User talk:Vermont/Archive 5

< Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6 >

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  11 -  12 -  13 -  ... (up to 100)

Please comment on Talk:Sciences Po

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sciences Po. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pizzagate

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pizzagate. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi justeditingtoday! I want to edit Billy Idol. He played acoustic guitar.But it isn't showing!That's why I am editing. Also, wikipedia has been incorrect about certain things, so I came to change those things! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucajeter (talk • contribs) 01:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, first I don't need unnecessary things in the script I am editing. I am avoiding war. Wikipedia, wrong again, says I am at war,in which I am not. So, I request for the consent of the removal of the little phrase about putting an instrument in. Thanks for reading, Lucajeter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucajeter (talk • contribs) 02:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey, Adotchar! It's lucajeter. I would like if you didn't use my account in a bad way on your page. That I think is rude. I would never use your account name in a harsh way, like you did! I don't know why you did this. I would like an apology for this. Ok?

Thanks for reading, Lucajeter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucajeter (talk • contribs) 03:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm assuming this concerns the vandal archives which I put your first two posts in? _{Adotchar| reply here} 11:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fidel Castro

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fidel Castro. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Crotone are in Serie A, check your facts. If you really want misinformation on Wiki... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.14.34 (talk) 11:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be on both. Google "Crotone serie A" and "Crotone serie B", it shows 2nd in Serie B and 19th in Serie A. Sorry for the revert, it really looked like subtle vandalism. Please, as I'm not very skilled in this subject, just add both if they both apply. Thanks, _{Adotchar| reply here} 11:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems that Crotone is playing right now. [1]. _{Adotchar| reply here} 11:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

It's fine, no worries. They are definitely in Serie A, watching the game now! Just wanted to know more about the city! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.14.34 (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Cripset

I wasn't vandalising the Wikipedia page, I soon edited it realising how it would affect the school — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.160.119.49 (talk) 12:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Incident with the cripset

I was not vandalising the Wikipedia page. I deleted it as I knew how it could affect the school. I am very sorry and I did not mean to cause such a misunderstanding. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't contact the school. I am an ex-student of the school and I did not intend to make the school look bad or anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.160.119.49 (talk) 12:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 Acknowledged _{Adotchar| reply here} 19:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Adotchar. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

For future reference, as I told other users that I would wait until January to apply, I asked MusikAnimal on his talk page, since he denied the request of a user which I reported on that applied for rollback, I asked MusikAnimal if he thinks I'd be accepted for Rollback if I were to apply. So, I checked back an hour later and I have the permission. _{Adotchar| reply here} 23:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmm I maybe wouldn't have done this had I known your second request for rollback was declined 18 days ago, but reviewing your recent contributions I do believe you're able to distinguish good-faith edits versus bad, which is the important thing. Keep at is as you have, carefully giving consideration as to whether the user meant actual harm, and I think you'll do just fine — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

What happened is that the first time I applied, it was not at a good time. And the second time I applied, more than a week later, people looked at the first, and just looked at that. Since then, I've dont a lot, and entirely improved. Kudpung helped me, a lot. My edits since the last application have been very good, as I've been improving and will continue to. _{Adotchar| reply here} 00:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The reason for being denied was because it was not sufficiently addressed yet. Of that, I had been doing well for about 4 days. Since then, I've been doing well, and it's a lot more than 4 days, so it's good now. _{Adotchar| reply here} 00:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2016 South Korean protests

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2016 South Korean protests. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki!

Hello, Adotchar, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name.

STiki - concerns

Edits like this [2] & this [3] are not vandalism. Don't rely on STiki's algorithm - you need to check the edit yourself too (which is the whole point). Whilst I don't disagree with MusikAnimal giving you Rollback, you do need to be much more careful. Mike1901 (talk) 07:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Just seen this one too [4]. Again, removing copious amounts of redlinks is actively helpful and shouldn't be reverted. I know I'm coming across as critical here - but at the moment you're risking scaring away good faith editors, which is not in the project's interests. Mike1901 (talk) 07:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mike1901: Thanks. For some reason, I don't remember the first one, the second one was because it should have consensus in the talk page, and the third one was just removing every single link in that area. I know I should have gone and manually put in the links, and leaving the other two words the editor added. Sorry, I'll do a lot better. Please keep checking my edits if you have time. _{Adotchar| reply here} 10:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Re the third one - yes that's true - but every single one was redlinked and it was WP:OVERLINKed in any case. And yes, not a problem - for the first couple of weeks I'm more than happy to spot check your STiki contributions to make sure you're on the right track. I'd say you're calling around 80% of them right at the moment, but you really need to slow down and get that percentage up. Mike1901 (talk) 10:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to be using STiki for about the next 20 minutes, so after that you can check to see if I've improved on this, if you wan't. _{Adotchar| reply here} 10:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

What should I do with [5]. Mark for deletion per WP:NOTWEBHOST? _{Adotchar| reply here} 10:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd watchlist it, give it half an hour (they only did that a minute ago, so I'd AGF for the moment), then if it starts looking like a viable article, put a message on their Talk asking if they meant to put this in Draft/Article space. Then if you don't get a reply within a reasonable time, or if it's not looking like an article half an hour from now, CSD as a NOTWEBHOST issue. Mike1901 (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay. The issue is that it resembles a fan site, and probably will continue to. I'll do what you said. _{Adotchar| reply here} 10:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to say, so far so good on the edits today. Also, I've noticed you've installed Huggle and done one (valid) warning without an associated revert - make sure you familiarise yourself with the buttons on Huggle, it's not as straightforward to use as STiki. Mike1901 (talk) 11:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Noticing this made me think of a feature STiki could use. See Wikipedia_talk:STiki#Showing_the_user.27s_notification. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank You My Dear

I saw your message to me, telling me not to delete entries on my talk page. Thank you I didn't know keeping it was vital, thank you for also creating an archive for me. One thing I have come to understand is when it comes to Wikipedia, like Life itself we do learn everyday even the very elite & experienced to fall into errors. I'm grateful. Celestina007 (talk) 10:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 Acknowledged _{Adotchar| reply here}

While archiving is preferred the only thing editors are not allowed to delete are unblock requests while the block is active. Per WP:TPO "Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. Users may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user." Please ensure that you know Wikipedia policies before trying to correct the behavior of others. Your enthusiasm is great but you have been here long enough that you should have learned to be more careful. Thank you. Jbh^Talk 13:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I made the archive for her as she applied for rollback and I wanted administrators to be wary of her past warnings. 24.246.109.197 (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, im on mobile and logging in wont work so Im using my IP now on my phone, also shared by others as there are warnings on this talk page. 24.246.109.197 (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

User Nautulissimo: Replying to your message

You kindly sent me a message after I tried to edit to List of French American by adding my name to the list. Please know that I appreciate your advise and help. But I am not sure how to communicate directly with you about your message that I received at 10:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC). Thank you, Naultilussimo --Naultilussimo (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Naultilussimo: Yes. You added "Ph" to the end of a paragraph, so that seemed to be an obvious test edit, as well as your first edit. You also added another artist that has no page, and everyone else on the entire list has a page. So, if that artist is you, please remove it; if that artist is not you or anyone you have a Conflict of Interest with, please start your first article and make a great page for this artist! Welcome to Wikipedia. _{Adotchar| reply here} 22:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bibliography of Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bibliography of Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

When you misclick with STiki

...(which happens - I've done it several times!) please ensure that as well as reverting the article, you also update the Talk page of the user you've reverted. Otherwise you might leave a very confused editor wondering what they've done wrong! Mike1901 (talk) 11:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Adotchar, thank you for your enthusiasm and hard work keeping vandalism off our articles, it is appreciated. I would however urge you to take Mike's advice and to slow down a little with STiki until you've got your error rate down. Thanks -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 11:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Ugh I forgot about the talk page. Yeah, I'm really going to slow down now. Thank's for keeping an eye out for me. _{Adotchar| reply here} 22:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

More generally...

You really need to understand the difference between Good Faith and vandalism edits before using STiki further. Some of it is a judgement call, I agree, but there are some blatant vandalism edits you're reverting as good faith, and a couple the other way too. It matters, as the Talk page message generated is very different in tone dependent on what you choose. You're also occasionally opting to leave no Talk page message at all - which again is a bad idea (in virtually all cases bar obvious socking). Mike1901 (talk) 11:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The vandal as good faith is because when you click good faith it has a option to warn for "joke edit" and "test edit". I assumed that, since it has an option for it under good faith, it would count as good faith, as you cannot use any of those options with vandal reverts. Thank's for the information. _{Adotchar| reply here} 22:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

This[6] is the sort of thing I'm getting at - it's clearly not vandalism, and also unsourced so 'arguably' could be helpful (bearing in mind a new user may not know about 'citation needed' tags which are the best thing for that situation) Mike1901 (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

This person did it in 3 places after being warned for doing it. The first one I tagged as good faith, the others as vandalism, as this person knew that it shouldn't be there. I asked for the user to obtain consensus in the talk pages, first, on their talk page. _{Adotchar| reply here} 10:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

RFC conclusion

Hello Adotchar. I saw this diff at Talk:Goa Opinion Poll where you removed the RFC template. I didn't understand what you meant by "RfC concluded 4 days ago" though. Was there another RFC about the same issue? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:RFCEND. I, as an uninvolved editor, formally closed the discussion, and removed the RFC tag. No one had posted to the discussion in 4 days, which is the "RFC concluded 4 days ago". It was closed. _{Adotchar| reply here} 10:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I understand that you removed the template but you didn't really close the discussion. Also, there was a comment just about 2 days before you removed the template, so I don't understand what you mean by "No one had posted to the discussion in 4 days". In addition, RFCs are generally supposed to run for 30 days to allow editors sufficient time to comment. Just because it didn't have comments for 2 days, shouldn't mean it should be closed. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

You need to be more attentive

Adotchar, you have multiple messages above regarding your STiki use - I've recently been made aware of this revert (which introduced more vandalism) and this revert (which removed a word from a sentence, making it unreadable). Please be more careful in the future, or you may have your use of STiki removed. Thank you -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Totally endorse the above. Unfortunately, whilst MusikAnimal granted the right in good faith, I'm not sure you're quite ready to be using automated tools such as STiki - from those I've sampled over the last few days (around half), your 'correct revert' rate is just too low - an inexcusably high percentage are causing issues of some description (albeit some being more minor than the diffs Samtar provided above). I think you really do need to see this as a final warning at this point, as the STiki edits I've looked at in your session this morning (UTC) didn't have much lower an error rate than those from when you first had the Rollback right granted. Mike1901 (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

This[7] too was inappropriate. Unsourced, yes, but definitely not vandalism. Mike1901 (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to, from this time, entirely change how I'm using STiki. Thank's for all your criticism, and I'll now use it to be much better. Please see my edits after this. _{Adotchar| reply here} 20:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Adotchar, click "pass" or "innocent" whenever you are not sure. Those buttons exist for a reason and will save you from lots of touble. Widr (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I click pass or innocent on about 60 percent of them. Also, can you check the revert I made [8]? Someone changed the amount of home runs for a baseball player to 14200. _{Adotchar| reply here} 20:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that was a good revert. Just take it easy and do not feel obliged to revert whenever you are unsure. Widr (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Also the article Rodney Trotter has a NPOV issue, though I don't know if it applies to fictional characters. _{Adotchar| reply here} 20:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

[9] should be checked quickly. I hit pass on it. _{Adotchar| reply here} 20:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Is it weird I find some vandal edits so entertaining while reverting them?[10][11][12][13] _{Adotchar| reply here} 20:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced archives

Hello. Just a heads up that your talk page archives appear to be in the wrong place - you've put them at eg. User:Adotchar/archive5 instead of User talk:Adotchar/archive5, which means amongst other things that your archive search box doesn't work. You should be able to move them to the right places easily enough, but let me know if you need any help. --McGeddon (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. _{Adotchar| reply here} 20:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Mitch Moreland page

I have corrected it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepethememer (talk • contribs) 22:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Your talk page 'vandal' archive

You may want to consider that archiving communications from specific users in a "vandal archive" and forever labeling them as "vandals" might not be the the best idea. Vandal is a label that is considered so serious that it is considered a personal attack when it is used to describe edits which are not overt vandalism. It is even worse to label an editor as such. Having a perpetual archive that forever labels editors as vandals is simply wrong, insensitive and falls afoul WP:POLEMIC which clearly states "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. ". If you wish to keep a 'vandal' list you should do it offline unless it is, again per POLEMIC, "[t]he compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, [and] it will be used in a timely manner." Thank you. Jbh^Talk 00:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I've had it for some time now, admins have seen it and been fine with it, though i have now changed it's name and this should help it. _{Adotchar| reply here} 00:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

"Adopt a User"

Thank you for the offer. I would be excited to learn from you, and I look forward to editing Wikipedia constructively in the future. How do I get started in the program? My twitter is @sleyece. Would you need email or anything else to get started? --Sleyece (talk) 13:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

New Section

Dear Adotchar: In your reply you said"You said that "Wikipedia" says that you're doing something wrong. There is no "Wikipedia" standing behind your back watching your every move. There's just editors like me who donate our free time to making sure vandals like you have their vandal edits removed immediately. I know this may seem a bit bitey, but you have engaged in edit warring over something discussed in a Wikipedia guideline. We use consensus, not just going freely about and changing important things. Please consult the talk page and ask about it, before doing this." I agree to using consensus.However, I disagree that I am in engaging in edit warring. Whoever edited that, not saying was you I think is incorrect. I am trying to keep the peace. I don't like how you called me a vandal.I wasn't notified about the rule before I removed it. I am sorry if I disobeyed a rule. I am not a vandal. I will follow the rules. You need to apologize for calling me a vandal because that is unwelcoming and rude. You shouldn't be treating rookie editors like this. I would like if you treated me and others in a better way. Don't make me write a complaint. According to https://www.technologyreview.com, they say Wikipedia is in decline. I don't feel like being treated like crap.Nobody is perfect. Don't be a jerk. Do you understand?

Sincerely, Lucajeter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucajeter (talk • contribs) 01:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I know that I was too bitey on that reply, and I'm sorry for that, but it was not without reason. concerning Billy Idol You were warned a total of 4 times, 3 for your 3 edits to the page in question. Those edits were against the text which you removed in two of your edits, and kept in one. While you were adding instruments to Billy Idol's list, you (in the first edit, kept, second and third, deleted) the following text:

<!-- If you think an instrument should be listed, a discussion to reach consensus is needed first per: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_musical_artist#instrument--->

Now, it is very hard to assume good faith in a situation where, right next to your edits, it says something along the lines of "Do not change this because of [policy]". You were asked to reach a consensus on the talk page, and you did not. You just went to the talk page and put this in an existing section:

First of all, you don't block someone when they first edit sources on the site. I am trying to make this only better. So don't mention me in a text, so everyone could see. Ok? This site has been wrong for the last 5 years. I got tired of all the invalid info, so I joined. Not trying to be mean. Ok?

There's no issue with that, except that no one would really read it unless they're cycling through your edits like I was, and it's not really gaining a consensus. Thank you for seeking dispute resolution, and I have hope that, someday, you can become an active, constructive editor. Happy editing, _{Adotchar| reply here} 10:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:North Korea

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:North Korea. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Marketing articles for review

A few weeks ago, you asked me to have a look at some marketing articles in order to try and get them to "C" class. I attended to most of these articles but needed a bit more time to evaluate two of the longer articles Promotion (marketing) and Promotional mix. I have now had a chance to do that and offer my thoughts on both.

Promotion (marketing)

1. The article has no focus and is poorly written in many places. It is not really about promotion, but rather is primarily concerned with media. It devotes two sentences to traditional media (TV, radio, cinema, mags and newspapers) and 6 paragraphs to new media including social media. This is unbalanced - especially given that traditional media continue to account for 60-80% of promotional budgets. But that is not the major concern - the focus needs to be on promotions.

2. Users would reasonably expect to see some discussion of the elements of the promotion mix (or marcomms mix). Promotion refers to the all the activities that communicate with the public. The various activities that make up the marketing communications program including personal selling, PR, direct response advertising, telemarketing, advertising, sales promotions etc. We would normally expect to see some discussion of the elements' relative strengths in terms of how they add value to the overall marketing communications program. This article does not do any of that. Most of the elements are not not even mentioned in the article at all - and of the few that are mentioned, the treatment is perfunctory - little more than a passing mention.

3. Promotion is another term used to describe marketing communications. As such this article duplicates ideas canvassed in several other marketing related articles, notably Marketing communications, Integrated marketing communications, Advertising and Advertising management.

4. There are other problems associated with this article. For example, the stated aims of promotion are far from exhaustive (See discussion page). In addition, much of the content is unsourced. It is highly unlikely that suitable 'reliable' sources will be found, since the content is so flawed.

Summary: This article could be deleted in its entirety without any loss of value to Wikipedia. It offers nothing of value, it has the potential to replicate pre-existing content, it presents a confused and controversial understanding of the concept of promotion. The topic of promotion is more than adequately canvassed in other Wikipedia articles. This page is entirely redundant.

Recommendation: That the article Promotion (marketing) be scheduled for deletion as soon as practical.

Promotional mix

1. This article is a bit better than the preceding article (and is certainly superior to either of the marketing communications articles). It consists of a list of definitions 9 marketing activities, 7 of which are elements in the promotional mix. Two of the elements cannot be construed as elements in the promotional mix - corporate image and guerilla marketing. Corporate image is a branding strategy rather than a communications strategy and guerilla marketing is a tactic that could be applied to any communications activities. For instance firms have used guerilla tactics in relation to sponsorship, outdoor billboards and advertising. So, it is not a separate element, but a way of executing those elements. Thus the conceptualisation of promotional mix evident in this article is flawed.

2. The list of promotional elements is not comprehensive. The precise number of elements that should be included in the promotional mix is uncertain - since marketers are constantly striving to find new ways to communicate with audiences - the list constantly grows. Most texts identify around 11 elements, sometimes more. (Editors would be wise to refrain from specifying a number). Some of the elements that have been omitted in the current article, include: branded entertainment (also known as branded content), event marketing, exhibitions and trade fairs.

3. The content canvassed in this article is more than adequately covered in other Wikipedia articles, namely: Advertising Advertising management Marketing communications Integrated marketing communications In addition, most of the individual elements of the promotion mix also have separate articles e.g. Sales promotion, Advertising, Advertising management, Public relations, Personal selling, Direct marketing, Direct response media, Direct response television, Sponsorship, Product placement, Branded content, Sales promotion, event marketing,Exhibition and Trade fairs. To my mind, this is an excessive amount of repetition. Furthermore, repetitive articles always have the potential to introduce internal inconsistencies - and there is some evidence that this is already occurring within a number of marketing articles.

Summary: The quality of this article is fair, however, it replicates content found elsewhere.

Recommendation: That this article be merged with Integrated marketing communications. The article on IMC would benefit from the inclusion of a list of elements in the promotion mix (which it currently does not have, but should have).

Just as an aside, I have also recommended that the articles on Advertising and History of advertising be merged since the former is strongly biased towards history and barely mentions advertising as a management function. The author of the 'History of Advertising' page claims that this is a more detailed version of the 'Advertising' page. I have seen a lot of this sort of thing going on. When a page loses its focus, editors who are dissatisfied set about starting a new page, rather than trying to fix the existing article. This practice is leading to a lot of proliferation of articles.

If my recommendation is taken up, the implication is that the article on 'Advertising' could be moved out of the Business and Economics Portal and into a Humanities portal. The article Advertising management, which I am currently restructuring, and which will provide a very comprehensive coverage of the topic, should become the main article for advertising as a managerial function in the Business & Economics Portal. Please see the discussion page on the Advertising Management article for a detailed plan of proposed content with a progress report. I am currently about two-thirds through the subject matter.

I am also of the view that the article Marketing communications should be merged with Integrated marketing communications. Both cover very similar material. However, both need a lot of work to improve quality. It would be much easier to fix one article than to attempt to fix up two poor quality articles that deal with the same subject matter.

BronHiggs (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your reviews of the article. I do think they should be merged. If you want to, mark the duplicate page for deletion or merge. Remember, be bold _{Adotchar| reply here} 11:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I have had a look at the process for deleting and merging. I made one attempt to schedule Promotion (marketing) for deletion, but was not able to understand the instructions in the template that appeared on the top of the page. One of these was to notify other users who are watching the page. I have no idea how to determine who is watching the page. Other instructions were to list the page on the "articles for deletion" but there was no advice as to how to find this list. As for merge, I found the instructions totally confusing and bamboozling. In any case, I have put some notes on both article's talk pages, where they will most likely languish for another 8 years (as this seems to be the average interval between new talk comments on marketing pages) - and maybe some other editor will run with the process of either fixing them or scheduling them for deletion. BronHiggs (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gibraltar

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gibraltar. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Narendra Modi

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Narendra Modi. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Frank Gaffney

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Frank Gaffney. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bipartisan Report

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bipartisan Report. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Indian 500 and 1000 rupee note demonetisation

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Indian 500 and 1000 rupee note demonetisation. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States

I saw your comment on Justeditingtoday's talk page about this and you seemed like a neutral enough user to go to this about. I undid Sleyece's edits to Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States and explained why on the talk page (essentially that his changes shouldn't be made until there was consensus for them, and that my personal opinion was against them). He reinstated his changes without explanation, so I again reverted it and noted why on the talk page. He has again reinstated his changes without explanation (only commenting about how I don't have an account), so instead of reverting for a third time I thought I'd find a more knowledgeable user than myself. Can you help out with how to handle this? I usually only make tiny grammar and formatting edits so I'm not really sure what to do here. 2601:3C2:8003:C920:D8C2:A636:4FC5:EE8E (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh and since it changed, I was 2601:3C2:8003:C920:2532:35F8:671F:D416. I probably should get an account to avoid potential confusion like that but I don't think that means my edits are inherently invalid. 2601:3C2:8003:C920:D8C2:A636:4FC5:EE8E (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

See [14]. His conduct was unacceptable, and is a user attack.

In light of your current diplomatic position, I respectfully reject your previous "Adopt-a-User" program offer. Thank you for any previous knowledge. talk) 17:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I was less concerned about his conduct toward me personally and more about him repeatedly changing the page despite several users disagreeing with him and no one agreeing.2601:3C2:8003:C920:D8C2:A636:4FC5:EE8E (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States Senate election in South Dakota, 2016

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States Senate election in South Dakota, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Stalking

Stay off my talk page and please remove the stalker idiocy on your userpage. Justeditingtoday (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

It's just on my to do list. I'll remove the note about it. I'm not stalking you. I'm just watching to see if there's any complaints, as there have been in the past and the most recent was yesterday. Happy editing, _{Adotchar| reply here} 23:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on File talk:Conscription map of the world.svg

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on File talk:Conscription map of the world.svg. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Beheading in Islam

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Beheading in Islam. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)