User talk:Cssroyal

August 2023
This is your only warning; if you insert a spam link to Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 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. Sam Kuru (talk) 10:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Kuru, I am really sorry if this looks that way. I had no intention of spamming. If you see the sources I added, the content actually have more updated data then the current WIKI content.
 * For example, the page for Purchase funnel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchase_funnel) only gives older explanation. The article I cited has a detailed explanation of it's implementation (which was not mentioned anywhere in the WIKI page).
 * A similar case can be said about the articles on email marketing.
 * So I am actually unaware as to why these were considered as spam. It would be great if you could advice me on the right way to update content citations here or add newer content data. It would help me avoid this in the future.
 * Thanks. Cssroyal (talk) 02:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Stop adding content promoting a specific vendor. Content marketing blogs and other direct links to commercial vendors or affiliate links are not acceptable. If you are unable to contribute without promotion, this account will be blocked. Sam Kuru (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Kuru, I understand. I am willing to make genuine contributions. I think the suspicion came up because I gave links from the same website.
 * I am an expert in the fields of virtual reality, email marketing, and research with. So I have my knowledge and data to be able to contribute on my own. But I read some guides online that said I have to give reference to what I explain. Unfortunately, not all my knowledge are through research papers. I literally learned about these by staying in the field for years and being directly involved in the research & development teams for companies that are part of these industries.
 * So my confusion is, if I share what I know for sure, how do I cite that? Is there a specific way to do so? If needed, I may not cite to the websites you have suspicion about. There are other resources online that are accurate as per my experience.
 * The reason why I want to contribute is because some of the content here are really outdated and not properly explained for people to find them useful. For example, the Wiki article on "Marketing automation in email campaigns" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketing_automation_in_email_campaigns} is really just a bare bone to what it actually is.
 * So I guess it would be helpful if you could answer the following:
 * 1. Do I suggest my changes for review without citation?
 * 2. For certain data which has no citation in wiki, can I add citation to resources that proves the content correct?
 * 3. Some content in Wiki are correct but are not detailed. Do I add citation to those with reference to more detailed resources (which is what I tried to do yesterday to be honest)? Or do I have to add the extra details to the source and submit for review?
 * I just want to learn the process so that I do not violate the policies again. You are probably thinking I am trying to promote a certain company. But honestly I am not. If needed, I will not refer to the two websites you have suspicion about anytime soon.
 * I know you may be busy but I really appreciate you taking the time to educate me on this matter.
 * Thanks in advance. Cssroyal (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)




 * Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires that readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Please review Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources. Sources are considered reliable if they have an established reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. This heavily favours mainstream news organizations, academic press, and reputable publishers of newspapers, books and magazines.
 * Sources of dubious or unknown provenance are likely to be rejected, as are sources that are self-published with no editorial review (e.g. social media, blogs, message forums, wikis).
 * We cannot accept your own unpublished personal knowledge or experience (referred to here as original research), as it is inherently unverifiable. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Drm310 Thanks for clarifying that for me. I will refrain from such contributions then and rather stick to fixing writing styles that need to be updated. Thanks. I really appreciate it. Cssroyal (talk) 05:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)