User talk:Shannaloos

Welcome!
Hello, Shannaloos, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Review site, 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! bonadea contributions talk 08:10, 4 November 2020 (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
 * Tutorials
 * Article wizard for creating new articles
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Response
Hi Bonadea, I'm actually an Economics University student and was editing the Wikipedia Page 'Review Site' as my final piece of assessment for the semester. It is in no way me 'advertising' or 'promoting', I was actually still in the process of editing it when you went and undid all my edits. If you don't think it belongs on that page could you please withhold from editing it until next week? As I need to have it on there in order to ensure I pass this course? I am also struggling to see how on earth my edits were 'promotional' I was simply discussing the benefits of Review sites for both consumers and businesses? and was using that as an opposite for the 'criticism' section and was actually going to go into criticism and add more in there regarding and negatives that are present from review sites. Shannaloos (talk) 07:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The content you had added to the article included inappropriate promotional links in the references, one of which had already been deleted by another editor, as well as phrasing such as "It's the best form of advertising for businesses as it's free and also not biased, meaning that consumers are likely to trust these reviews as they are made by people who have had some sort of experience with the business." Wikipedia can't say in its own voice that something is "the best form of [x]", that is promotional writing even if it is not promoting a particular company or product.  In addition, it is very questionable to say that reviews are "a form of advertising", or that "review sites make it easier for consumers to make decisions" – that assertion was not even supported by the sources! Claims such that "90% of consumers research reviews online prior to visiting a business" are meaningless when there is no context (consumers worldwide? consumers of all ages? what kind of businesses are included in that figure? etc), and looking at the source, it was an infographic from 2015(!) that would not be considered a reliable source according to Wikipedia's definition.


 * When I reverted most of your edits (not all of them) before, I also edited the article some more, removing previously existing inappropriate links (that you had not added), and rewriting a couple of paragraphs. Your edit tonight reverted all that, restoring incorrect claims and links that violate Wikipedia's external links guidelines, which had not been part of your initial edit, and also restoring completely inappropriate references such as reputationresults.com and invespcro.com.


 * I am very sorry to hear that you were given such an impossible assignment as part of your course work; please ask your instructor to read Student assignments carefully. Thank you. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 18:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)