This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Operation Orangemoody article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article really should be merged somewhere, but I'm not going to waste my time recommending that. In the absence of that, I would suggest a rename to perhaps Orangemoody editing of Wikipedia as in the Wiki-PR article. "Orangemoody" alone doesn't seem to be enough. Coretheapple ( talk) 19:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Re: {{selfref|For more information on Wikipedia's response to this situation, see [[Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody]].}}
Geogene removed this with an edit summary of "Do we normally included prominent links to the back of the house from articles?"
When the article is about Wikipedia the answer is sometimes. If you look at the various pages linked to in the templates at the bottom of the article, particularly pages that have "Wikipedia" in the name ( Notability in the English Wikipedia, and many more).
I recommend keeping the selfref. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 21:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
It seems that all of the information herein is really pointing to the same public-relations source; that is, apparently a press release from the Wikimedia Foundation (although that source is not made terribly clear in the writing-so-far of this article). Do we have any independent verification of the claims that have made by the Foundation? If not, then this article might very well fail: Just because a Wikipedia committee or group of editors says something, does that make what they say true? (Of course it is true that a press release was issued.) Methinks we should cite these claims to the original source wherever we can. and what, exactly, is that source? None of the news-media outlets cited herein, to my knowledge, conducted their own investigations as to the truth or falsity of this so-called "Operation." I hope to get more solid facts into this article. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 20:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.Unless a reliable source expresses doubt, Wikipedia does not express doubt. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 05:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
"hundreds of English and non-English news sources" yet it then lists 3 non English language examples. Shouldn't this be a mix of both English, non-english-but-latin-alphabet and maybe a non-English alphabet news outlet? L3X1 My Complaint Desk 22:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved ( non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 07:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Orangemoody editing of Wikipedia → Operation Orangemoody – "Orangemoody editing of Wikipedia" is quite clunky. The name Operation Orangemoody, as pointed out by editors at Talk:Orangemoody editing of Wikipedia#Rename?, has been used by The Washington Post, and other sources such as The Independent and WIRED refer to "an investigation dubbed 'Orangemoody'", but never the phrase "Orangemoody edits", as far as I can tell - it isn't used as an adjective by RS in the way it's used in the current title of the article. casualdejekyll 21:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
36.37.195.142 ( talk) 05:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Operation Orangemoody article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article really should be merged somewhere, but I'm not going to waste my time recommending that. In the absence of that, I would suggest a rename to perhaps Orangemoody editing of Wikipedia as in the Wiki-PR article. "Orangemoody" alone doesn't seem to be enough. Coretheapple ( talk) 19:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Re: {{selfref|For more information on Wikipedia's response to this situation, see [[Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody]].}}
Geogene removed this with an edit summary of "Do we normally included prominent links to the back of the house from articles?"
When the article is about Wikipedia the answer is sometimes. If you look at the various pages linked to in the templates at the bottom of the article, particularly pages that have "Wikipedia" in the name ( Notability in the English Wikipedia, and many more).
I recommend keeping the selfref. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 21:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
It seems that all of the information herein is really pointing to the same public-relations source; that is, apparently a press release from the Wikimedia Foundation (although that source is not made terribly clear in the writing-so-far of this article). Do we have any independent verification of the claims that have made by the Foundation? If not, then this article might very well fail: Just because a Wikipedia committee or group of editors says something, does that make what they say true? (Of course it is true that a press release was issued.) Methinks we should cite these claims to the original source wherever we can. and what, exactly, is that source? None of the news-media outlets cited herein, to my knowledge, conducted their own investigations as to the truth or falsity of this so-called "Operation." I hope to get more solid facts into this article. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 20:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.Unless a reliable source expresses doubt, Wikipedia does not express doubt. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 05:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
"hundreds of English and non-English news sources" yet it then lists 3 non English language examples. Shouldn't this be a mix of both English, non-english-but-latin-alphabet and maybe a non-English alphabet news outlet? L3X1 My Complaint Desk 22:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved ( non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann (Talk) 07:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Orangemoody editing of Wikipedia → Operation Orangemoody – "Orangemoody editing of Wikipedia" is quite clunky. The name Operation Orangemoody, as pointed out by editors at Talk:Orangemoody editing of Wikipedia#Rename?, has been used by The Washington Post, and other sources such as The Independent and WIRED refer to "an investigation dubbed 'Orangemoody'", but never the phrase "Orangemoody edits", as far as I can tell - it isn't used as an adjective by RS in the way it's used in the current title of the article. casualdejekyll 21:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
36.37.195.142 ( talk) 05:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)