Wikipedia

User talk:Vexations/Archive 4

< User talk:Vexations
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Mduvekot in topic Album Artists
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Wikidata weekly summary #208

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Wikidata weekly summary #196

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
 

Seazzy has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Seazzy (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #209

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Wikidata weekly summary #210

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Sebastian Liste personal page

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, I've added more independent and reliable sources that write about Liste and interview him, in order to prove notability. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.113.2.204 (talk) 10:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #211

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #212

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

18:12:46, 31 May 2016 review of submission by 162.245.21.61

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion


Hi, looking for some specifics on why this article was rejected. Could you please point out in what ways this article fails to conform with Wikipedia's guidelines on "Neutral point of view?" [1]

There are no opinions expressed as facts in this article. There are no "seriously contested assertions" stated as facts. The article employs "nonjudgmental language" and it is written in a tone that "neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject."

The article includes references to "a range of independent, reliable, published sources" including Tech Crunch, Forbes, The Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report, CNBC, and Fortune. [2]

This is a legitimate article about a commercial entity, written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia editors are instructed that "a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities." [3]

There appears to be a double standard being applied to this post. Wikipedia editors routinely approve similar articles, including posts about companies that are in the same line of business -- CommonBond[4], SoFi[5], and Earnest [6] 162.245.21.61 (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no double standard, but the volunteer editors who review articles for creation may interpret the policies and guidelines differently. CommonBond and SoFI didn't go though AfC and SoFi and Earnest (company) have both been tagged with an advert template. That other articles have issues is irrelevant. Regarding your reference to WP:ADMASK, please note that the article has not been nominated for speedy deletion as it ought have been if the content was blatantly promotional. As for the tone of the article, "Credible's online lending marketplace allows borrowers to submit one secure form that they can complete in 2 minutes in order to receive competitive loan offers from multiple, vetted lenders." fopr example, is what one would expect in a public relations piece, not an encyclopedia. Mduvekot (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Jänicke

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thank you for reviewing page Jänicke Greetings--Buchbibliothek (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #213

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Album Artists

Latest comment: 8 years ago12 comments2 people in discussion

I noticed that the page for Album Artists has been deleted. I was going to add these 3 articles as references https://www.mirit.com/fraser-scott-supports-london-children-album-artists/ and http://coldplaying.com/forum/index.php?threads/interview-with-fraser-scott-of-album-artists.103344/ and http://www.radio.cz/en/section/one-on-one/inspiration-worked-both-ways-says-artist-mila-fuerstova-of-close-collaboration-with-coldplay--1 Just wondering that if I had have done, would they have made the entry notable enough as I see that was why it was taken down? I hate seeing entries deleted! Architect6 (talk) 13:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Architect6: Wikipedia requires independent, reliable sources. I hope you'll see that mirit.com is not a reliable source, and that coldplaying.com is not an independent source. radio.cz may be a reliable source for news, but this is an interview, which can only be used to support a statement that someone said something, not that what they said is a fact. Mduvekot (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I see, tks. Coldplaying.com says it "brings you the latest Coldplay news, multimedia, ticket/travel information and live concert updates. We are an established community, formed in 2000 and in 15 years, over 100,000 registered members have been a part of it". Does that qualify as independent? Architect6 (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
@Architect6: I don't think that coldplaying.com is an independent, reliable source for information about coldplay. Mduvekot (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
What's the Wikipedia definition of "independent" then? Architect6 (talk) 02:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
@Architect6: You may find this essay on independent sources helpful. Mduvekot (talk) 11:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for that. I'd like to ask you a question about references if I may. Since one is only permitted to add "facts" to a WP entry that are backed up by references to reputable independent sources, that means where an article contains incorrect information, it is immaterial since it's in print - so one could state it as fact and include it in a WP entry and it would be "true" as far as WP is concerned. Right? We all know that in many cases, newspapers purposely falsify details in stories to make them more "sensational" to increase readership and so drive up adverting revenue. So, to base the "truth" on what's printed in newspapers seems a highly unreliable way of going about it! What if no future article is ever published that gives the actual truth about the previously published incorrect information? It will just be wrong forever? Architect6 (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truthMduvekot (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I was just looking through the History of Fraser Kee Scott's WP article. To me, it looks like an edit war waged by Laval who appears to have something against Fraser's religion (which is, surely, irrelevant to the article) and is consequently putting undue emphasis on this, rather than on the factual content of the article. Any comments? Do you agree?
I have no interest in becoming involved. If you want to address edit warring please see Wikipedia:Edit_warring#Handling_of_edit-warring_behaviors Mduvekot (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Architect6 (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Mduvekot Are you still around? No reply to my question of 6 June. Anyway, does this article provide the notability that Album Artists need to allow them to create an entry in Wikipedia? http://www.blouinartinfo.com/news/story/1427370/coldplay-sells-album-art-for-charity-14-million-raised-so-far Architect6 (talk) 02:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
As you know, we arrive at such decisions by consensus. I have no more say in this than anyone else. As I see it, the blouin article gives Album Artists a mention, but it is not significant coverage as required by WP:GNG. As far as I'm concerned the consensus is that the organization is not notable and I would appreciate if you did not single me out to ask if a particular reference can be used to recreate the article. If you want a review of the deletion, see WP:DRV. Mduvekot (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Credible#References
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles
  4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CommonBond
  5. ^ ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoFi
  6. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earnest_(company).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vexations/Archive_4&oldid=833291089"