User talk:InReviewsWeTrust

May 2015

Hello, I'm Stesmo. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the main body of Trustpilot. Generally, any relevant external links should be listed in an "External links" section at the end of the article and meet the external links guidelines. Links within the body of an article should be internal Wikilinks. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Stesmo (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Trustpilot. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are wrong, how is putting competitor links on a page disruptive. Are you saying that Pepsi page can not mention Coca Cola or Microsoft page ca not mention apple. Wikipedia is a Encyclopedia where people to come to leanr about things not to have one sided advertorials. Wikipedia visitors should be allowed to see who companies competitors are! I hope Wikipedia read this a see how one sided this TRUSTPILOT page has became. InReviewsWeTrust 20:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

How is adding competitors and adding articles about the company disruptive?

There is no reason to add a list such as that one, in that format. It is simply not something we do, unless there is sourced prose around it and the inclusion is merited and the other companies are actually notable. Your contributions around here seem limited so far to editing this article, which makes it obvious that you have some kind of agenda. I recommend finding something else to edit, because if you continue down this path your account is likely to be blocked for disruptive editing and edit warring. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to Trustpilot

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the Trustpilot article, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. You may find our linking guidelines helpful in this regard. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! JeremiahY (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for disruptive editing and edit warring and introducing inappropriate unsourced material in the article, even after multiple warnings were given, as you did at Trustpilot. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

InReviewsWeTrust (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked for helping create a unbiased not advertorial based article. I edit my post to say ... Ekomi is Trustpilot's main rival in central Europe, while Feefo and Reviews.co.uk are there main competitors in the UK. Although Trustpilot is seen as the market leader in some markets they have lost market share in 2015 to smaller localised rivals such as Yotpo, PowerReviews & Review.io. <<<<< how is this disruptive? InReviewsWeTrust (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It seems likely that you have a conflict of interest regarding one of these competitors. Even if there wasn't any, a list of competitors smells of original research without references, and we just don't practice these types of lists (maybe 2-3 links to articles in "See also" section). In any case, you've been told multiple times that you shouldn't be doing it, you persisted to the point it became an edit war, you got blocked. And we block for edit warring no matter of the merits of edits themselves - because edit warring is disruptive in any case. There are a few exceptions but none of them apply. Max Semenik (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.