User talk:Sunnyapollo

February 2012
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Value added tax. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. — billinghurst  sDrewth  10:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, although this was only an attempt to add a relevant reference that we found that offers further explanation and detail about the tax system in this country. It helped us, and it could provide more direction for other readers. Indeed, the link does. Additionally, other references could easily be considered as advertising or promotional, yet they remain. In fact a great amount of content and reference can be in some way or other, depending on your view or perhaps agenda. As long as the content is factual based and informative, whilst offering something extra, I believe it should remain. Regardless we appreciate your view and do not mind having it down. Again, we were just offering more advice from something we found. Sunnyapollo (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The sitesthat you reference are opinion pieces, not authoritative sites about the information. So when we see 26 additions of the same url to multiple articles, then it certainly looks suspicious to us. Please consider that this is an encyclopaedia, and if you are looking to improve the article, then there should be more than the addition that relates to one website. If you are seeing other unauthorative references, then they should be considered for removal or improvement.  Please consider the advice at Citing sources. I will add a menu of links after this text to assist. — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

billinghurst, you edit or should I say deleted some more work...? I can not accept this. I have read through the guideline, and you should not be deleting but rather editing work to make it acceptable. This work had text inclusions in the actual article and not only a reference. I would appreciate you put it back, with any possible alterations. Alternatively, delete all other reference that may appear to be promotional. We have cited a source we found to be accurate and factual based. What more, it is in itself sourcing credible sources for information, including the European Commission, Eurostat, the European Central Bank, Cyprus Central Bank, Cyprus Press and Information Office, as well as various Cyprus Ministries. To what authority do you speak and make edits to this content? Please add back how it was or with amendments to suit Wikipedia’s style. Sunnyapollo (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

billinghurst, I’m sorry but this is completely unacceptable. I have read through the guidelines prior. I do not want to enter a wikiwar over content, especially if you speak with no authority. Either explain you position accurately or please add the content back immediately. Sunnyapollo (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

billinghurst, please keep in mind that you should be advising on how better to amend content in order to make more suitable, and not simply deleting. This is not the right way to go about it as it does not promote healthy contributions or what Wiki is all about. In expressing your view, please also advise your authority on the matter, and also please consider that the vast majority of material already being referenced are citing sources that have some 'commercial' agenda, including media (i.e. they clearly sell advertising, and even have political agendas to take it to the extreme). Just because this source I have citied is of a smaller scale, does not necessarily make it any less factual or informative. Please cross reference the information and if it is false or inaccurate then you have every reason to delete. But it is not. I found the information helpful for my profession and thought I would share it via the content updated. Sunnyapollo (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback
Maybe, but the reverting of your edits was explained to you, above; especially the neutrality of your edits is at least questionable (it really reads like opinion pieces).

Lectonar (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

&#160;