Talk:Lazy Magnolia Brewing Company

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Licence

• Licensed only under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Material may not be reused under the GFDL. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Tags and such

Regarding the placement of tags, especially the advertising tag, it is important to point out two things: 1) yes, there is permission to use the content from the company's web site without rewriting and worrying about copyright issues, and 2) that doesn't mean the article itself shouldn't conform to Wikipedia standards.

If a company says "we are the best", that's advertising. Just because it's sourced doesn't mean that would be appropriate to put in a Wikipedia article, even if we have permission to use their content word for word.  Frank  |  talk  18:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, as one of the admins referenced as having been involved with this article, I should add that being an admin doesn't mean that editing an article makes the article okay, in whole or in part. I do agree it is sort of "adverty" but I just didn't feel it merited the tag. Others have a different opinion. The point is to work on the article itself rather than quarrel over whether it reads like an advert or not.  Frank  |  talk  18:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This is only another hounding by another editor, CoM, in which I've had a negative history with. At any rate, moving on... - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 18:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Please refactor your accusation or I'm taking it to ANI. If you can't focus on the content and the applicable policies without engaging in personal attack, then you aren't suited to edit here. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess you'll just need to take it to AN/I then but just know I'll also present our past "history" there. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 19:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Come on fellows, the comment was not necessary, but neither is an ANI thread. Typing as one of the other admins who's touched the article, I agree that some of the article is written as an advertisement, and, really, is that any surprise since it was taken from the company's website? Of course it was intended to be promotional. We can work on it though and make it more in line with our standards. LadyofShalott 03:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, just because we can copy and paste doesn't mean we should. Material coming from a single source is usually bias, and coming from the subject itself it is clearly promotional.--Crossmr (talk) 01:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I just made a few edits to attempt to make the article more encyclopedic. Basically I removed some of the most blatantly not NPOV "advertizey" wording, particularly the completely opinion based descriptions of how yummy the various beers are. That kind of stuff is egregiously non-encyclopedic. I've by no means made the article perfect in the sense of encyclopedic-ness, but I think it's a step in the right direction. I am of the strong opinion that this topic is noteworthy enough to merit an article in Wikipedia. However, the admins around here do not have much patience for "spam". Keep putting stuff in this article that reads like an advertisement and you're going to get it deleted! Also, if the editor named "LazyMagnolia" is actually one of the owners or employees of the brewery, you need to resist the temptation of editing the article about your brewery. That will cause the admins to delete this article faster than you can say "Southern Pecan". Seriously, I am of the strong opinion that this TOPIC is sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion. Don't get the article deleted by putting non-encyclopedic stuff in it. Thanks. Fish Man (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lazy Magnolia Brewing Company. 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/20090528100146/http://lazymagnolia.com/SouthernPecan.html to http://www.lazymagnolia.com/SouthernPecan.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090426092340/http://lazymagnolia.com/Indian_Summer.html to http://www.lazymagnolia.com/Indian_Summer.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090528100238/http://lazymagnolia.com/Jeff_Stout.html to http://www.lazymagnolia.com/Jeff_Stout.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090426105614/http://lazymagnolia.com/SouthernGold.html to http://www.lazymagnolia.com/SouthernGold.html

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) 22:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)