User talk:Lumialover
Redirecting Air India fleet to Air India[edit]
Your move was unilateral. Just starting a thread alone does not mean we have consensus for the move. Please take the discussion to WT:AIRLINE and it can be moved if everyone agrees to it. BTW, consensus is not voting! — Abhishek Talk 12:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- I did not start the thread.
- Please also revert my Tata Airlines move - it was also not discussed at WT:AIRLINE.
- Lumialover (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Trying to remove a page of competing product[edit]
I must say it comes off pretty funny (and concerning) regarding your name, that you try to remove a well-sourced page that describes a competing product.
Makes me really wonder your agenda behind it ;) Such behaviour really is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Mayhaymate (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- You have a WP:RS for an existing product? Lumialover (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- What you're trying to remove (at first without discussion, not cool) is the page Jolla, which is about the company. There's even no need for a product to exist for the company to be notable: "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." (see WP:CORPDEPTH). In any case, how about these reliable secondary sources, which discuss the products that Jolla is working on: Wall Street Journal: Start-Up to Revive Nokia Smartphone Software, Tech Crunch: Can Jolla Become MeeGo’s Saviour? CEO Plans Two Smartphones Already, Forbes: Finland's Jolla Will Be The Ferrari Of The Smartphone World. And of course, there's more in the article itself. --TuukkaH (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Does it pass WP:COMPANY? There is not much information in the article not originating from the company itself (sometimes repeated in secondary sources, sometimes even wrongly repeated like the CEO plans Two Smartphones Already headline you cite that was later denied by the CEO). Lumialover (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't see a problem regarding WP:COMPANY (which doesn't say much) or regarding the info originating from the company itself. Reliable (not infallible!) secondary sources have vetted the information and the notability of the company. --TuukkaH (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- What information in the article has actually been vetted by reliable secondary sources (opposed to just being repeated)? The number of employees? The strategy? The product plans? Can you point me to any such vetting? Lumialover (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Reliable secondary sources don't "just repeat" - otherwise they wouldn't be reliable. Newspapers normally don't let us see the fact-checking etc. that they perform, thus I can't point you to it. In general, you just have to trust the Wall Street Journal et al, sorry. --TuukkaH (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- The Wall Street Journal article states clearly that all information is based solely on statements of the CEO of Jolla. Lumialover (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Is this paragraph from the article also somehow explicitly and clearly based solely on information from Jolla CEO? "When Nokia in February of last year decided to adopt Microsoft Corp.'s Windows Phone platform for smartphones, MeeGo development was abandoned. MeeGo's assets were transferred to the Linux Foundation, a nonprofit organization." --TuukkaH (talk) 10:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- The Wall Street Journal article states clearly that all information is based solely on statements of the CEO of Jolla. Lumialover (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Reliable secondary sources don't "just repeat" - otherwise they wouldn't be reliable. Newspapers normally don't let us see the fact-checking etc. that they perform, thus I can't point you to it. In general, you just have to trust the Wall Street Journal et al, sorry. --TuukkaH (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- What information in the article has actually been vetted by reliable secondary sources (opposed to just being repeated)? The number of employees? The strategy? The product plans? Can you point me to any such vetting? Lumialover (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't see a problem regarding WP:COMPANY (which doesn't say much) or regarding the info originating from the company itself. Reliable (not infallible!) secondary sources have vetted the information and the notability of the company. --TuukkaH (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Does it pass WP:COMPANY? There is not much information in the article not originating from the company itself (sometimes repeated in secondary sources, sometimes even wrongly repeated like the CEO plans Two Smartphones Already headline you cite that was later denied by the CEO). Lumialover (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- What you're trying to remove (at first without discussion, not cool) is the page Jolla, which is about the company. There's even no need for a product to exist for the company to be notable: "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." (see WP:CORPDEPTH). In any case, how about these reliable secondary sources, which discuss the products that Jolla is working on: Wall Street Journal: Start-Up to Revive Nokia Smartphone Software, Tech Crunch: Can Jolla Become MeeGo’s Saviour? CEO Plans Two Smartphones Already, Forbes: Finland's Jolla Will Be The Ferrari Of The Smartphone World. And of course, there's more in the article itself. --TuukkaH (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Nice work:
But when you consider that our colleague Lumialover has successfully deleted Jolla from Wikipedia in: Swedish, Chinese, Polish, Turkish and still trying in German - with this background it has more relevance. And not only for Jolla but also for Wikipedia as independent and encyclopaedic source as such - and this is more then relevant, also for whole Wikipedia as project. Simply: this looks for me like aware attempt towards to censorship: in all languages were the same attempts, arguments, schema of action, and fluent language. Multilanguage native speaker? In such "similar" languages like Swedish, Chinese, Polish, Turkish? Even not the same alphabets...! Hard to believe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jolla#Relevance_of_the_deletion_nomination_in_the_company_milestones — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayhaymate (talk • contribs) 21:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)