Talk:Tim Armstrong (executive)

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Untitled

Conference call controversy

Can someone add this in- this recent news is going to change this mans career and is a substantial controversy;

99.69.110.121 (talk) 03:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also

It is not explained why there is no clear record of his birth date. Is that not worth mentioning in the article's body? 50.59.14.6 (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tim Armstrong (executive). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed updates and COI message

Hi Wikipedians:

This is a request for updated biographical information about Tim Armstrong.

First, a COI disclosure: I am a current employee of AOL. I can provide more details but would prefer to do so privately.

We have tried very hard to keep our information on Tim very much in the style of WIkipedia, as neutral and disinterested as possible, with the sole aim of filling in details about Tim's life while staying within the guidelines of Wikipedia style and sourcing. We have sourced all edits from 3rd party sources, or from the AOL corporate site for business-related announcements or clarifications.

To summarize, our proposed edits include:

  • Early Career section: Adding a more detailed section on Tim's early career, before Google
  • Google section: Adding a more detailed section on Tim's career at Google
  • AOL: Adding much more detail about Tim's tenure at AOL, including relevant acquisitions and business decisions.
  • Other roles and activities section: Providing a more detailed summary of Tim's roles and responsibilities outside of AOL.
  • Honors and Awards: Adding a section on Tim's honors and awards, as we have seen on other notable figures' websites.

Please find the full copy of our proposed changes here. Our proposed changes are in bold, with sources bracketed. We do not intend to remove any existing sources or information from his page.

I realize these are substantial changes, and that I am editing under scrutiny because of COI. Again, we have made every effort to source these changes, and for the edits to read neutrally. I am able to discuss any edits as questions arise.

ABstasio (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The proposed changes are just spam. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Joseph2302 - can you clarify what you mean? The proposed additions are meant to provide additional information about Tim's background and experience, and all edits are sourced. ABstasio (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the status of this executive, it's pretty important that a decent article is written about him. I think it's a good thing that more detail about his early career and some other aspects are added. The problem in this case I think was (judging by the "much more detail" comment) the excess detail on AOL itself presented from a business viewpoint, some of the awards and the COI, which would make most editors, Joseph2302 included, think that it was spam, even if not actually the case. When you write about things like that you have to ensure that it is written from the biographical perspective throughout and company progress under the individual. Some details on AOL acquisitions and background info is fine, though ideally it should include the role the executive played in that event. But it really has to be balanced and neutrally written and presented from a biographical viewpoint. I'll try to look at this and come up with something better within a few days, there definitely does need to be more detail in parts.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The issue I had was that their edits were just spam masquerading as an article- clearly others agree, since an admin deleted the sandbox. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Joseph. Well, I'll try to take a look at this and come up with something we're all happier with. If there's not already there ought to be a an essay on business executive writing on here somewhere which can be presented in a situation like this and what really needs to be avoided.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Working on a draft, hopefully this can be much improved in due course.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overhauled the article and written it decently. Didn't want to do it in the article or workspace to avoid potential conflict during the editing. It should now cover the essentials. A lot of the AOL info is relevant to his biography because Armstrong has really been at the forefront of the company change in direction. I've worded it so it's informative and written from his perspective, without it being bloated. Above all the article should read neutrally now and be without issue. It's about time somebody wrote an article essay on writing CEO articles as they do seem to present a problem on here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies

Hi, page watchers. An IP editor recently added detail on the removal of four sisters from Oath's network. You can see the initial edit here. The source used does not mention that Mr. Armstrong was directly involved in the cancellation of the show. Neither do any of these other sources from CBS,[1] Fox News,[2] People[3] and Variety[4][5]. As Mr. Armstrong himself wasn't involved here, I believe this content does not belong on this page. Can someone delete it?

In case editors prefer to move this detail to the Oath article, I'd also like to note that the framing of the controversy does not reflect sourcing. The show was cancelled due to offensive posts on Twitter.

I work for Oath's parent company, Verizon, and have a conflict of interest so I ask others to look and remove the content on my behalf. Thank you, VZBob (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply quotebox with inserted reviewer decisions and feedback 16-MAR-2018

Below you will see where text from your request has been quoted and individual advisory messages – either accepting, declining or otherwise commenting upon your proposals – have been inserted underneath each major proposal. Please see the Notes section at the bottom of the quotebox for additional information about each request. Spintendo      22:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An IP editor recently added detail on the removal of four sisters from Oath's network. The source used does not mention that Mr. Armstrong was directly involved in the cancellation of the show. Neither do any of these other sources from CBS, Fox News, People and Variety. As Mr. Armstrong himself wasn't involved here, I believe this content does not belong on this page. Can someone delete it?
 Partly done[note 1]
___________

  1. ^ The claim statement from the article in question has been altered to more-closely reflect the information as it appears in the given source. The implication here in the edit request that Mr. Armstrong was not a part of actions taken at Oath, Inc., a company for which he is responsible as CEO, is intellectually dishonest.

Clarifying information about original request

@Spintendo: to clarify the reason why I believe this information does not belong, these sources do not state or imply that Mr. Armstrong was specifically involved with the cancellation. The sources I provided above do not mention him. I would not object if the information was moved to the Oath Inc. article, but my understanding of Wikipedia's content policies is that including it here would be a synthesis of sources.
Also, I think the framing of the controversy still does not reflect the sourcing, which makes it clear that the show was cancelled due to offensive posts on Twitter, not the mother's identity.
I hope you will reconsider. Thanks in advance, VZBob (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply quotebox with inserted reviewer decisions and feedback 19-MAR-2018

Below you will see where text from your request has been quoted and individual advisory messages – either accepting, declining or otherwise commenting upon your proposals – have been inserted underneath each major proposal. Please see the Notes section at the bottom of the quotebox for additional information about each request. Spintendo      20:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would not object if the information was moved to the Oath Inc. article, but my understanding of Wikipedia's content policies is that including it here would be a synthesis of sources.
 Unable to implement[note 1]
___________

the framing of the controversy still does not reflect the sourcing, which makes it clear that the show was cancelled due to offensive posts on Twitter, not the mother's identity.
no Not done[note 2]
___________

  1. ^ A perusal of the article indicates more than one instance where synthesis may be inferred. A blanket ban on such items in this article would radically alter its look and layout, a course of action which, if desired, ought to come as a result of consensus after a detailed examination of the article's every word. Please note that this suggestion comes not through a desire to make a WP:POINT, but rather, for consistency.
  2. ^ The words I changed the sentence to read as were not due to, but rather, after, indicating that the action of being released from work came chronologically after the specified event occurred (the mother's information being made public) and not necessarily due to it.

@Spintendo: Thanks for your reply. I still maintain that the sourcing available does not attribute the show's cancellation specifically to Mr. Armstrong. Therefore, it seems to me this material does not belong in the personal biography of Mr. Armstrong and is better suited for Oath Inc. Also, the information as detailed in the article is still misleading, and the addition of a statement from the company likewise is misplaced in this context. Perhaps we can get another opinion at WP:BLP/N. Thank you, VZBob (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Tim_Armstrong_(executive)"