Talk:Marco Arment

He frequently writes about technology matters, feminism, Apple, and social justice.

Don't know why this line "He frequently writes about technology matters, feminism, Apple, and social justice." was re-added by User:Gilliam. It has no citation. I read all of his posts and listen to his podcasts. He certainly has written about "feminism and social justice", but I wouldn't call it "frequently". He certainly does write frequently about technology. William Spaetzel (talk) 13:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Will self-revert.– Gilliam (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marco Arment. 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/20151016032554/https://peace.land/ to https://peace.land/

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) 22:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

partial revert

Originally posted on User talk:Psantora here.

Regarding your partial revert, no. We only list the official homepage of the subject of the page, and only one. Any additional homepages of the subjects are not listed, per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL - 'only one' with very few exceptions (which boils down to 1 in thousands, I am currently only aware of 2-3 on the thousands and thousands of pages I have removed them from, and I still disagree on one of them).

The other pages are not the official page of the subject, but of organisations that the subject is involved in (he created overcast and instapaper, overcast.fm and instapaper.com are the websites of those subjects, not of this subject - hence they are indirect).

I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying and I don't agree that it fits for this case. Let's move this to the talk page of the article in question. - Paul^T+/_C 06:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Now, Beetstra as I explained in the edit summary, Accidental Tech Podcast redirects to this page and, while it doesn't have its own section, it does qualify as a main topic for the page. At the very least both Marco.org and atp.fm should be listed. I understand you are tying to apply the content guidelines, but sometimes a little discussion is required to find the best solution for a given page. - Paul^T+/_C 06:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I just self-reverted to remove the Overcast and Instapaper links since they have their own articles. I do still think they add to this page, but I understand your argument regarding them and am willing to compromise. - Paul^T+/_C 06:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Why are you edit warring, Beetstra? That is your 3rd ([1][2][3]) revert and I'd really rather not get into the dramaboards. I've asked you to discuss this multiple times. This isn't how WP:BRD works. - Paul^T+/_C 06:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Psantora: (sorry, this edit conflicted) that something does not have an own Wikipedia page does not mean that we have to link to the homepage of that somewhere. If it is not important enough as such, then why would it warrant a link. We keep links to a minimum per policy (of which the guideline is an extension). Especially if the subject does not even warrant an own section but only a fleeting mention, it does not warrant an external link.

Marco.org has never been removed, and was always (ai, I see I accidentaly removed it in the first edit, my apologies) linked. That alone disqualifies all other official homepages of this subject, the twitter is hence not appropriate (and more so since the already listed official website is prominently listing the Twitter). On rereading your edit summary, no, these do not often have exceptions. The guideline states 'under a very few limited circumstances', which simply means that there are not often exceptions. As I stated above, it boils down to 2-3 on the thousands and thousands of pages I have removed them from.

I agree, we need a discussion, but that discussion, per WP:ELBURDEN is about whether links should be included. Anything that does not warrant inclusion should be included until a proper rationale shows that it needs to be included. I see no reason for inclusion of Marco's twitter (in line with guideline), and I do not believe that the link to Accidental Tech Podcast is warranted either, as it is indirect and does not get more than a fleeting mention in the article (and also that one is prominently linked from the official homepage of the subject, marco.org). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC) (extended --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC))

@Beetstra:(Sorry for the edit conflict, I was adding an additional note to the last message. I had an (edit conflict) of my own this time.) The removal of Marco.org in the initial edit may have been a mistake on your end, but from my perspective it showed indiscriminate removal of indisputably valid content, which justified a revert. I understand mistakes happen though. Apology accepted. Perhaps you are moving a little too quickly?

The bit about twitter is a little more vauge. I see that it is linked promenintly from the site and therefore it does seem somewhat redundant, but I still think it serves the reader. Guidelines are not explicit rules that must be slavishly followed to the letter and they do often have exceptions, though I don't think it is worth the fight in this case. Though, if your goal is to fully enforce this point, wouldn't it be more efficient for you to get everything in Category:Social media external link templates deleted directly?;)

Regarding ATP, I disagree. There is enough RS/V coverage to justify a full article ([4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]), and at the least a full section on this page. (Major topics covered in the sources beyond the podcast itself: interviews with Phil Schiller and Chris Lattner; Apple's software quality, laptop keyboard reliability, and the upcoming modular Mac Pro; and toaster ovens yes, really.) The fact it hasn't been fully fleshed out and written yet doesn't preclude having the link. In fairness, I did not see the link to it in the header from Arment's site until you pointed it out, but I still think it deserves inclusion since it is a redirect target and a main topic for the page. I'd make similar arguments regarding Overcast and Instapaper, but I've already ceded those points.

The bottom line here is that this whole process would have gone a lot smoother if you had started a discussion here in the first place per WP:BRD. Instead, you started edit warring (though I will admit, it takes two). I see that you are an administrator. Aren't you supposed to be setting a good example for other editors per WP:GOODBEHAVIOR? WP:ELBURDEN doesn't mean you can run roughshod over an editor asking for a discussion about article content that represented the WP:STATUSQUO. Indiscriminate over-citation of guidelines (many did not apply in this case and if they did I'm sure you would have mentioned them in your replies here) in your edit summaries is also pretty hostile behavior that is not condusive to a productive discussion.

All that aside, I appreciate your reasoned discussion here, at least once you managed to do so and if I come off harsh I also apologize. I do not intend to antagonize in any way.

In summary, I won't fight for the Twitter links or Overcast/Instapaper links, but I do dispute the removal of the atp.fm link and I want to include it mainly because of the redirect from Accidental Tech Podcast. - Paul^T+/_C 08:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Psantora: Yes, there are exceptions on Twitter, but they are rare - very rare. As I said, I did thousands of removals, and brought many of them (when contested) to noticeboards. The general consensus there is still, removal. I have been brought to AN/I for these removals, and the general consensus was 'give him a barnstar, they should indeed practically blanket be removed with very little exception'. In any case, you added the twitters in the first place, and the burden is on you that it here passes the bar. I presume you have multiple independent reliable sources showing that the twitter use of this person is on multiple occasions notable in itself? In any case, it is currently not reflected in the article, so no, I see no reason why this Twitter feed is an exception on the 'we list only one official page of a subject, with only a very few limited exceptions' .. and that is nothing but vague.

You have sources that the subject is notable. That is currently not reflected in an own article, or in this article. Again, it is not on me to show that the subject is notable - if it is not shown to be notable I am in my full right to remove them. In any case, this page has as subject 'Marco Arment', it is NOT the subject of this page. I can also show multiple sources showing that the Audi A8 is notable and worthy of its own article, still we do not link to the official homepage of the Audi A8 on Audi.

WP:BRD is fine, but as I allude here, I have been through these discussions quite a number of times in different venues over a timespan now at least 1 1/2 year. If you want to continue to challenge the twitter feeds, it is better to move this discussion to on of the appropriate boards to see whether this page indeed warrants an override of the global consensus by local consensus - as it stands now I do not see any reason why this page is different in that in comparison to all the other pages that do not need a twitter feed (as the consensus in WP:EL).

I agree that your case for the atp.fm is the strongest, but it sounds that that redirect should be converted to an article where it is then the official link. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Beetstra: I've stated my point of disagreement about the Twitter link(s) (benefits to the reader) but I've also said it is not worth fighting over here.

Removal is fine the first time, but once reverted and disputed it is expected that you come to the talk page to discuss it (respecting the status quo) instead of engaging in disruptive behavior. I specifically asked for discussion in my edit summaries.

The Audi example is a poor one because Audi A8 already has its own page. A better (but still not great) example is Audi A8L, which redirects to the A8 article and has an appropriate (I think anyway, WP:OSE etc...) separate external link there (for a "Security" A8L model, but I don't think that is a meaningful difference on the point). (Full disclosure, I just made some changes to that page, but none were in the External links section I am referencing in this argument.) It isn't a great example because these are much larger articles with a bunch more content and (theoretically) more editors working on them.

Despite the content for ATP not being fully fleshed out here or in its own article, there is no deadline. Creating an ATP article is indeed something that I'd like to find time for (and listing those links above was a good start at it, thanks for the push), eventually. There should be a separate article with its own official link, but in the meantime there is a reasonable argument for the link to stay here at the current main topic for the subject. - Paul^T+/_C 18:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

If twitter links would be a benefit (to which I very strongly disagree), then our guidelines, and discussions regarding those points in our guidelines, would not be so strongly suggesting to the opposite.

At your revert of my edits I started the discussion. As, again, global consensus has rather consistently been to not have these links, that wouldnot be overridden by a local consensus, and links are removed unless their inclusion can be justified (which is on the person who wants to include the links). We don't leave material standing (your status quo) for material for which there is consensus to not have it there. Pointy note: the status quo would be without twitter links.

As I said, the atp link has the strongest case, if there was a deeper discussion already in the article I would likely not have opposed when so reasoned (however, I will again object if an own article exists). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Text Missing When Viewing Page on iPhone X

Hi guys,

I have no explanation for this, but when looking at this page on Safari (iPhone X, 13.3.1), multiple references to Tumblr do not appear. Not sure why this is the case, or how to resolve it. Maybe someone else has info.

These two excerpts are verbatim from my iPhone, with [Square Brackets] denoting omitted text.

"As a developer, he is best known for being chief technology officer for [Tumblr] and creating Instapaper and Overcast."

"Arment worked as lead developer and chief technology officer (CTO) of the [Tumblr] microblogging platform and social networking website from its inception in February 2007 until September 2010"

--Fieryaleeco (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)