Talk:Taneli Tikka

How to add neutral point of view for this article
There's a new tag saying "This article contains paid contributions. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page." Now I'm just asking about opinions and tips about how to make this article more neutral. I've only written about facts from reliable sources, so what especially should be added, removed or altered?Jjanhone (talk) 05:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * First of all, the article reads as if it was written to praise its subject rather than to describe him neutrally. You are working on this subject as a paid editor since 2015 and you write what your client asks you to write not what you as a third party think about the subject so, your edits must be reviewed by an uninvolved user to ensure the neutrality and verifiability of the information presented. Also, the article lacks inline citations in many sections, which makes it extremely difficult to verify the article content. GSS (talk |c|em ) 06:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The article has been started and edited by Tikka's "fans"(?), see what the last version looked like before I started editing the article in 2015: . So you can notice that I've also removed praising from the article. And no, I don't write what my customers ask me to write (sometimes they have the weirdest wishes) but follow the Wikipedia policies and explain them that I just cannot do what they want. So I believe my edits are far more neutral than those that are editing for their own articles or articles about their idols - I don't have my feelings attached to subjects. Should we just remove all sections without sources?Jjanhone (talk) 07:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * BTW is it ok to tag here people who have previously edited the article or is it canvassing? Jjanhone (talk) 08:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Paid template
According to the policy "if you place the Paid tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article." As a paid editor I'm not allowed to remove the tag myself, but if any volunteer editor thinks that the neutral point of view of the article is ok, they are free to remove the tag as told in the Template:Paid contributions instructions: "If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning."Jjanhone (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * See the changes done after added the tag. Are there still some issues with the neutrality of the article? If yes, could you give an example please? Jjanhone (talk) 06:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Written like a CV
Hello MB! 5 years ago you added a tag about "written like a cv". Can you see any progress on the article? As Tikka has been working in so many roles that has got media attention it's difficult to formulate the article. So any ideas with that? Jjanhone (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Taneli Tikka has been involved in more than 30 companies as a board member or as an advisor." In the lead said as: CEO, board member or advisor. Being adviser to a company is vague and of a very different importance to being CEO of a sizable company (advising on what? The sandwiches in the canteen? Where to go on the works annual outing? Which font to use for the annual report?). This is an example of how the article 'reads' as promotional - intending to inflate rather than report. Pincrete (talk) 09:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Pincrete for such a concrete example. Unfortunately I could not just remove the advisor word from the sentence as the source said "more than 30 in A or B or advisor". But I moved the sentence in the history part so that it is not getting that much attention anymore. Anything else I could do for the article? Jjanhone (talk) 09:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * It reads as promotional in intent. I've no idea what, or how important his advisory roles were - if they were relatively trivial, or if any of the board memberships or CEO positions were unimportant or short-term, why mention them at all? Why not simply be concrete about named, relatively important roles? I don't speak Finnish, so I cannot be more specific about the info nor the quality of sources? BTW, you don't need sources for lead info, as long as it is a faithful summary of the main body of the text and is not controversial or WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Pincrete (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks again Pincrete, I removed the line completely. :) Jjanhone (talk) 08:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

RFC
Are there any issues with this article that can justify the warning added at the beginning of the article? If yes, can you give an example please?Jjanhone (talk) 09:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is an invalid RfC. The statement, whilst brief, is not neutral; and there is no evidence that the suggestions at WP:RFCBEFORE have been exhausted. The tag concerned was added in June 2019 by ; have you asked them directly why it was added and if it is still justified? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my mistake in RfC process, I asked for more comments as the discussion on this page has not proceed in months. Red rose64. I had not pinged GSS before but I did it now.Jjanhone (talk) 06:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * According to the template, "if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain why you tagged the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning." –– FormalDude Emojione 1F427.svg talk 07:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's true, but actually it should be "any editor but a paid one is justified...". So if you think it's not needed, feel free to remove it as I cannot do it myself. Jjanhone (talk) 08:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)