Talk:Molok (company)

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

jjanhone (talk · contribs) has been paid by Molok (company) on their behalf. [1]
Annhh (talk · contribs) has been paid by Molok (company) on their behalf.

The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from fi:Molok (yritys). Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material under both the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license and the GNU Free Documentation License. You may use either or both licenses. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by VRT volunteers, under ticket number 2022083110012239.
This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia volunteer response team system (VRTS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-enwikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission.

Paid contributions tag

A paid editor made contributions to this article, and has disclosed that fact on this page, therefore the {{paid contributions}} is a matter of fact and does not require discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to the policy "if you place the Paid tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article." As a paid editor I'm not allowed to remove the tag myself, but if any volunteer editor thinks that the neutral point of view of the article is ok, they are free to remove the tag as told in the Template:Paid contributions instructions: "If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning."Jjanhone (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality?

Is there something wrong with the neutrality of the article? What's that? Please help me to improve the article by telling about the problems.Jjanhone (talk) 06:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A good source?

Just asking for an opinion: is wasterecyclingmag.ca a good source or not? I think it is editorial content but is the magazine notable enough for Wikipedia? Jjanhone (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And there's more. Jjanhone (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

wasteadvantagemag.com - OK
emccanada.org - manufacturing consortium, not a media source
owma.org - environmental services association, not a media source
trilliummfg.ca: about Molok's history in Canada, e.g. "Molok NA’s facilities are located in Mount Forest Ontario, and its achievements include being included in Canada’s “Profit 500” list."
transitalliance.ca - a non-political organization, not a media source
molokna.com -> added to external links
waste-recycling-expo-canada.us.messefrankfurt.com - no good?
theneweconomy.com- OK
undergrounddisposal.ca/ - a reseller, not a media source

Copyright of translation

I have proofread the text translated by jjanhone. After that jjanhone added the text to English Wikipedia.

As you can see from the yellow template on this page this article contains a translation of the Molok Finnish Wikipedia article. That means it's license is suitable for English Wikipedia. Annhh (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for republishing the article.--Annhh (talk) 07:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]