User talk:81.174.139.123

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please do not add commercial links — or links to your own private websites — to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. -- GraemeL (talk) 13:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

You have been reverted several times over the last several days for your additions to Gambling, Review and Digital audio player. I will block you if you continue to make those same changes. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


Your site ranks at 2,923,190 according to Alexa, as compared with ~1500 for Engadet and 1450 for Tom's Hardware I can count less than 100 reviews on your site. This is an attempt to bring traffic to your site. Please do not link again. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I have been working at home and online for over 6 years and I can see when you are letting pure shopping site on this page and that is wrong. In fact please can you answer one last question so I get an idea of what your goals are and your not playing god. What counts to you as a site that is related to Review? (as product-reviews.net to you is not)
First, thank you for you considered and sincere comments, it is nice to deal with genuine individuals who are trying to improve wikipedia. For a comparison of other more common interactions you may want to check the archived talk at Gambling. That said, I reverted your addition to review as well as changed a number of the links you had a valid complaints about. Thank you for you bringing them to my attention and they have been removed.
I want to emphasize that I knew nothing about the review article prior to checking your contributions. I came upon your additions to review and digital audio player, via gambling where you added a gambling blog site 3 times and were reverted several times, including by me. That by some definitions is spam and is definitely in violation of the WP:3RR rule. That made all of your other additions suspect, no matter how valid especially since they had been reverted by other individuals on those pages. But to address your question directly, my biggest complaint about your site is that while it has good content, it does not have comprehensive content like other technology review sites like tomshardware or cnet. Zdnet has almost 75 categories of reviews compared with your ~100 reviews. Your site also did not come up within even the first five hundred results for searches "product reviews" or "technology review", implying that there are at least 500 other sites that should be listed prior to your site.
So thank you for you contributions and your comments, I hope that I have clarified why I do not think that your site is appropriate. If not feel free to contact me again. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 17:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks For explaining, could I ask one last question, you said "Your site also did not come up within even the first five hundred results for searches "product reviews" or "technology review", implying that there are at least 500 other sites that should be listed prior to your site" This is a very good way to look at things, as they should be before me if they also have good content. This point noted - is it fair to say if product-reviews.net had much more content and was 1st page of most search engines for product reviews and technology review it should then be on that page. as then it would be the same as http://www.tomshardware.com/ - hows about I contact you in a year about that. 81.174.139.123
Absolutely. Good luck in developing your site, and thanks for the honest dialog. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 16:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)