Talk:AES+F

Latest comment: 6 years ago by Asvyatsky in topic COI

External links modified edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AES+F. 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:

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) 23:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

COI edit

It needs a review due to WP:COI, for example the WP:BLP sections are only sourced to SELFPUB source, there's overuse of primary sources and EXT so it doesn't appear to be based on secondary sources. The edits of SPA / COI accounts may need more scrutiny as we are not an extension of their website or marketing strategy. Widefox; talk 14:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I recommend COIs for EASaes257 and Cofawiki be removed because they have made no contribution to the article as it stands. It has been written entirely by me. I have declared my affiliation with AES+F and did not know the process for declaring it at the time of writing. I hope the quality of the article is sufficient, but do invite other, unaffiliated editors to add and amend it as they deem necessary. There are plenty of secondary sources out there on this collective, with a number of PhDs having been written on their work. I ask that someone review the article and remove the COI notice on the article page, since all the necessary steps on my part have been taken. Asvyatsky (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)Reply