Talk:Tilt.com

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Finance & Investment Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

June 2013 PROD and tags

Removed an unfounded PROD. Reviewed and determined that this article is well written, referenced with reliable sources and notability easily meets WP:CORPDEPTH. If a user wants to take issue with notability they should bring it to AfD because it certainly doesn't meet PROD or CSD requirements. 190.120.231.41 (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While it might be notable, it's more an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. --Ronz (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking closer, it wasn't bad Jun 2013 compared to the mess we have now. --Ronz (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notable campaigns

How about we trim it down to a simple list to start? --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This looks great now. Please let us get this valuable information without having to read unfounded complaints that it looks like an ad. Loveonearth (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a new editor, dismissing others' concerns is definitely not how to reach any consensus. I've left you a welcome message that highlights many of Wikipedia's most important policies and guidelines.

What looks great now? There have been no related changes since the concerns where brought up.

It would be of great help to identify who thinks that the information is valuable. From independent and reliable sources that is. Certainly Tilt values the information, but this is not a forum to promote Tilt. --Ronz (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not with Tilt. I am independent. Yes, what was changed was the annoying blurb about this looking like an ad. There is no mention here of why this looks like an ad. I would love to please please PLEASE read about a company without having to first see all these annoying, unfounded "This article appears to be written like an advertisement." Please explain how this article or this section can be written any more neutral. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Also please follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution Please document your concerns. How is this "it's more an advertisement than an encyclopedia article.?" Loveonearth (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]