User talk:TheReflektorFalke

Do not hide link additions as minor edits
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. &mdash;J. M. (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarification, assumed "minor" means making a small contribution, i. e. without adding some long text, new section, changing the overall message of a page...

Guess that was my bad.

Reliable sources on Wikipedia
Please read Identifying reliable sources. Your sources do not meet these requirements (for example, wikis cannot be used as sources on Wikipedia). It's quite obvious that the primary purpose of your edits is adding those spammy sources, not improving the article. Please read WP:SPAM, too. Thanks.&mdash;J. M. (talk) 02:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing to Identifying reliable sources. Maybe you can double-check on this, it defines "most wikis including Wikipedia, and other :collaboratively created websites. In particular, a wikilink is not a reliable source."
 * None of the sources are collaboratively created, but ryte wiki is a knowledge base created by a reputable source in the SEO field.
 * SEO is one important use case for PRG, why adding this, backed by citations with further details on how it works, benefits and downsides from different reliable sources, :would not improve the article, but be spammy is beyond my understanding... Simply ignoring that part, would leave the article incomplete from my point of view. TheReflektorFalke (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources are unacceptable. Reliable sources on wikipedia mean books, magazines, articles and reputable websites, not wikis, blogs and unknown, obscure websites. The sources are definitely spammy (that is, spam masked as a reference, as described in WP:SPAM). It is obvious that the real reason for inserting them is advertising, which is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. For example, when you open the source and wait for a couple of seconds, the whole page gets covered by an advertisement from the website. Please stop edit warring and readding the spammy sources. When you add something on Wikipedia and someone reverts your edit, you cannot just keep readding it. Please read WP:BRD. Thank you.—J. M. (talk) 03:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Now thats interesting, you keep blaming the sources as unacceptable, saying wikis are not allowed. Totally ignoring the fact that none of the sources are wikis as defined in Reliable sources being "collaboratively created". Please understand not everything that is labeled wiki is a wiki in terms of Wikipedia.
 * Additionally you make up new claims why the sources are not acceptable from your point of view.
 * Blogs are not acceptable? Please see Reliable sources: " "blogs"... may be acceptable as sources if the writers are ... professionals in the field on which they write". And yes, the cited sources are professionals in the field they write, not obscure or unknown. If you are familiar with SEO and the topic of the article you are reviewing here, you will for sure know that.
 * Next you blame one of the sources for showing ads. Yes, found this ad now as well (thanks for pointing me at that, maybe you should start using an ad blocker, the web will be more fun when doing so ;-) ). However, please read Advertising and conflicts of interest: "Links to potentially revenue-generating web pages are not prohibited, even though the website owner might earn money through advertisements, sales ... . Choose which pages to link based on the immediate benefit to Wikipedia readers that click on the link, not based on the organization's tax status or your guess at whether the website's owner might earn money from the link."
 * In other words, what you claim as "strictly forbidden" is even explicitly allowed by Wikipedia guidelines....
 * Instead of the current sources, you want to have books. Yes, I understand Wikipedia gives books a higher credibility. Not fully agree with that, anyone can publish a book full of crappy content. But OK, accepted, thats the Wikipedia rules. But: At least to my knowledge, there are simply no books on this topic. You see, its about SEO. SEO people use the web for gain and share knowledge, not books. With no books around, the only option is to use the best available alternative sources. Thats what I did, looking for the sources most valuable for the Wikipedia reader. In order to add credibility and avoid any conflict of interest, using different sites as sources and not only one and using sources that are not only trustworthy and reputable, but comply with Wikipedia rules as outlined above.
 * Regarding your comment "spammy (that is, spam masked as a reference, as described in WP:SPAM). It is obvious that the real reason for inserting them is advertising":
 * No Sir, sorry Sir, not affiliated to these guys, not even using their service or caring if they sell their service or not. If so, would be a bit stupid to add different sources if the intention was to advertise or promote some service, don`t you think?
 * To sum it up, can you please restore my edit, unless you have some proper reason to claim the sources as unacceptable according to Wikipedia guidelines and not only some arbitrary critique that is obviously not taking the guidelines into account sufficiently? Thank You. TheReflektorFalke (talk) 02:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)