linking guidelines helpful in this regard. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

Hello, I'm NatGertler. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Immigration law because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Nat Gertler (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Citizenship in the United States. 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. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. SummerPhD (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that your purpose here is not to contribute to building the encyclopedia, but to use Wikipedia to post links to publicise a web site. It has been explained to you several times that doing so is unacceptable, but you have ignored all messages and continued doing the same thing. You have therefore been blocked indefinitely from editing. If the same links continue to be posted, they can be added to Wikipedia's spam blacklist, which will mean that the Wikimedia software will automatically prevent anyone from ever adding links to that site to any Wikipedia page. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlvseomadlvf: I do not have enough experience in wikipedia. I have followed this steps in one situation with deal link that I found in article "immigration law":https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Dead_links There I have readed "Dead links should be repaired or replaced if possible" And I added a new one similar. Now I undestand they appeared to be promotional. I undestand it. Can the dead link be change for other one "No promotional" link, using one that is most likely to be the contents of the page seen?

The link you inserted didn't even have the information being referenced, so even if it hadn't been to an ad page, it would not have been suitable replacement. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dlvseomadlvf (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The block is no longer necessary because I understand why I am blocked. I will not do it again, and I will make productive contributions instead.

Decline reason:

Bullshit. In addition to the reasons given above, you have also violated Wikipedia's Terms of Service. SEO spamming is not tolerated on Wikipedia, so I have added simonebertollini1.com to our spam blacklist. MER-C 04:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

What, in your words, did you do wrong? Origamite^ⓣⓒ 01:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|1=Okey. Thank you very much for you explanations. Now I undestand well the issues why I am blocked. I will not do it again. I will follow the Wikipedia's Terms of Service about SEO spamming and I will make productive contributions. The block is no longer necessary. Thank you very much}}

So you didn't understand it before? You said that you did. Also, Wikipedia's Terms of Service for undisclosed paid editing are quite simply that it is not allowed, ever. The position on SEO is, essentially, "Don't do it. NO." What is a positive change that you might make? Origamite^ⓣⓒ 13:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dlvseomadlvf (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Sorry, but I do not undestand what you mean with "What is a positive change that you might make?" The links that I added in change of dead links, (thinking it helps(, all have been removed. And the others that I added as reference too. My only positive change that I think I might make about it is this: (do not put the same link in dead link that talk about "Immigration"), and try to find the original content that was in these websites dead or dead link. I think it will help to wikipedia a lot.

Decline reason:

Under the circumstances, I think a standard offer approach could be taken in your case. In this context, I suggest you make a new unblock request in 6 months. PhilKnight (talk) 11:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thank you very much for the Standard Offer. I promise to avoid the behavior that led to my block. In this 6 months I will learn more about how wikipedia works. Thanks.