User talk:Jamesrad

Welcome!
Hello, Jamesrad, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, please see: If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia: I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! -- samtar talk or stalk 18:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Policy on neutral point of view
 * Guideline on spam
 * Guideline on external links
 * Guideline on conflict of interest
 * FAQ for Organizations
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and how to develop articles
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * Article wizard for creating new articles
 * Simplified Manual of Style

December 2016
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. Thank you. -- samtar talk or stalk 18:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Help me!
Hi,

I made a few edits regarding very specific running shoe topics and these edits were 100% neutral in point of view. They were not meant to be spammy or useless in value and were factual edits, adding helpful information.

The wikipedia edit asked for a source so i cited a running website i also write for... but if i don't cite where this information came from then i'm not sure how people will know where the information came from. Also, i genuinely would like to be given credit for adding valuable information when i am taking time out of my day to add these bits of important information to Wikipedia, so i thought the credit made sense.

I'm confused here and not really sure what to do...

Jamesrad (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC) James
 * Which article are you asking about? --Svetlana Tkachenko (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The reference for all of those edits was the same web page that calls itself a "blog" (well, a "bog", but I assume that's a typo) with no indication of editorial oversight and that does not actually confirm what those various edits said. Wikipedia content must be based on reliable secondary sources such as newspapers or reputable sports magazines. What you did here is known as original research, and Wikipedia explicitly does not accept it. As a secondary issue, your additions repeatedly read more like an editorial comment than the content of an encyclopedia article. Regarding credit, on Wikipedia we're credited for our contributions via the page history. Huon (talk) 00:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)