User talk:Devinder Thakran

October 2022[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) 12:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MrOllie

I don't think that link was anywhere near inappropriate because I have been researching the networking field from quite some time now and major of my knowledge came from that portal. So, I was just trying to contribute to help people out here searching for relevant information. Since, you feel that was inappropriate, Can you please explain the other links in the list? Devinder Thakran (talk) 05:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. 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) 12:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding something to my intelligence which I already knew. I have gone through every guideline Wikipedia has to offer and I would rather get blocked than letting Wikipedia share incorrect or incomplete information to any user seeking information on such important topics. Devinder Thakran (talk) 08:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind specifying a reason for reverting me? Madeline (part of me) 08:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Devinder Thakran. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Devinder Thakran. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Devinder Thakran|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Madeline (part of me) 08:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you, I am not getting a single coin from the citation source. All I wanted to do is to become a contributor and help people out. If the citation source has no issues; you can also remove the links. I shared what I felt was right and I am not into SEO, so I don't know anything about Black hat SEO or other such terms. Devinder Thakran (talk) 09:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. MrOllie (talk) 12:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, you guyss are stupid and don't have a spine to even see what I am offering. I don't even care anymore, be it wikipedia or you guys. I am not making any further moderations, nor I am citing it to anybody but be advised, the content you are providing is wrong and not updated. Devinder Thakran (talk) 05:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]