User talk:Timwiki99

Edible Book Day
Reasoning: first reference goes nowhere. http://week.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/MMOnline.dll/portal/ep/theWeekContent.do?BV_ID=@@@&contentType=EDITORIAL&sectionName=TheWeek%20Lifestyle&programId=1073755413&contentId=6895557

second reference goes nowhere: http://www.books2eat.com/Books2eat/books2eat.html

third reference is in a google books page that actually has no content: http://books.google.co.in/books?id=VFa4ctd1ReUC&pg=PA25&dq=%22edible+book%22+day&hl=en&ei=5RCiS4_-MYHHrAfD0JDbCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22edible%20book%22%20day&f=false

fourth reference appears to be a republished PR in the corner of a magazine page from 2005: http://books.google.co.in/books?id=Q18EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA156&dq=%22edible+book%22&hl=en&ei=uBmiS8urG9OvrAetnPXoCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CF4Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=%22edible%20book%22&f=false

fifth reference is a Wikipedia page about a hometown newspaper.

sixth reference appears to be a quote from that same local newspaper: http://www.cleveland.com/books/index.ssf/2010/03/edible_books_robert_sapolsky_a.html

seventh reference appears to be a quote from a blog in Cleveland

eight reference appears to be from a private business website: http://www.loganberrybooks.com/about/

ninth reference is another google for sale book page: http://books.google.co.in/books?id=O_-iFcSpsMYC&pg=PA5&dq=%22edible+book%22+day&hl=en&ei=5RCiS4_-MYHHrAfD0JDbCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CGQQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=%22edible%20book%22%20day&f=false

tenth reference doesn’t exist: http://blogs.uflib.ufl.edu/news/2010/03/15/call-for-readers-and-edible-book-entries/

eleventh reference: ditto

twelfth reference: doesn’t appear to be remotely credible: http://www.worldofdeals.co.uk/other-electronics-deals/top-15-april-fools-2011-shopping-and-deals-pranks Timwiki99 (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Articles related to the objectivity of Wikipedia
Timwiki99 (talk) 12:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * http://trustmeimlying.com/contact/
 * http://www.helpareporter.com/sources
 * http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/jamiebartlett/100013979/wikiwashing-how-paid-professionals-are-using-wikipedia-as-a-pr-tool/
 * http://www.legalmorning.com/writing-services/wikipedia-articles/
 * http://fortune.com/2012/08/14/how-to-solve-your-wikipedia-problem-yes-you-have-one/
 * http://www.ibtimes.com/wikipedia-paid-edits-companies-pay-top-dollar-firms-willing-fix-their-entries-1449172

Objectivity, perhaps
I have concerns about the methodology used to determine the importance of pages on Wikipedia. Full disclosure: my attention to this subject was driven by the potential deletion of a page regarding a company I founded. But it has become a bigger issue than this for me. I read Wikipedia every day. In fact, I can fairly write that I spend more time on Wikipedia pages than I do on any other website in the world, including Google searching. So now my attention is on the fact that it is quite possible only a handful of people are involved in making a decision about the relative importance of something, or, the notability of something.

In reading up on the subject I believe we really have no hope of complete objectivity and I submit that we at least strive for fairness and accuracy as described in the referenced article.Timwiki99 (talk) 11:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of ABI Research page
As an avid supporter of Wikipedia who happens to also be the founder of ABI Research I would like to share some thoughts. We have no interest in utilizing Wikipedia for a promotional tool. If the administrators feel that we are genuinely not a valid entry, then by all means, please delete us. I have spent a little bit of time analyzing the logs on this though and I would like to offer some thoughts in defense of this page. I am trying to be as objective as possible.

A. I have only personally made one entry to this page since its inception and that was to link an article about ABI Research (before we even used that name) from the Long Island Business News. I understand that one of the administrators believes that the LIBN is a "hometown" paper but this simply is not true.

B. It appears that some promotional edits have been made by a user named Timarchiedee. I understand the User Talk guidelines require that we avoid ad hominem commentary here so I will only write that I have no idea who this user is and I find it a bit curious that their handle is extremely similar to my name.

C. Finally, I understand and appreciate that citations based on Press Releases are suspect however people on our staff have submitted countless instances where our analysts have been referenced and quoted specifically on a subject as a result of an interview and having nothing to do with a Press Release.

So if the esteemed administrators still feel strongly that this page violates the rules, please delete it. But please consider the above items before making your final decision. Timwiki99 (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC) Timwiki99 (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)