User talk:Juliet Parker

April 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) 21:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Mr. Ollie,
 * There was a section(Nespresso Troubleshooting) of the article in the Nespresso article that you removed. Would it be possible to get some clarity on this? I don't believe that section is out of context and not important for Wikipedia. Rather that section you removed will enrich the article I think. Thank you! Juliet Parker (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a tech support forum and such content off-mission for Wikipedia, see WP:NOT. It was also cited to an affiliate marketing blog (kitchensmom.com) which is not a usable source for Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand it's not a tech support forum. Next time I will try to add a non-tech informational part to the article. But my question is about your concern about the affiliate marketing site's citation. I noticed there are more other affiliate websites cited from the "Nespresso article". Like citation no 17(thespruceeats.com), and citation no 49(craftcoffeespot.com). These two sites are affiliate marketing sites. But no one did not remove that affiliate marketing site's link. What's your say on these two sites? Juliet Parker (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sources are considered reliable if they have an established reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. This means that the person who writes the content is not the same person who authorizes its publication. Therefore mainstream news organizations, academic press, and reputable publishers of newspapers, magazines and books are considered to be the most trusted sources.
 * Thespruce has a clearly publicized editorial policy. I searched the archives of the reliable sources noticeboard and found this thread discussing it. It looks like it is considered to be acceptable. I'm not sure about Craft Coffee Spot; they have an editor and a couple of writers (https://craftcoffeespot.com/about/), but I might post on the noticeboard to get some opinions.
 * Blogs are self-published sources with no editorial review. Therefore they fail to meet the definition of a reliable source. This means that online forums and social media sites are equally considered unreliable. The official social media accounts of existing reliable sources are excepted, as it is presumed that content posted there has undergone the same editorial review as their main sites.
 * It also appears that you are affiliated with the blog you linked to. It is therefore an inherent conflict of interest for you to insert links to your website. Please do not do this again, as it is considered self-serving for you to link to your own website. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your clarification. I got it. I will definitely follow the wiki rules. Juliet Parker (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And just so you know, I raised the issue about Craft Coffee Spot here. The consensus is that it is not a reliable source, because the site appears to have a financial interest in the products they review. Therefore they cannot be trusted to be objective in their writing. I will remove it from the article shortly. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)