Sjwater91

February 2023

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Lichfield. 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. Fieryninja (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

As you can see the blog posts are not sponsored and I don’t run adverts nor do I have affiliate links on many of them, so traffic is not going to benefit me and I’m fully aware it’s a no-follow so other than me wanting to contribute to providing further reading and plenty of photos of the places in question (that as a resident I have visited often) I don’t benefit. As a passionate writer, I was excited about joining today, but it appears my efforts are not appreciated by this community so you’ll be pleased I won’t be wasting my time contributing to topics that interest me and may be interesting to readers of the topic. Sjwater91 (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Please stop using your personal blog as a source. Blogs are not acceptable as a reliable source on WP. Read WP:RSSELF for more information. Fieryninja (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I've already told you I won't be contributing. So there's no need to tell me to stop. I'm fully aware blogs are not acceptable as a reliable source, but as a resident, a person who has ate at, lived in and experienced the places I've contributed to and who takes photos and videos of such places. Its a much more enjoyable source for the modern day WP reader who want to see what the actual food looks like at a particular restaurant by the reliable source who ate and visited at that place and the very person who has lived, photographed, videoed, and visited the landmark firsthand - pretty sure that's a good source - especially a resident like me who has lived there for over 30 years. As well as providing a lot more up-to-date visuals.

You say blogs are not acceptable, yet there are many many links to blogs on WP that you have missed - for example solosophie a personal blog was linked to Cărturești Carusel but that's not been removed? yet I was? A quick search shows that that blog is used as a source for many topics on here. Very contradicting. Sjwater91 (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Those blog sources have also been removed as they too are unreliable. This does not change WP policy about personal blogs being unacceptable. Fieryninja (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The policy on WP reliable sources:

• Under the User-generated content: section it says no to personal blogs but yes to magazine blogs. As a full-time business writing articles on a vast range of topics on a daily basis in a similar manner to magazines available either in print or online format. I consider myself a magazine publishing outlet, not a personal blog.
• Under the sponsored content section: 'reliable publications clearly indicate sponsored articles in the byline or with a disclaimer at the top of the article'. If you look at every article on my site you'll evidently see it contains a disclaimer at the very top, notifying the reader if it contains paid content or affiliate links. The links to the articles you removed did not contain affiliate links, nor was I paid to write them, nor do I have adverts running on them. But you were quick to judge in your first message saying it's sponsored content. I spent 8 hours of my unpaid time on a Sunday contributing to WP - so I do not financially benefit by adding my links.
• Under questionable sources - 'sites with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight'. To create all articles on my site I only share my point of view on places and topics I have experienced firsthand and backed up by reliable sources - such as information provided by tourist boards, councils and studies. As someone who is educated to the Masters's level, it's common knowledge not to use WP as a reliable source for Harvard referencing. So, it is rather ironic. All my articles are fact-checked and as a full-time publisher, I take pride in my editorial work.
• Under POV and peer review journals - 'show the views of the groups represented by those journals'. As a resident and frequent visitor of nearby Pelsall, Lichfield and Lickey Parks the statements made in my article are representative of the local residents and were also unbiased and factual. And as for the vegan topic, I made contributions that enhanced what was in the UK section and provided two other links with studies not just my own. For Pelsall I also added the nature reserve section as it hadn't been covered on the WP page yet as a resident the nature reserve is an important part of the area and should be acknowledged, I also linked to the council's site not just my own.
• Under Context matters - 'the reliability of the source depends on context - each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the WP article'. According to my website statistics, you were quick to visit only two of the links in question before disregarding my site and making an unfair judgement and assuming it's an unreliable source.

*Under Definition of published - 'published means any sources that were made available to the public in some form. The term is most commonly associated with text materials and multimedia materials. By a reputable party.. may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source'. My website is not a 'personal blog' it is a full-time business and a collection of articles I have published over 12 years. My business registration with HMRC has me down as a 'publisher' not a 'personal blogger' and the legal documents I sign with clients also have 'publisher' next to where I sign. My text materials and multimedia materials - provide further reading on the topic in question as well as provide up-to-date photos and videos of that place in a more enjoyable format for the reader researching this topic.

• 'Authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject or both'. and 'Notability, well known, award or nominated'.  - I have a Masters's degree in PR which covered journalism and publishing. I've been awarded and nominated for my experience in publishing on topics such as travel. This can be confirmed on my Linkdin profile or in the 'press' section of my website. I've been publishing articles for over 12 years and am considered a notable person writing about the local area, my large audience of UK and West Midlands residents come to my website as a source of information to discover new things to do and places to visit so I am authoritative on the topics I contribute on.
• Under creative professionals: 'the person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant collective body of work' - the links you removed were to in-depth guides directly related to the subject in question. The articles I linked to that you removed consist of between 1,500 - 5,000 words and are therefore considered a significant collective body of work full of informative, fact-checked and useful information to readers who are researching this topic. A lot of my well-researched articles actually consist of between 5,000 - 8,000 words so you have unfairly judged me as a 'personal blogger' when you couldn't be more wrong, personal blogs do not go into such in-depth research but I as a full-time publisher of my magazine-like website do. I'm a passionate writer and clearly, you are too so do not judge me by taking a quick glance of my website and only care to look at two of the links not all.

You've removed the link to solosophie, yet that 'personal blog' is used as a source on five other WP pages which you have not removed. That blog also has a significant amount of adverts and affiliate links on the links they've used as sources. So why have these source links been active on WP for over 2 years without being removed? yet you were quick to remove mine and failed to 'carefully weigh' it is a reliable source or not something that the policy says you should do, but you didn't.

And finally, I was welcomed to WP by a fellow user who has gained authority in the space and they thanked me for my contributions to WP pages, yet you are the only one who has been quick to judge. Sjwater91 (talk) 10:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello I have looked at the website again and am further convinced that it is not a suitable source for Wikipedia. You have already stated the website is a business, so I would question what your reasons are for wanting to insert it on WP. You are welcome to contribute, but using citations to other reliable sources, not a self-published source like this. See WP:RSSELF. Your content may be well researched but there are no citations on your website and all content on Wikipedia must be verifiable. You are welcome to get an opinion from other editors by discussing it on one of the article's talk page, but you should not keep reinserting it without discussion. Fieryninja (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I've said multiple times my reason for wanting to contribute, to provide further reading with up-to-date texts and multimedia. The WP pages I contributed to lack new texts, photos and of course don't have videos which modern day readers crave. Plus, the pages lack a POV from a resident or person who has visited, Gen Z and millennial's like myself want to know about and see visually experiences people have experienced from the people who have experienced them. If WP wants to continue being an encyclopedia then it must retain and appeal to a young audience since its future relies on them, maybe if it did innovate it wouldn't have to keep begging for donations.

I'm also very proud of my collections of in-depth guides so being a part of a community of publishers and gaining authority in the space with like-minded others is how I would like to progress my career. I like being in the blogging community when it comes to multimedia as I'm a passionate photographer and videographer too, but other bloggers I know don't share that same passion for writing so I thought this would be a great way to start. All published authors had to start somewhere.

You've said that I should 'not keep reinserting' when I've only inserted on each WP page once.

solosophies 5 sources on 5 WP pages are still live, you've not removed them so you can't say I as a self-published source can't be on WP but solosophie as a self-published source with visible adverts that the person will be financially gaining from can. Especially since I'm not financially gaining from it. Sjwater91 (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi Sjwater91! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! SovalValtos (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the warm welcoming, I appreciate it. I'll check out the tutorials. My experience hasn't gone to a great start, with my contributions being removed so far, but maybe your suggestions will help. Thank you. Sjwater91 (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)