User talk:Jordan.crowley.cc

January 2024
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Conversion rate optimization. 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. Sam Kuru (talk) 11:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I get why you may feel this as contributing to the spam—however, upon going through the citations, it's also quite apparent that "Mayple", doesn't belong in this article too. Yet, it's cited as a source. CRO itself is a very new domain. Classifying something as spam is easy: however, going through the context and understanding the nuances may be a bit harder. If you think Mayple, which in fact has been getting free traffic belongs here, this link belongs here too. If you don't think so—please find a better resource. Jordan.crowley.cc (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Do not add any more promotional material for you company. Period. You will also need to comply with WP:PAID. If you are volunteering to help with the project by removing other spam refs or links that do comply with policy, that would be great. Sam Kuru (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @Kuru, I've done what you asked me to do. Here's why: that's what you want. Earlier, you had classified the links as spam—and, right now, you've labeled them as promotional. (even if they add value)
 * My question to you is this: if something gets created today, and let's say "a garbage content marketing blog" is the first to cover it, do you cite it? As I have written previously, the CRO space is quite new, and is dominated by a lot of players (all of whom have a conflict of interest).
 * Above all, one of them have been getting free traffic.
 * Granted, you've asked me to remove the link, my question is: "Why didn't you?"
 * Is there some form of bias that I haven't been made aware about. As of this date, the Mayple blog remains. You've been acting as a sole custodian, and well you may as well be one.
 * I don't know what isn't a conflict of interest. You rush to remove, but not to add value. Eh, anyway the wind blows.
 * Thanks @Kuru. Jordan.crowley.cc (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The short answer to your primary question is no. If there are not reliable sources for topic, then the topic is simply not notable enough to be covered here. If someone adds unsourced material or an unsourced article, it is likely to be challenged and deleted through formal processes. We simply do not use junk sources. That said, there are more than six million articles in the English Wikipedia, and covering those takes the time and effort of only a few thousand volunteers, so promotional material slips in. It is removed as time and attention permits. The existence of other spam does not give license to your bad behavior. I appreciate the remainder of your passive-aggressive attempts to justify your actions, but you'll forgive me if I move on to other good-faith issues. Sam Kuru (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)