GameOn

I'm mostly active on svwp, sometimes I do edit here (and on several other language versions) mostly regarding fixing interwikilinks and removing crosswiki vandalism. In case I come across articles on svwp that doesn't show that they are notable and also have articles on other language versions I will edit these articles on other languages and remove incorrect information and add notability-tags and possibly take them up on AfD. I prefer to keep comunication in english or swedish, but I do understand (and can somewhat make myself understood) in at the very least norwegian, danish and german.

In the case that I've come across an article you're interested in and removed information I've put together some short answers since I often get the same questions asked from several different users (most are from new users who just happens to stumble across an article previously edited by someone close to the article subject).

Q: Why do you remove links that work? A: I do not (primarly) remove links because they don't work, I remove them because they aren't usable as sources. I do however remove external links from the articles text since we only should have external links under the section external links.

Q: Why do you remove sources? A: I remove sources for several reasons.

1. Those that are used incorrectly. For instance in the source it states "Volvo makes red cars", this can't then be used to support "Volvo is the best automobile company making red cars" or "Volvo makes blue cars".
2. The subject of the article isn't mentioned in the source at all.
3. The source is a long list, or recurring list of "the best/lastest/hippest" etc.
4. The source is a private blog.

Q: Are you on a personal vendetta? A: No. But I do not think that articles that clearly have been edited by someone close to the subject (Please read WP:COI) only to get famous is the right way to go, this is an encylopedia after all. I do have a more liberal stance than most others on svwp since I think someone close to the subject can edit an article, but only if there's notability.

I've reverted to a version prior to the deletion that was done after it was deleted on svwp for lacking notability. New users that appear out of the blue and readd things that aren't true and incorrect will NOT help to keep this page. I've already explained myself in too much detail on several discussion pages for these new users on svwp, enwp and dawp and quite honestly I've grown tired of it. And for the record, Åsk is NOT a CEO since she more or less is the company in question, for more information please see Sole proprietorship. GameOn (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Honestly I'm unclear as to how you can know to verify information that is in other documented references and resources. I have no idea what SVWP is, although after a bit of googling I'm assuming you are referring to the Swedish Wikipedia. I do not see what that has to do with anything as this is the English wiki. Since you've gone through all these other wikipedias, it would seem you have a vendetta out against the postings for this site. It is also unclear to me how you would know what type of company this is and if she is the sole proprietor. Since you are so keen on correct information I suggest you prove that point before you make claims you cannot back. I see nothing posted in this article about the creator of Adland.tv being a CEO.Missadvert (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)missadvert

svwp is short for sv.wikipedia.org, dawp is short for da.wikipedia.org. These are not swedish wikipedia or danish wikipedia. They are wikipedia in swedish and danish. The point is that I've explained to several users, most of them involved in Adland, either herself, the man she lives with or her hosting company why I removed the things I've removed.

I'll do this one last time, then I'm just going to revert without further comments.

The part about her being a CEO was added by Bob Knorpp who earlier has had help from Åsk to create and add information about his website to wikipedia. Source for it not being a company where she can be a CEO is found emoved due to privacy concerns (See WP:BLPPRIMARY). As you can see the identification number for her company is the same as her national identification number so it's a sole proprietorship.

Now lets go over the "sources" one last time. You are NOT the first user that stumbles over this article and adds the same incorrect information. I've already debated this one with other users here, other users on svwp and even more new users on dawp.

Library of Congress does not use it as a reference. They have it mentioned in a list of places where information can be found, they are not using it themselves.

FastCompany has links to her site from a blog on the site, they are not using it as a reference.

Der Spiegel doesn't (Verstehen Sie deutsch?) use it as a reference. They link to it.

CNN Money doesn't even link to adland.

The Guardian doesn't use Adland as the text claims either, they mention it in passing "Nor has the advertising weblog adland, at www.ad-rag.com, which also published the image."

Mentioning that Åsk and Jane Goldman has been on two shows isn't something that makes Adland notable. And the incorrect information about Åsk being a CEO is in The Advertising Show as well so they obviosuly don't check any facts.

We do not link to external sites in the text. MarketingSherpa doesn't seem notable in itself, and I quote from Wikipedia:Notability (web), "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization". This award is not well-known.

That Åsk has appeared on BeanCast doesn't make her site notable and shouldn't be mentioned since this article is about her blog, not about her (the article about her on svwp has also been deleted for lacking notability). Since it's clear that Åsk and Bob Knorpp have worked together to boost eachothers wikipedia articles it's even more apparent that this information can't be left.

We only use one external link normally to a webpage, two isn't required.

And top it all off I'll explain why I removed the link to marketingsherpa. It's a site where I need to pay to see if it actually says what you (and a lot of more new users) claim. Since most of the sources are used incorrectly (on three different language versions of wikipedia by several different users who are only interested in this article) I'll assume that this goes for that source as well. Yes I do NOT assume good faith since all the users act the same way and several of them can clearly be linked back to the creator of Adland.

And I do NOT have a vendetta against this site. As I've already explained on my own page since this is also mentioned by several of these new users. I do however feel that wikipedia shouldn't be used for advertising yourself or your company, it's an encyclopedia. Creating new users, or getting more outside help, will not make me back off from stopping Åsk using wikipedia as an advertising chanel. I've saved the above answers to my own page in case this talk page gets deleted once this article gets deleted since I've grown tired of answering the same questions over and over again. We have hundred of thousands of article you can participate in, do that instead of an article about yourself or someone close to you. WP:COI is a giudeline! GameOn (talk) 06:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)