User talk:Black Kite

Talkback

Hello, Black Kite. You have new messages at Talk:Yom HaShoah.
Message added 06:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Heads up that I reverted a copyvio deletion that turned out not to be a copyvio. I put reasoning on the article's talk page Valley2city^‽ 06:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Over-restriction

Including user talk pages in the new remedy at here seems pointless and counter-productive. Even gameable. E.g., I could post something mentioning one of these topics to his personal talk page, he could archive it, I could unarchive it to add a second comment to my original comment, he could archive it again, and bang he's just engaged in a violation, by removing my original comment from the page twice back-to-back.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Eldritch

I see you moved the Eldritch disambiguation page onto the main article and stamped out all the original information on the history of the word. As it stands now, there is no understanding of what eldritch means or is. What can we do to fix this? Leitmotiv (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• The place for word definitions is Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Black Kite (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good, but it'd be prudent to comment to that effect when making an edit so I don't have to come to your talk page to discover it. Do you have a MOS on these rules for articles? Leitmotiv (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, the discussion did point out the issues with the article being a dictionary definition, to be fair. About the closest I can find to a policy is WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Basically, if the article is just a definition of the word (or very little more) then it belongs in Wiktionary, but there are obviously words and phrases that are far more notable and covered in multiple reliable sources. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

World News Media

Hello Black Kite,

I just wanted to get your feedback on why you chose to keep the World News Media entry. My understanding of consensus as it relates to Wikipedia is that the quality of the arguments presented is the factor by which a decision is made.

The keep comment made by the creator Edwardx (after removing what they had to say about me) was: "It is helpful to have numerous sources in order to demonstrate that this company passes WP:CORPDEPTH, 'If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability.' The article satisfies WP:NPOV, as it reflects what is available in reliable sources."

At no point does he explain how the list of press release material, blogs and opinion pieces constitute reliable sources. It is not acceptable to assert opinion, present it as fact and then claim that it was "a reasonable reflection of what is stated in reliable sources", especially not in the introductory sentence on the topic which is entirely unreferenced: "World News Media Limited is the publisher of World Finance magazine which is tied to the marketing of numerous vanity awards under the name of the World Finance Awards". The phrase 'vanity awards' has never been directly referenced by a source.

His collaborator on this and other articles, Philafrenzy had this keep comment: "The company and its awards have sufficient coverage to satisfy the GNG." Oh, ok then. But GNG does require that sources are reliable, and do not clearly regurgitate press releases or come from places without an editorial policy in place. But if you gather up enough press releases, say fifteen, picked up by independent news sources, then that satisfies depth of coverage? Wikipedia has to hold itself to higher standards than that considering they are in business with the world's largest search engine.

Colapeninsula's keep comment was: "I don't see any grounds for deletion. WP:NPOV is only a reason for deletion if the article cannot be fixed." Fair enough, so what are the arguments for keeping? I don't see any. The editor seems to acknowledge that there is an issue with NPOV here.

Ravensfire's keep (but trim) comment was: "I feel there are enough sources that provide significant coverages towards the company to keep the article, but we need to trim awards / claims that are soley based on primary sources, whether from this company or from the Botswana Corprate Watchdog group. It's going to be much smaller, but that's probably correct for a company like this and given the existing secondary sources". If the article does have to be kept, then I agree with Ravensfire here that it should be smaller. Since the AfD discussion ended, Philafrenzy has only added to it.

Atlantic306's keep comment was: "there are enough combined reliable sources referenced within the article to verify its present content and immediate expansion is not needed, so WP:GNG is passed". Another assertion of reliable sources without any explanation why they believe this to be the case.

Black Kite, the quality of the arguments here aren't worthy of a keep decision. Type 'world news media' into Google, see what comes up. Then tell me that the statement you read on the inline wikipedia card is a fair and balanced statement about the company.

You should be aware that we are a publisher. That is our business first and foremost. We print magazines - four different titles, we employ journalists, designers, production staff, developers. Sometimes it's easy or convenient to forget that. Those people work really hard, and a couple of editors on here who have an axe to grind about vanity awards (my opinion based on the fact that we're not the only company they've lumped into the same category) thinks it's fair to discredit that work? Publishing is a tough enough gig as it is. I respect the considerable contributions of Edwardx and Philafrenzy to this site, but can't understand their actions here.

Excuse my impassioned plea. You don't have to care about it one way or another. I don't expect that. What I hope for though, is a neutral assessment of the actual topic which is not awards. Philafrenzy says the magazines are a 'fig leaf' for the awards. I doubt he's actually read one of our magazines. You can read them online for free, or they are available in print, in selected shops. Philafrenzy expressed doubts that the magazines are even printed. They are. And that statement is just as good as the one used in the introduction of the entry. Do you see the problem here?

Since the AfD discussion, I have added a request for edits to the talk page and opened a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard.

If the weight of responsibility for balanced and dispassionate entries lies with the consensus of the community, then the community must be willing to accept that it is attempting to put a company out of business in this instance.