Jump to content

Talk:SkillPages

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

Untitled

[edit]

This looks more like an ad to me?! Is the information relevant and well founded?

Agreed. I got an email from someone I never heard of, inviting me to join. That's spam and I've let it elapse. From the one critical sentence in the article I gather that this is the normal way of operating for 'skillpages'. I think a critical paragraph on privacy issues ought to be included plus a critical comparison with more established serviced like LinkedIn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.92.220.29 (talk) 10:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+1. I got the spam, too. Looks like the tried and true approach of harvesting users from the net, getting a naïve or corrupt journalist at TechCrunch to write about it as the next big thing, and get investors to pony up the cash. Caution advised. Ketil (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Ketil. We ask that editors use these article talk pages to discuss changes to the article, not to pass judgement on the people or companies that are the subjects of these articles. This doesn't mean your opinions aren't valid or that you don't have a right to express them -- we just want to try to keep our focus on our mission. There are lots of other sites, especially forums, out there that are set up to facilitate these sorts of discussions. Take a look at our policy, "What Wikipedia is not".
That said, the anonymous contributor's concerns about the neutrality of this article are valid and I have tagged the article as problematic.
For what it's worth, I got a couple of those emails, also.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found enough warnings about this site's spamming to warrant adding a paragraph with refs to the lede section.--Thnidu (talk) 05:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SkillPages was originally known as "Weedle"

[edit]

For more history on the company in it's Weedle period, see these Google News archive items:

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Working in computer support, I can confirm that SkillPages uses the Outlook address book so aggressively that it comes across as a spam machine. This is no mere allegation, it's a problem of legitimacy of their business model. 212.130.167.178 (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


- I'm not a regular contributor so I won't edit the page because I'm not sure how to do it, but it should be clarified here that SkillPages is basically SPAM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.218.50.249 (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts of interest

[edit]

The following editors of this article and/or the Iain MacDonald article may have conflicts of interest:

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 14:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If true, please inform me. --Ankit MaityTalkContribs 15:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of use?

[edit]

I have tried searching for any third-party mentions of using the website to offer or get work. Apart from some comments on launch that it looked as if it *would* be useful, there don't seem to be any. The artcile would be improved by adding something about the level of use. Martinlc (talk) 08:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of material about spamming

[edit]

@Mark Devine: Why did you delete the material about SkillPages' spamming behavior from the lede section? It was a major concern about the company, with plenty of discussion, and was adequately referenced. Such a significant change deserves an explanation on the article's Talk page (this page). As a brand-new Wikipedian, you may not be aware of this. --Thnidu (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That material looks like it'd be more appropriate in the body of the article than the lede. Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Fearofreprisal: And there is a section about spamming at the very end. Mark Devine could have moved it there, but just deleted it. In any case, spamming was a major issue for quite a while and imho belongs further up than the end; should at least be mentioned in the lede. If nothing else is done soon, I will do that.
No, scratch that: Mark Devine no longer even has a user page. Apparently the account has been deleted. :-) No reason to wait. ... Done. --Thnidu (talk) 06:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, the account still exists. Unless the spamming led to the company failing, I don't think it belongs in the lede. Fearofreprisal (talk) 07:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked, and the material you added has a WP:POV problem, and its cites are not WP:RS. (We don't cite Google searches, blogs, or discussion forums!) It can't stay as it is. Fearofreprisal (talk) 07:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thnidu: thanks for your comments - it appears that the references within that deleted content all related to a relatively short time period circa 2 years ago and resultantly, its inclusion in the lead of the article had the potential to distort/misrepresent the circumstance of the company which lead to it being placed in liquidation. I also noted that appropriately, the subject matter of the deleted content from the lead is already dealt with comprehensively and referenced within the article body. I deleted rather than moved it as to have moved it to the relevant section would have resulted in duplication of information at that section. In any case, I since note comments from Fearofreprisal. I will delete the content again and make minor adjustments to remaining content for syntax and grammar. I note the comment that my user account was deleted. Not sure why this is the case as it is not.Mark Devine (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Devine and Fearofreprisal:
  • I thought it had been deleted because you don't have a user page. Your name as a user ([[User:Mark Devine|Mark Devine]]) shows up as a redlink. I think you ought to create a user page, even if empty, just to avoid that.
  • Hmm, WP:POV .... Ach, you're right. I didn't put the sources together with the policy to get 2+2=4.
  • (Spelling:
    ...the circumstance of the company which lead to it being placed in liquidation...
Make that led. Lead rhyming with head is only for the metal, Pb.)
--Thnidu (talk) 07:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Management info

[edit]

Updated the information on the management of the company including the CEO info and the board info as previously Board mentioned but lacked info on the members. Added photo of current CEO in line with existing photo of previous CEO. removed bio info about the new CEO as it read like a resume/advertisement for them and this is not a bio article. Replaced with where they previously worked for added context and included citations. Cleaned up body references/citations to discussion forums as pointed out by previous editor as being contrary to WP:RS. Colliesexton (talk) 10:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder website

[edit]

As of February 2, 2015, all links to pages on skillpages.com go to the homepage, which now just announces the acquisition by Bark.com and says that the website and accounts are being integrated into Bark.com. Technically, all material on the page that is sourced to skillpages.com pages now fails verification, but I don't think it would be a good idea to flag them as that while the webpage reconstruction is in progress. --Thnidu (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on SkillPages. 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, 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) 08:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SkillPages&oldid=1207973015"