Talk:Andrew Dallmeyer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability, promo, COI[edit]

  • Yes the article is better sourced that I first suspected, but when the sources talk about him being a playwright, the lede seems to promote the new film.
  • [1] appears to be the correct url.
  • The WP:COI tag is valid - parts still have a promo feel. The creator has been accused of promo editing by more than one editor, so to remove the COI tag seems to fly in the face of our concerns, although it has been denied and we may be wrong. It is just one of the suspects of a large sockfarm of >50-100 undisclosed paid editors - see WP:COIN for evidence, where I don't know one falsely accused account, but dozens of blocked ones.
  • Of course, what do we do when we suspect a contributor of undisclosed paid editing (which is against our Terms Of Use), when the article has been well curated such as this one. If we fail to acknowledge it, we turn a blind eye to legal issues of editing, whatever the quality of articles we reap. All work can be challenged, and after a more nurturing draft and curation, they are exposed to the full opinions of all editors and policies including COI, and TOU. Widefox; talk 01:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apologises, some of the jargon you have used is a bit beyond my wiki experience. I feel you jumped to a conclusion and did very little research (or read the article) before adding a tag to say this article is promotional or has too few references? The lede, which I edited at the time of approval, was designed to identify the information which made the individual notable - i.e. the major film he starred in. I don't agree with following a list or users as an argument to try to delete articles - I try to create content, not destroy it. ツStacey (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree the BLP sources tag was borderline, although there is/and was sourcing and promo issues [2]
  • It is a WP:COI tag not advert tag. See the top of this page - it appropriately lists the suspected COI editor that more than editor has accused (in fairness, it has been denied)
    • There's behavioural (and other) evidence at WP:COIN and WP:ANI
    • many of the other related accounts have been blocked
    • WMF has taken legal action against parties in a previous similar situation, and there's been discussion of this bunch being similar.
So, by removed the COI tag...are you claiming that this account doesn't have a COI? Does the evidence at COIN / ANI not convince you? What evidence are you basing that one? Widefox; talk 01:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reception[edit]

The source used [3] "any of a number of other reasons why his play is superfluous" . This WP:BALANCE WP:POV WP:WEIGHT just isn't reflected in the glowing article. Widefox; talk 01:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't felt the need to put any reviews of individual plays into this article as there are just too many and I wouldn't know where to start! This article is factual, it states what he has done. If you want to put a list of negative reviews, go ahead. ツStacey (talk) 09:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't know enough to consider WEIGHT on this. Such biography of living persons needs protecting from inclusion of undue WEIGHT of negative material. If you consider any such thing just remove it without discussion. One of the two WP:COI editors blanked the negative review. It may be worth checking the WEIGHT now one review is included. Good luck with the article, you've done a great job, well done Stacey. Widefox; talk 09:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have been looking for information more about the playwrite rather than his material directly. I didn't agree with the other editor removing the negative review with the argument that it was negative - Though I don't feel it fits well at the moment. If I get chance, I will create a 'Reception' (or something similar) heading to possibly put a selection of reviews. Thank you for your kind comment, I appreciate it - I apologise if you have taken any of my comments personally, it wasn't intended, as you say, we have differing views and I feel we have both been able to express those appropriately. I'd like to think it will have a positive outcome with a much improved article. ツStacey (talk) 10:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Andrew Dallmeyer. 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) 07:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrew_Dallmeyer&oldid=1201332121"