Talk:Blitz (KMFDM album)

Request for comment: Fabrykanina -- Dark Nation -- acceptable review site link?

Fabrykanina has posted approximately 150 links to reviews on her website for industrial music albums. I'm using this talk page because it's one of the ones on my watchlist, but this discussion is about all the related articles. See her contributions for a full list, as I believe almost every edit has been adding a review link. My question is whether or not this is appropriate. Since this is a personal site, and the person posting the links is the owner of the site, it seems like WP:LINKSPAM and self-promotion to me. Here is my original posting at the reliable sources noticeboard, and here is her request for my reasoning. Comments from uninvolved editors who are familiar with this type of situation would be helpful. —Torchiest ^talk/_edits 13:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The user is posting links to their own website, which can come off as being WP:LINKSPAM. WP:EL#ADV suggests: "But in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide. This suggestion is in line with WP's conflict-of-interest guidelines."

WP:ALBUMS says: "Formerly, a Reviews field was included in this template. Professional reviews should no longer be included in the infobox, but be described in paragraph form in a "Reception" section.", meaning that adding these links to the infobox is inappropriate anyway.

Can some sort of credibility be given to the "professional" claim of their site? Most "professional" sites don't have Paypal donation buttons, because they are "professional", as in they make money from their site, or their site is the promotional arm of a company. WP:Albums#Reception says: "Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs). The standard for inclusion always is that the review meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources and that the source be independent of the artist, record company, etc." I don't think this is a professional site, owned as a business with an actual staff, but rather a fan-site, with a few people (2, according to the owner) writing some personal reviews. Based on this, I would say that this site is not a reliable source, which violates WP:Albums#Reception, which again states that "A section should be dedicated to an overview of the critical reception of the album, as documented by reliable secondary sources such as reviews, books, or reputable articles that discuss the album."

To sum up, I would say that the links should be removed because the site is not a WP:RS, and the addition of these links by the site's owner could be WP:LINKSPAM and be a WP:COI. (all emphasis in quotes is mine) MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Since there seems to be strong policy based reasons for not including these links, I've removed them from more articles. I'm not sure how many remain, however. —Torchiest ^talk/_edits 17:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Explain sincerly then why do you leave Allmusic.com review links all over Wikipedia while they run a website filled with advertisement and commercial related stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabrykanina (talk • contribs) 21:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Neither of us is affiliated with allmusic.com, so it isn't a conflict of interest for us to add these links. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 01:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, Allmusic is a widely accepted reliable source, and in fact has its own template now. —Torchiest ^talk/_edits 04:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Blitz (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100216143753/http://www.regenmag.com:80/Reviews-1791-KMFDM-Blitz.html to http://www.regenmag.com/Reviews-1791-KMFDM-Blitz.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blitz (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120212202902/http://www.kmfdm.net/news/news.htm to http://www.kmfdm.net/news/news.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)