User talk:RobertCaliB

October 2024

Hello, I'm Leonidlednev. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Real estate appraisal have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Leonidlednev (T, C, L) 14:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response to e-mail: I can't verify whether the source is spam at this point, but I will re-add it when able to do so. --Leonidlednev (T, C, L) 14:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, let me know when you made the change, thanks. RobertCaliB (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i haven't received your reply yet and it's important since it's my first change, can you please let me know? RobertCaliB (talk) 11:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello once again i am contacting you not receiving any answer from you, should i go ahead and update it again? thank you. RobertCaliB (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) 21:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) 21:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not advertising links, i found them as relevant links on topics that needed them, and you removed them without providing a context, can you provide a reason? RobertCaliB (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are, in fact, obvious advertising, as nearly all such marketing blogs are. You are spamming them onto multiple articles, thus they are spammed links. Kindly stop. MrOllie (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion and look, my intention was to add relevant links that I genuinely thought would improve the articles, not to advertise anything. If they came across the wrong way, that wasn’t what I was going for. I’m open to tweaking the links or finding other ways to add useful info, but just removing them without any real explanation doesn’t seem fair. Tell me what's the procedure here is? RobertCaliB (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The procedure is: You stop adding the links. If you don't, then you might get one more final warning, or perhaps your account just gets blocked. If they get added again after that, we put them on Wikipedia's spam blacklist and the software will prevent them from being added by anyone from then on. MrOllie (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're here to help build an encyclopedia, have a look at WP:RS, which goes over the kinds of sources we can actually use. For these kind of articles, the top sources will be from peer-reviewed journals. The second tier will be books from independent, reputable publishers or articles in major newspapers. MrOllie (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s keep it fair, I see plenty of links being used as references that don’t even match the standards you're talking about, and they’re not getting removed. If you’re really interested in improving the encyclopedia, maybe start by cleaning up those questionable links too.(we're talking about broken and bad old links for example 2017) RobertCaliB (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a large site that requires lots of maintenance with a limited pool of volunteer time. If you have noticed other improper links on Wikipedia, that is a problem to be fixed, not a reason to make the problem larger. MrOllie (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be clear I’m not here to be pushed around. And stop with the threats. If you want to resolve this properly, we’ll do it through discussion, not by power-tripping with warnings. I’ll escalate this if necessary, So instead of playing power games, maybe consider handling this professionally. RobertCaliB (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and escalate, you'll just be told the same things I'm telling you. MrOllie (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oops, looks like you decided to start spamming from a second account instead. In that case I'd read WP:BOOMERANG before you try that escalation. MrOllie (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, man, I’m not out here trying to "spam" with multiple accounts. I’m just trying to build some backlinks and contribute relevant content at the same time. If you think there’s a better way to do that within the guidelines, I’m open to it. But let’s not throw accusations around just because I’m trying to be efficient with my contributions RobertCaliB (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place to 'build backlinks' to your site. Just stop spamming us. MrOllie (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you really seem desperate to flex your authority here. I get it, you’ve made your point—no backlinks and i hope this isn’t how you spend most of your time, patrolling Wikipedia like it’s life or death. Maybe it’s time to take a step back, get some perspective, and focus on things outside the screen. There’s more to life than this, trust me. RobertCaliB (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's time to take a step back, get some perspective, and consider why you'd want to damage a valuable public resource to 'build backlinks'. MrOllie (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, maybe it’s time for you to take a hard look in the mirror, spending your days hovering over Wikipedia pages to flex your "authority" isn’t something to be proud of. And maybe if you focused your energy on a real job or building something of your own, you wouldn’t feel the need to cling to this little bit of control. It’s sad, really. RobertCaliB (talk) 22:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for adding spam links. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]