User talk:MarketingPhdResearch

June 2023
Wikipedia does not give preference to any national variety of English over others. In some cases there is a good reason for using one national variety; for example in the article Winston Churchill it makes sense to use British English, while in the article San Fransisco it makes sense to use US English. However, when there is no such specific reason for preferring one version, it is not acceptable to change content of an article to comply with one's own preferences. JBW (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for letting me know. MarketingPhdResearch (talk) 05:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I understand and that is not the intention. I was under the impression that adding novel contributions in the form of research published in peer-reviewed journals were acceptable for inclusion. Is this not the case? MarketingPhdResearch (talk) 05:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)


 * All of your additions have focused on the addition of superficial citations by sources with at least one common author. The language you have added is unacceptably vague and broad, and therefor fails add anything novel. Further, Wikipedia strongly favors secondary and tertiary sources for novel information.
 * This edit in particular is almost completely devoid of meaning, and cannot be said to be novel:
 * Various informational features on websites (e.g., product specifications, product promotions, comparisons of features, and expert ratings) can impact the effect of web interactivity on frequency of website visits and purchases.
 * Do I really need to explain why additions like this are a huge waste of time? If the cited source actually says something worth adding to the article, you have failed to summarize it, and you should instead find a reliable independent source for this, anyway.
 * Since it is obvious you have a conflict of interest, this behavior is indistinguishable from garden variety spamming. Please carefully review the information below about having a conflict of interest. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 06:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, MarketingPhdResearch. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 04:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)