Talk:David S. Rose

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article restored - now to clean it up[edit]

I edited the restored article in response to the original tags and subsequent discussion on the REFUND and TALK pages, so I think it's now clear of the problematic elements. Yorker (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A non-logged in user has tagged this article for COI. Since (as noted above) I am the one who had previously cleaned it up in response to the prior discussion on these pages, and since I don't see any remaining problematic issues with it, unless someone would like to point to (or take the trouble to edit themselves) any specific parts of the article which they feel should be rewritten, I am planning to remove the tags in a week.Yorker (talk) 05:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously have a conflict of interest and some relationship to the subject. That is why the article has a COI tag. It has a POV tag because you have written it sort of like an advertisement and the article presents a very biased view. The Refimprove tag is there probably because you did not cite any sources in the section about your K-12 education. 24.5.68.9 (talk) 06:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You added links to your personal and company websites as external links. You also added a LinkedIn profile as a citation and many other non-reliable citations. This article is just a piece of puffery with huge COI/neutrality issues. Westeros1994 (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I sense a lot of hostility here, so I'm going to proceed very carefully. While the original article by Detailhound (you seem to know who everyone is, but I don't) did indeed have issues, after the article was deleted and restored, I took it upon myself to clean it up to what I believe are reasonable Wikipedia standards, since I do know the subject (as well as many other people in the field). If you think that it "reads as an advertisement", or "presents a biased view" of the subject, by all means please edit it yourself to remove the perceived biases, since I simply don't see them. As for the references, I think a reasonable editor would agree that things like citations from a university's own web site about an honorary degree, or a Crunchbase citation about investments, are appropriate for ancillary, non-controversial biographical items. But so as to avoid the edit-warring which seems to be your aim, I will spend the time to track down other references which may meet with your approval. I will then clean up the article and request a prior review by an administrator before confirming the edits. I really think this is being blown way out of proportion. Yorker (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Crunchbase also claims that he's the CEO of the wrong AirMedia[1]. One that was founded in 2003 and is based in San Francisco and is, you know, actually profitable. I think that's a good example of why it is not a reliable source. Also, Detailhound is just another of your accounts. On an unrelated note, you might find this article informative. Westeros1994 (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is very small-minded of you to accuse me of stirring up edit-wars for pointing out bias, inappropriate citations, and misinterpreted citations in this article. Westeros1994 (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of references[edit]

Please do not remove reliable sources from the article. If a link is dead and you're not interested in finding the reference, please leave what information we have in the article so that others can find and document the reference, as I've done here.

Primary sources and self-published sources need to be used appropriately per WP:BLPSOURCES, but should not be removed solely because they are primary or self-published. --Ronz (talk) 03:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not able to find http://www.forbes.com/feeds/businesswire/2010/10/21/businesswire147279727.html but it appears to have been based upon http://newsroom.sprint.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=1693 which is a press release. --Ronz (talk) 04:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take some time going through past versions, looking for further references that were removed erroneously. --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This version has quite a bit more to look through. --Ronz (talk) 05:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Potential references[edit]

That is a very dubious reference. It's just a blog entry, not an actual article checked by an editor. If you try to check some of the facts in it, like its claim that Rose was described as a “world conquering entrepreneur” by BusinessWeek (which the author just repeated from Rose's site), you'll have trouble finding the original source ([2]). Also, it's an interview, and Rose's responses are much longer than the interviewer's questions, so the article is over 75% quotes directly from Rose. Westeros1994 (talk) 05:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a Forbes interview, which should be used with caution as a primary source. --Ronz (talk) 05:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is an interview from a subsite of Forbes.com. It is inaccurate to describe it as a Forbes interview. Westeros1994 (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my evaluation of the source. There is no problem using this source, provided care is taken in using Rose's comments per WP:BLPPRIMARY. The information from introductory material is perfectly acceptable for most any use. --Ronz (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prod[edit]

I removed the prod. I think there's enough in the above potential references to show he's notable. --Ronz (talk) 04:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's been two weeks without response, plus I added above a Forbes article about Rose. I hope this is now settled and we can focus on expanding and verifying information in the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David S. Rose. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_S._Rose&oldid=1215300025"