User talk:AP Edits
Talk Page Open AP Edits (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
COI
[edit]If you have an affiliation with Omni Air, you need to declare it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm an independent editor with no association with Omni Air International. Please clarify which Omni you are speaking about as other companies with "Omni Air" in the name exist and are not associated. AP Edits (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- You have no affiliation with this company, yet are knowledgable enough about this small company to insist that we do not confuse it with other non-notable companies that carry similar names? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- If you do any precursory research before editing, you can see how easily market confusion exists. It's not a COI but part of my process based on my previous experience in market research analysis. I'd assume that adding to market confusion is not a goal of Wikipedia nor is it a goal of yours. My goal in correcting your abbreviation of the name is solely based on my research and understanding of the page. While I understand your reasoning for insisting on this location for the information, and typically agree with many of your edits on other pages, I do believe in this instance that your edits are mischaracterizing the page. I have no issue with this information being on the page, but I'd like to discuss where it should exist to fairly and proportionally provide accurate weight to it and that it matches others in the industry. AP Edits (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- What WP:OTHER Wikipedia pages say is completely irrelevant to the one for Omni Air. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- If you do any precursory research before editing, you can see how easily market confusion exists. It's not a COI but part of my process based on my previous experience in market research analysis. I'd assume that adding to market confusion is not a goal of Wikipedia nor is it a goal of yours. My goal in correcting your abbreviation of the name is solely based on my research and understanding of the page. While I understand your reasoning for insisting on this location for the information, and typically agree with many of your edits on other pages, I do believe in this instance that your edits are mischaracterizing the page. I have no issue with this information being on the page, but I'd like to discuss where it should exist to fairly and proportionally provide accurate weight to it and that it matches others in the industry. AP Edits (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- It is relevant when you are looking at other airlines who also provide deportations and how that information is treated on their page. By putting more emphasis on one airlines contributions over another seems like the definition of unfair. You are PROPORTIONALLY affecting the page by doing this, which is a tenet of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. I'm sad to see that you are continuing to add to market confusion and have no regard for treating this page with respect or unbias. Again, my goal is keep that information while adding proper weight to preserve neutrality. I'm happy to discuss moving it to the history timeline or another section. AP Edits (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Additionally, your comment on it being the only topic of reliable sources is completely wrong. It is isn't even the most relevant NEW coverage as incidents, company changes and emergency charter flights to recover Americans overseas due to Covid-19 fill searches. If you do deeper research or discovery you can see a plethora of other coverage. AP Edits (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- It is relevant when you are looking at other airlines who also provide deportations and how that information is treated on their page. By putting more emphasis on one airlines contributions over another seems like the definition of unfair. You are PROPORTIONALLY affecting the page by doing this, which is a tenet of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. I'm sad to see that you are continuing to add to market confusion and have no regard for treating this page with respect or unbias. Again, my goal is keep that information while adding proper weight to preserve neutrality. I'm happy to discuss moving it to the history timeline or another section. AP Edits (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- @AP Edits: At this point your account is only a six or so hours old and has only edited subjects related to OAI. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- My account was created nearly a month ago, but I've been familiarizing myself with both Wikipedia's TOS and the topics I wanted to edit. I personally feel it is my due diligence to not just add a primary source to a page but to understand the weight of it and how it affects the neutrality of the total page. I've also made edits to other airlines as I've found recent sources related to those airlines. I did open my talk page today after realizing that despite making a good case for my edits that I would be basically dismissed by legacy editors. Not only that, but I've found that the editor above is purposefully contributing to brand confusion and is obviously partisan in his edits. If a page is to reflect what is notable and garners earned media, then we should look at all coverage from reliable sources instead of picking the aspects that are purposefully controversial and parading them as if they represent the overall character of the page. This seriously makes me question the validity of other pages as a Wikipedia user and makes me sad as a new editor who wants to bring true neutrality, which means fair coverage, proportionally to the available reliable sources. AP Edits (talk) 05:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)