Hrishikeshsonalikar

July 2014

Hello, I'm Vin09. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the page Udupi, 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. Vin09 (talk) 11:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Denkanikottai. 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. Thank you. Vin09 (talk) 11:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Mangalagiri. 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. Vin09 (talk) 11:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Melukote. 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.

Vin09 (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

the links were added as the articles were written after considerable research. In every article the references used were provided. If the reviewers feel that these links are not necessary, it is ok because the content is available elsewhere on the blog as well as website. There is no reason to block a new user for this action. Also to block upcoming researchers and new users from research institutes is also not good for the reputation of Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

" There is no reason to block a new user for this action." Uh, yes there is ... you were given four, count'em, four warnings above and you ignored every single one. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  — Kralizec! (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Promoting blogs of own

Revision 1, Revision 2, Revision 3, Revision 4, revision 5, Removal of official link, Revision 6, Revision 7, another temple promotion written by the same user--Vin09 (talk) 11:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)