User talk:GrilledOysters

July 2023
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.  MrOllie (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry is this a default message or in response to a specific edit? GrilledOysters (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * All of your edits, which improperly linked to marketing material (a vendor's blog post) and used it as a source. MrOllie (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * How are well-researched and well-written blogs not a legitimate source? I was careful to stick to the facts of defining subject matter and tactics in a way that did NOT endorse the vendor while adding value to the wiki page, as some of these topics were sparse at best. "Will the reader take value from these passages in further expanding their knowlege?" should be the litmus test here.  GrilledOysters (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines do not allow us to use blogs as sources. Repetitively linking a vendor's marketing material is spamming as we define it here. Are you associated with this company in some fashion? MrOllie (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * These guidelines seem to be addressing personal blog / opinion pieces. I do not see anything specific to a vendor's blog other than ranking lists.
 * If you think the blog has a POV, yes this is probably true. But as the above guidelines state - "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."
 * I have edited for neutrality. Can you really not see value in my contributions??
 * Furthermore,
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenStack - links to datadoghq.com's blog
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MySQL - links to datadoghq.com's blog
 * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Azure - links to datadoghq.com's blog GrilledOysters (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I asked you a question. Will you answer it? MrOllie (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Same buddy same. Guess we'll go to resolution. Have a great Friday! GrilledOysters (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If you're genuinely wanting to contribute, please stop acting like a single-purpose account whose purpose is to add ChaosSearch blogs to Wikipedia and cite a greater diversity of sources in your contributed material instead. lizthegrey (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Some of the content you added was copied from another website, and thus was a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Please don't add copyright material to Wikipedia. — Diannaa (talk) 12:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)