Talk:INPEX

Multiple issues (removing a template from January 24, 2014)

I have removed a template with multiple issues added by User:Unforgettableid from January 24, 2014. The reason is described below:

1. Conflict of interest (WP:COI). As a main contributer to this article I claim that my primary role (being a Wikipedian while editing) was not undermined by any secondary one. So I truly believe that I don't have a conflict of interest, as I make my edits putting the Wikipedia aims in the first place. However I would like to add a Template:Connected contributor with links to relevant guidance in order not to declare conflict of interest, but to keep other editors informed about my possible connection to the subject of the article that was voiced by User:Unforgettableid. I would like to draw everybody's attention to the following warning on the page Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: "The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. Be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline".
2. Wikipedia is not a newspaper (Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS). This article is not journalism (it does not constitute a primary source); news reports (it considers the enduring notability of event); a diary of the event.
3. Notability guideline for events (Wikipedia:Notability (events)). The subject of the article meets the general notability guideline. Moreover it has widespread (national and international) impact and was very widely covered in diverse sources (it is the world's largest invention trade show; all the facts in the article are verifiable and have links to sources). --Alexandra Goncharik ^-sms- 12:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe the COI is that you hire yourself out as an editor as can be seen from the comment left by "SashaGoncharik" at http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.freelancer.is/projects/Article-Rewriting-Article-Submission/Replace-existing-WIKIPEDIA-page-maintain.html Since I didn't tag the article, I can't confirm that's the case, it's only a suspicion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Walter Görlitz, paid editing is not prohibited in Wikipedia per se, although it is a burning question as it often leads to conflict of interest, paid advocacy and other issues that eventually turn into a violation of rules.

Wikipedia editors not always motivated to create articles about companies and people, even if they are notable according to the wiki guidelines. Paid editors get this additional motivation to research the particular topic. They are free to decide whether they are going to write their article from their employer's point of view or independently, using publicly accessible mass media without any references to promotional or company's self-published materials. Their decision determines the result: paid advocacy or a new article in accordance with the principles of this free encyclopedia.

Also I would like to draw your attention to the following warning on the page Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: "The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. Be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline". —Alexandra Goncharik ^-sms- 13:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I never stated that it was the conflict of interest only that it is what I perceive the issue is for the other editor. Take it up with the editor who tagged the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure that there exist two RSes with SIGCOV regarding INPEX

Dear Bilby,

You declined G11 on this article. Still, I feel it is forbidden due to WP:NOTFORPROMOTION. I guess so do the other admins who G11'd it previously.

The page was recreated in response to this Freelancer.com job.

I clicked on a couple of the refs. I'm not sure that the RSes include SIGCOV.

Do you see two RSes with SIGCOV? If so, which two?

Kind regards,

—Unforgettableid (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Based on past RfCs, the community has opted to accept paid editing, even though it remains strongly discouraged. So while this article may have been paid for, we can't use that as criteria for deleting it. The sources seem ok to me - a lot of them mention INPX in regard to an invention displayed, and therefore doesn't count towards notability, but there are some articles - such as the Pittsburgh Business Times - which are specifically about INPEX and substantial. Generally I feel that the text is descriptive rather than overly promotional, but if it seems promotional we should be able to fix it. - Bilby (talk) 05:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Start date

The article says the event started in 1985, however I have come across a newspaper clipping from the event in 1982. NemesisAT (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)