User talk:Llarryyllarryy

April 2022[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. DMacks (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for promotion or advertising, as you did at Time perception. DanielRigal (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding disruptive advertisal editing[edit]

for everyone trying to inform me about edits that wasnt posted correctly please help me figuring out how to post useful stuff without interrupting the pages with the text itself- as most of my posts arent describing the thematic but providing external additions. is there a source i can use to be trusted by wikipedia when uploading content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llarryyllarryy (talk • contribs) 22:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can add the things you want to Wikipedia. You seem to want to promote a web site, and that's just not what Wikipedia is for. It's not going to work. _signed,Willondon (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok let me show you what i mean: if i have a serious useful collection of stuff that helps people when discovering the given article and no popular page is distributing it, is there a way to upload it on a custom wikipedia page or is there just no way to make it available for someone here?

Probably not. Your goals are just too different from Wikipedia. Probably the best adivce is at Notability requires verifiable evidence. It advises re "evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability." So when you say serious useful collection of stuff, it means you'll need reliable secondary source to affirm that they're notably useful. And when you say no popular page is distributing it, it's an indication that those sources will be hard to find. So,Wikipedia isn't a trend-setter, or a "you heard it here first" kind of thing. I don't see a way to make that material available to Wikipedia readers. _signed,Willondon (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the problem is that there are sources listed. scientific sources. its just that i listed what they said on an additional page. im not even claiming that i want visits, i said multiple times i would upload it on a trusted page. but there doesnt seems to be a trusted source for wikipedia, its just that they want knowledge to be popular

If there are scientific sources that are listed on our page, what's the value to our readers of also posting a link to some other site that lists those sources? DMacks (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the sources mentioned in the wikipedia articles are meant for the description of the whole thing, the sources i link are meant to give practical usage of a theme. if you take the time perception article as an example: the sources from my article show what can alter time perception, nothing related to describe time perception, but to use time perception practical.

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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]