User talk:Andy1912

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

July 2025

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm MrOllie, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 01:10, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ollie, thank you for your quality review! I need to improve my writing style & it should inline with Wikipedia editorial rule. But I'm not sure about the original research comment, I had some questions regard your comments:
  1. "mostly unsourced": Would something consider as fact need ref? Beside my writing that similar to an essay, many information is also locked behind paywall (ie. Bloomberg, WSJ or Business Insider). How should I treat these sources?
  2. "contained several vendor namedrops" ~ fair comment, but..."print on demand" is a whole business model. Beside Amazon, I did not internal ref any service vendor name. Other names mentioned in my edit is the printer machine names (Kornit Digital, Epson). No brands mentioned on the on-demand fulfilment services. And on custom merch, the names are Disney & Amazon (again). The "print on demand" article's content had stayed at the year 2000 because this extreme non name dropping (except academic name). Time to change?
  3. "rm routine information about funding rounds" ~ isn't update information necessary? Beside, the rebranding was removed in the same editorial audit.
Andy1912 (talk) 11:22, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]