Contents

Talk:Home shopping

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Marketing & Advertising Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Television Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 October 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jw6740.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignmentbyPrimeBOT (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the 26th January, without prior discussion Flowanda removed a section on the history of Home Shopping specifically deleting references to online shopping, a form of home shopping on the grounds of inadequate sources. The online shopping reference was from the UK.

This editor has also removed other items from other articles on the same grounds. One would think that this may be a part of the 'if it isn't peer reviewed, it can't be a source' debate raging elsewhere. Bearing in mind that the other references qouted in the article are US magazines, perhaps it is something else altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santanaquintass (talk • contribs) 17:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Santanaquintass (talk)[reply]

Editing is not censorship. This discussion should be continued at Talk:Michael Aldrich. Johnuniq (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Editing is not censorship" LOL oh really? 71.84.126.174 (talk) 08:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq, I've again removed the content per WP:RS, so please help with any discussions here or reverts. Flowanda | Talk 10:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]