SarahKNelson
February 2016
edit
Hello, I'm Macedonian. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Scar because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Macedonian, a Greek (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
hi Macedonian,
Thanks for your feedback. It is the first time I have attempted to make an addition to a wiki page, so I appreciate all feedback in terms of getting it right.
My post was specifically written so as not to be promotional - so I obviously failed! I would value some more info about why.
I created a generic section about how massage can help scar healing. Within this I referred to a type of work that i know objectively is effective as a treatment. Do I need to include references to other types of scar healing massage to ensure it is considered objective or was there a problem with the references I included?
The point about massage helping scars seems no more promotional than lasers helping scars - it is objectively recognised by those with knowledge of the area. However, your removal suggests that one is considered valid but not the other so if you could clarify why, I would be grateful.
I can absolutely understand that there needs to be objectivity. If the external links I provided don't meet these criteria, what qualifies?
At the moment is that there are quite a small group of therapists who offer ScarWork practising worldwide - maybe only 200. However, from those who receive it, and those in allied health professions, there is overwhelming positive feedback. Maybe it is just too soon to include info about it in there, but given how many 'maybes' there are in other sections I was surprised it wasn't considered for editing rather than removal completely. Could you get back to me? Like I say I am a total newbie so apologies for my stupidity! sarah SarahKNelson (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)