User talk:JamesDean111

June 2023
This is your only warning; if you insert a spam link to Wikipedia again, as you did at Virtual home staging, 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) 17:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Am I able to reference any companies or businesses in the wikipedia post? It seems like in other pages that is acceptable.
 * Can you please help me understand how I can do that properly on Wikipedia? JamesDean111 (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You will not be able to add blogs or pitch pages for companies. These are almost never reliable sources and the material was way over-the-top promotional. Please read WP:RS and makes sure your material is neutral and well sourced. Sam Kuru (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that, I removed that entire section after revising.
 * I am curious what company pages are eligible to be referenced - If not pitch pages then what?. Some companies are leaders in their field or first-comers to the industry, can these companies not be used as experts in the field and used as a source? Especially when talking about neutral topics such as processes or statistically backed data. JamesDean111 (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * To continue on that same line of thought. If it was common knowledge and easily provable that Telus was Canada's leading telecoms provider. Would that be able to be included on the Canadian Telecoms page. Even though the link is pointing towards a pitch page for a company. JamesDean111 (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Very generally speaking, normal corporate output would only be used to support basic, uncontroversial facts about a company, and even then we'd prefer the material be covered in reliable, third-party sources. For example, using a large company's filing to support their revenue claims is fine, since that is audited and legally submitted, but forward looking statements or random puffery in the same annual report is not acceptable. The acceptability of research is going to vary - there would need to be long-standing recognition of professional analytics and fact-checking. A sector analysis from Forrester Research is fine, but a Facebook survey conducted by a coffee shop down the street is obviously not. Ideally, the results would be submitted to a peer-reviewed or editorially-governed publication and we'd use that.
 * I think in the context of this rather marginal topic, we'd need to be pretty strict, since the amount of promotional additions we get here are high. This is the only reason I'm watching the page, and I presume the same driver exists for Mr. Ollie. While we're on the topic, could you please read WP:PAID and ensure you're complying with the terms of service? Thanks. Sam Kuru (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Are there parts of the post where I talk from a first person point of view or add in personal anecdotes? JamesDean111 (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you come from some sort of sales or marketing background? Your additions are written like some kind of brochure - extolling the virtues of the subject and building demand. Encyclopedias are not written in this manner. MrOllie (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not - appreciate the compliment though.
 * Are you able to answer the first question regarding personal anecdotes? I didn't see any personal point of view in the writing.
 * This post is bare and paper thin and holds no relevance to the topic. You can't gatekeep information. This is a growing topic that should be flushed out. JamesDean111 (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * One of the primary functions of a Wikipedia editor is to 'gatekeep' writing that does not meet this project's policy requirements. Your entire posting - from top to bottom, was written in non-neutral tone. MrOllie (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * An explanation and a description of a process - is a fairly neutral topic. there is little ambiguity or promotional aspects to simply stating a industry-wide approach to virtual staging. How would you describe the process then? Because the page is still empty.
 * Which parts in specific - were non-neutral?? It is incorrect to state that the entire posting was non-neutral. JamesDean111 (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello? JamesDean111 (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)