User talk:Anderson Michelle

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Mean as custard (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Mean as custard (talk) 09:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC) Mean as custard why do you always delete the articles i created? AndersonAnderson Michelle (talk) 10:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It wasn't an article, it was an advertisement. . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Mean as custard how can it be an advertisement when i am just talking about the business? i dont see any type of advertisement in there. have you seen this, is this also an advertisement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lovehoney?


 * Hi Michelle,


 * I saw the article while doing new page curation, and I have again restored the redirect. Let me explain why.


 * It seems to an outside observer as if you have too close a connection with the subject to be able to write about it from a neutral point of view. If you're being paid directly or indirectly to promote the business, you have a conflict of interest, and that's what leads to you writing text that appears promotional to people who are not as close to the topic. There are two clear problems that I see with the article that could be caused by a conflict of interest:


 * First off, the article doesn't establish notability. At the very least, you need to show that the topic of the article has been discussed in detail in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources.


 * Secondly, the text of the article is highly promotional. It sounds like the kind of text that you'd see on a company website, not in an encyclopedia. You raise the example of Lovehoney as a comparison, and that's certainly not the best that Wikipedia has to offer: I'd even call it borderline promotional, but if you compare that text to yours, you'll see a difference. That article deals much more with facts, while yours has what we bluntly call puffery, i.e. promotional language making unverifiable statements like "Prudish approaches sexuality with class and elegance".


 * I hope that helps you to understand why your text keeps getting reverted. Because of many similar cases in the past, the English Wikipedia has a policy that forbids people from editing under a conflict of interest. I'm happy to discuss the issue further with you: to attract my attention you can just mention my username like this: User:Slashme and I'll get a notification. --Slashme (talk) 08:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Anderson Michelle, you are invited to the Teahouse!
User:Slashme

Thanks for the feedback. I am not intending to advertise so any help you can give me to get this published is appreciated.


 * Hi Michelle, according to LinkedIn there is someone with your name who is a consultant and party director at Prudish. If that's you, then that's a clear-cut conflict of interest. I'd strongly recommend that you focus on social media where you have ownership of your brand, like Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.


 * By the way, I didn't get the notification because you didn't sign your comment by adding four tildes like this: ~ I wasn't aware that this was a requirement, but it's good, because then people can see who said what! --Slashme (talk) 10:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

--Slashme (talk) 10:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)