Talk:Mixmag

"Current issue" information
While I appreciate people occasionally take time to update this, it seems somewhat pointless to do so, as the content is only really "valid" for a month. I'm therefore deleting it. Nick Cooper 13:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Somehow it crept back in under "current Content". Removed again. The Dissident Aggressor 04:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

exceptional claims require exceptional sources
Unfortunately, this article has several exceptional claims (first, biggest, etc.) and the non-exceptional sources either no longer exist or never did. This needs some serious cleanup and/or removal of those claims. It smacks of either WP:COI or advertising. The Dissident Aggressor 04:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:COI verified and tagged. See  above.  I suspect there have been others too. Toddst1 (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Who believes?
a) Mixmag has 16 offices around the world? b) Its videos are viewed 74,000,000 a month when 90% of its YouTube videos have less than 50K views c) And, the biggest whopper: it interacts with 100,000,000 people worldwide. Barely anyone in the UK knows Mixmag, let alone anyone in Indonesia or Russia or the moon. All this nonsense, according to the history was written by their MD - no wonder they lose millions every year! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameserobertson (talk • contribs) 22:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said here, I agree that you have a point about the plausibility of these numbers. It's also peculiar that someone identifying as "the managing director of this company" touts this ref as "an independent report into dance music to confirm the new numbers", whereas the report clearly indicates that they did not independently check them. (And what's more, it is regrettable that the company seems to have no qualms violating Wikipedia's best practices in having a representative editing the article about them in a promotional manner, including deleting independent media coverage without explanation.)
 * However, the way to solve this is not to leave comments in the article itself ranting about fake news and Donald Trump. I have instead changed it to a version that IMHO makes it sufficiently clear that these numbers are self-reported, and contrasts them with the YouTube subscriber numbers (reported by YouTube). Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Understood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameserobertson (talk • contribs) 06:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)