Talk:Together TV

Fair use rationale for Image:Community Channel logo.gif

Image:Community Channel logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Community Channel logo.gif

Image:Community Channel logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Community Channel (UK). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130314075451/http://www.redhotcurry.com/archive/entertainment/tv/kismet_road.htm to http://www.redhotcurry.com/archive/entertainment/tv/kismet_road.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20140219130919/http://www.theacademy-ssea.org/latest/news/708_street_soccer_scotland_founder_is_change_maker_of_2012 to http://www.theacademy-ssea.org/latest/news/708_street_soccer_scotland_founder_is_change_maker_of_2012
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070518163956/http://www.chargetv.co.uk/ to http://www.chargetv.co.uk/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 13:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of interest (COI) edits

I've just had to edit out a large amount of text that was obviously written by Community Channel or people working for the channel. A lot of sections praising and promoting themselves and their programming without due cause or citations. Lots of peacock terms. Et cetera. Looking back, turns out this article was actually created by an account called "Communitychannel", so I've no doubt that they've continued to edit and add to this page. Community Channel folks, if you're reading this, I'd highly recommend that you stop editing your own articles. It's blatantly obvious when you do and it's a prime example of a conflict of interest. Don't.

188.39.91.66 seems to be the main person contributing these, at least as far as I can be bothered to look back. Pigammon (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Continues to be an issue four months later. 213.86.218.170 has made several edits making it clear they work for the channel. As if that's not proof enough, a quick google of the IP address show it's coming from the address the channel list as their headquarters on their site. Pigammon (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, fair point, although there don't seem to have been any further edits beyond the (reverted) attempts at the end of January. I trimmed some of the worst excesses in mid-January but if further issues remain then either go ahead and edit, remove and improve, or perhaps tag the article with a COI template if its problems are more systemic. Bonusballs (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

These edits continue to be an issue in November 2018 - edits from 213.86.218.170 continue and are pretty much obliviously posting self-promotion. Bonusballs (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm curious about the characterisation of the source of the information in the article as a "conflict of interest"; a semantic point, maybe... clearly it's not appropriate for a wikipedia article to be used for self-promotion, & if the subject of an article is supplying & editing most of the content themselves, this will give rise to problems of neutrality & lack of citation, but where is there a conflict of interest, exactly? I say again, a semantic point, this.

duncanrmi (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)