User talk:Tiago Miguel Antunes Pereira

August 2022[edit]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Solar lamp. 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. Schazjmd (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is a commercial site that develops solar lights not a reliable source of how these lights work? Can you please explain further? Tiago Miguel Antunes Pereira (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This site is in my opinion way more reliable than most of the sources in this article, which cite advertising-driven websites like "HowStuffWorks". Tiago Miguel Antunes Pereira (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This link does not support the text that you placed it next to. This link does not support the text that you placed it next to. Even if the links supported the text, Outdoorlights.store is not a reliable source (see that page to learn about sources that Wikipedia considers reliable). Stop adding links to that site to articles. Schazjmd (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did at Solar lamp, you may be blocked from editing. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. Schazjmd (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to request input from other editors on the reliability of Outdoorlights.store at the reliable sources noticeboard, but do not add that site to articles until you have consensus at that noticeboard that the site should be considered a reliable source. Schazjmd (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Schazjmd I want to ask you what's the difference between adding OutdoorLights as a reliable source to this article or GreenMatch, which is currently Citation #17 and it is also a commercial site (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_lamp#cite_note-17). Why the double standards? Why can one of the commercial sites be considered a reliable source and not the other one? Tiago Miguel Antunes Pereira (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #17 is to a newspaper article.

I've pointed you to a next step if you want to get other opinions on the reliability of Outdoorlights.store. Schazjmd (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #17 is NOW a newspaper because I reported your double standards so a moderator decided to remove all the other commercial site references from the article. I have proceeded with the reliable sources noticeboard. Tiago Miguel Antunes Pereira (talk) 07:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]