User talk:Asetra

June 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) 20:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am providing a reference table in its original format for cross-reference to the state by state requirements for auto insurance coverage. Asetra (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place to try to improve the SEO of your law office's website. We do not regard such self published sites as usable sources. MrOllie (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines"

This is about providing information, not SEO Asetra (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did at Vehicle insurance in the United States, 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) 21:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The link is within the guidelines and does not include any alterations. If you cannot challenge the accuracy of the source page, then please be clear about what the issue is with providing accurate information to individuals.

Secondly, what is your personal affiliation with the page? Asetra (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RS. We do not use self published sites as sources. MrOllie (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can host the original contents of the reference on a page and cite to that which is precisely what was done. Once again, what is the issue with the actual source that is referenced? Asetra (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is We do not use self published sites as sources.. We're not going to link your law firm's web site. MrOllie (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the issue with referencing an accurate, unaltered publication of the source document (especially when it exists on a reference page)?

You have not addressed the issue with the source and you have not answered what your affiliation is with the page. Asetra (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can cite the original document, provided it otherwise meets the sourcing requirements. You cannot add a link to your web page. MrOllie (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie's "affilation with the page" is as a long-time editor who, in this case, is ensuring that new editors such as yourself don't add inappropriate links, promotional or otherwise, to the encyclopedia. So now that it has been explained to you that you cannot link to your website, how are you going to edit productively?-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, your repeated accusations are offensive especially when you've already acknowledged that it has no impact on search results.

Once again, if you cannot challenge the accuracy of the source material or that the linked information is not accurately produced, then what is the issue with "providing information" that speaks directly to the section where the citation was inserted. Asetra (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding reference materials to several pages and happy that we are addressing these issues upfront.

My goal is and has been that people have a right to access accurate information.

If the issue is the page design, then I'm happy to fix that.

It does not make sense that you can cite the document, but cannot provide a link to view the document in it's entirety. Asetra (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been provided a link to the relevant guideline, which we all have to follow. I'm not going to debate it with you here. If you have questions about it, feel free to ask at WP:TEAHOUSE. If you continue to ignore it and link to inappropriate sites, you can expect that your edits will be reverted and your account will be blocked. MrOllie (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be disinterested in resolving this in good faith (which is required) and have yet to raise an actual issue with the reference being provided or its accuracy.

I just want to clarify what your issue is.

Is the issue that the citation to the full state by state table is reproduced (without alteration) on a reference page hosted on a website that you don't like?

There are additional entries to the table which are going to be added to the page for each state, but I'm holding off on adding everything else because it appears that you have unilaterally decided (in addition to making some accusations) that people should not be able to link directly to source material (whether accurate or not).

Please clarify so we can attempt to resolve this in good faith. Asetra (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are not required to explain our policies and guidelines to you until you're satisfied with the answers being provided. You are adding a self-published source from your law firm. You cannot do that. If that is your only purpose in editing, then the account will be blocked. I don't expect that MrOllie will be replying further as you seem intent on not hearing what is being said. They've provided a link to WP:TEAHOUSE if you're interested, but the volunteers there will just reiterate what has been said on this page. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My sole purpose is to provide people access to information. As I've explained, several times, it is a link to a 100% accurate reproduction of a public document which is correctly cited and hosted on a reference page so people can view the source material in its entirety. The full table is in the body of the reference page.

Secondly, I didn't ask for an explanation of the policies. I asked for an explanation of the decision (and subsequent threats) so any issue can be remedied. We are encouraged to resolve issues in good faith which you and the other editor appear unwilling to do.

In addition, my edits were not even completed before it was blocked. There is still more information modify, within that page, specifically the table which should provide different state requirements for different automobile insurance types (UM, liability, PIP, etc) and links to the specific state statutes which mandate their purchase (preferably internal wikipedia links and government links), but I was shut down before I could even finish that.

I intend to edit and provide more information on several pages and would like to get these issues resolved before I continue to have my references and edits blocked by editors who have yet to raise an issue regarding the content of the reference or the accuracy of the content being linked.

Are you saying that you will not provide that information either?

My intention is not to argue with you. It is simply to establish the basis for your position and your threats to block contributors who provide information which you take issue with.

As you are aware, you are required to disclose any COI or affiliation with the content page. Please provide that information.

I want to ensure that all cards are on the table before proceeding with the formal dispute process.

Thanks Asetra (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~~Asetra Asetra (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user left some messages here in relation to conversation above. GenuineArt (talk) 03:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Vehicle insurance in the United States. 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) 18:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring to restore a disputed link to your own website despite multiple warnings and explanations. As you've shown no interest in contributing constructively elsewhere and the sole purpose of this account is to add the link, the block is sitewide and indefinite in duration.

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 ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please disclose your affiliation with the page and its references including, but not limited to, any conflict of interest. I

have asked for this to be provided (which you are required to do) and have yet to receive a response.

I was also told very clearly by the other editor that I can link directly to the document in it's original format.

The link upon which the ban is based goes directly to the source document which the editor said was fine: https://setralaw.com/files/2022/06/Insurance_Law___Types_of_Insurance__Consumer_Automobile_Coverage__July_2021__1.pdf

Finally, your accusation that "no interest in contributing" has been shown falls squarely inline with the other personal attacks and groundless insinuations which have been made throughout this process. You cannot shut someone down from making their first contribution to the process and then accuse them of refusing to participate constructively.

I will certainly follow through with the appeal process because it seems that you hold no interest in solving this issue. Your baseless personal attacks coupled with your refusal to disclose your own affiliation with the page is disturbing to say the least. Please provide that information so that I may include it in the appeal.

Also the link that you are defending is a redirect and perhaps explains why you are intent on preventing access to accurate information.

http://personalinsure.about.com/cs/vehicleratings/a/blautominimum.htm Asetra (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions for appealing the block are included in block message provided. If you're waiting for me to disclose some sort of affiliation with the article in question prior to making the appeal, you'll be waiting in perpetuity. This is a private website and you have no inherent right to insert links to your website. You were invited to participate in other areas of the encyclopedia or to request further input at the Teahouse, but chose to reinsert the link instead. My requirements to explain this block per WP:ADMINACCT have been fulfilled and I won't be replying further. Another administrator will review your unblock request, should you make one.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, unsurprising.

You've made it clear that you have no intention of following the guidelines you supposedly enforce and it is unsurprising that you would permit a reference link that redirects users while banning me for sharing a useful verifiable source document. We shall proceed with the next step in the process. I certainly hope you will disclose your bias and affiliation with the editor you jumped in to respond for and your affiliation with the page at that time. Asetra (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asetra (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]