Talk:Overtime (sports network)

Declaration
Declaring that this page was created by me, and employee of Overtime. Thank you. Bankrupt305 (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

For some reason, everything that I post on Wikipedia is targeted and reviewed by the same editor and I am never offered suggestions on how to improve the article. It feels like I'm being bullied. Regardless, I declared above that I am an employee of the company as soon as the page was written as I was directed to do. Second, I read the criteria for an advertisement and this is far from that.

"Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small garage bands or local companies are typically unacceptable. Wikipedia articles about a person, company or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. Contributors must disclose any payments they receive for editing Wikipedia. See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest."

Everything is written in an objective unbiased style, without any of the puffery words. All article topics are verifiable from independent third party sources(NY Times, WSJ, The New Yorker, etc.). There are no external links to commercial organization. There are no endorsements. I ask the editor to explain how this is written as an advertisement.

Thank you.Bankrupt305 (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

As directed by wikipedia for conflict resolution, I asked MrsSnoozyTurtle on the editors talk page for suggestions on how to fix the issues that they have with the page, and it was immediately deleted from the talk page. Not sure why. But if this page needs any fixes, hopefully an impartial editor can make those. Thank you.Bankrupt305 (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello . As I said on my Talk Page, I will reply here instead. The promotional issue I am concerned about is a tone of WP:PUFFERY throughout the draft. Examples are "The company distributes original sports content on social media outlets, including..." and "Porter is a serial entrepreneur...". In my opinion, it reads more like a press release than an encyclopedia article. Also, since the article creator is a paid employee of Overtime, I am concerned that- despite the best intentions- it has not been written from a neutral POV. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback.

I have read the Wikipedia for criteria on creating articles and I don’t agree that this is puffery or written as a press release. Everything written here is a factual statement, without any opinion, slant or puffery.

I have stayed away from the puffery words that wikipedia advised.

“legendary, best, great, acclaimed, iconic, visionary, outstanding, leading, celebrated, popular, award-winning, landmark, cutting-edge, innovative, revolutionary, extraordinary, brilliant, hit, famous, renowned, remarkable, prestigious, world-class, respected, notable, virtuoso, honorable, awesome, unique, pioneering, phenomenal …”

The word original is not a puffery word. The definition of original is: present or existing from the beginning; first or earliest. "the original owner of the house"

This content is made in house. There is no other word to describe it.

The definition of serial is repeatedly committing the same offense and typically following a characteristic, predictable behavior pattern.

The word serial was taken directly from the New Yorker article. In any case I have removed that word.

Every statement in the article has been cited from reputable sources. There is no puffery. This is not written as a press release. It is in the same style as thousands and thousands of Wikipedia articles. Please re-read the draft, and offer more suggestions. If that was it, please remove your flag of puffery or written as an ad from the article. Thank you. Bankrupt305 (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Let me put it this way: If you read an article worded like this, would you be able to tell immediately that it was written by someone who was paid to do so? The answer is yes. Every statement is geared towards showing the company in a favourable light. Be aware that, if it passes its next review and goes into article space, others can add unfavourable reports into the article and you will be able to do nothing about it. Deb (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I removed all areas that comments said were promotional. I hope this now will be approved. Bankrupt305 (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)