Talk:EidosMedia

Advertising

Wikipedia flagged this article for appearing too much like advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.206.4 (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines require that Wikipedia have a neutral point of view. This means that it should include controversy about topic and not read like marketing or promotional employee. In addition, company employees are discouraged from editing their own company's articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muckrkr (talk • contribs) 19:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree also, DSees and Acorn keep removing criticism that actually been sourced reliably and referring to it as vandalism.

It isn't vandalism, and the source says what the entry says. Far as I can tell, it's fine to go in. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Lack of sourcing

Someone keeps adding "250" as the number of employees without a source. Could you link to an outside source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muckrkr (talk • contribs) 20:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Missing info

It would be great to provide more background on the company, including acquisitions, executive team, financials, employees, patents...etc if properly sourced. Muckrkr (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

A note from EidosMedia

Hello, I have a conflict of interest as I am the CMO at EidosMedia, but we are dissatisfied and concerned about the status of the page referring to our company. (The situation has also been explained in detail to user:Muckrkr on his talk User talk:Muckrkr page.)

We are looking for a page fairly representing the company, eventually more concise than the previous version, but reporting facts, and including solid references. Right now, there is a disproportionate amount of space devoted to criticism pointing to unqualified comments, poor sources, “insiders” and anonymous posters. One of the links includes racist comments.

I hope, with the help of some disinterested editors, to have a simple and neutral entry on Wikipedia, by restoring, entirely or in part, the original referenced content and also allowing the removal of the “advertising” flag. Given that User:Spike Wilbury is following the situation, I kindly ask his advise about the correct procedure to follow.

Kind regards, Il Capitan Fracassa (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I believe the sources, including an article in the Washington Post, meet Wikipedia's requirement for secondary sources. And I disagree with your suggestion to eliminate all criticism and to restore the original version created by a company contractor. There is a reason why the original version was flagged by other editors for appearing to resemble "advertising." But there are many holes in the article that you and others could help fill in by pointing to additional sources. Muckrkr (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

A neutral proposal

Hello. I see we have been unable to agree on what a "neutral" article on EidosMedia should look like, and similarly the article remains flagged for appearing too much like advertising, no matter the edit. Allow me to make another suggestion. I have removed all of the content of the page except the sentences about the existence of the company and its locations: we consider this the shortest possible entry and hope the advertising flag will be removed. We also expect that other editors will agree that this is a completely neutral form. On our side, we can guarantee that nobody representing the company will add additional matter to the page. Il Capitan Fracassa (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Update: my edit has been reverted by ClueBot NG automatic process. A review of the action has been requested. Il Capitan Fracassa (talk) 13:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I removed the advertising flag. I believe the current version of the article is relatively neutral, though can certainly be improved with input from outside editors. Other editors should feel free to weigh in on the best way to move forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muckrkr (talk • contribs) 15:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on EidosMedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130217194355/http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/node/42572 to http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/node/42572
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131220184836/http://www.newsandtecharchives.com/dateline/06-09-08_date.htm to http://www.newsandtecharchives.com/dateline/06-09-08_date.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)