Talk:The Hollywood Reporter

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

THR1

This account has been created by and is managed by The Reporter so that we can update our entry with more current information and to help bring the entry up to Wikipedia standards. We respect the Wikipedia guidelines and process and are not interested in whitewashing, sanitizing or "spinning" our entry; however, we will be vigilant about editing any rumor, innuendo, speculation or false information. Your comments are welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by THR1 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

THE Hollywood Reporter

Judging by (among other things/especially) their site, the newspaper is called "The Hollywood Reporter", with the "The" in front. The article should therefore be called the same. (See this and this.) At the moment The Hollywood Reporter exists as a redirect, so I'm asking for a deletion, so this can be moved. Retodon8 12:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the RfD tag from the redirect. The correct avenue for this request is actually Wikipedia:Requested moves. For future reference, to actually do an RfD, you need to list the redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion for discussion and a decision. Let me know if you have any questions. Just tagging it leaves it orphaned. Thanks! -- JLaTondre 02:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm horrified that you would ask for a deletion. How awful and cruel! NothingMuch 02:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Guys, guys, guys. Nobody is trying to delete this article. Retodon8 wanted to MOVE the article, intact, to The Hollywood Reporter. However, there is already a redirect to here at that page, so he wasn't able to do the move himself. He was trying to get that redirect deleted, so that he could move this article to that spot. Apparently Retodon8 has moved on or forgotten about this, so I've gone ahead and posted to Wikipedia:Requested moves about this. If there is no opposition to this move it should happen quickly.

Again, nobody has ever proposed deleting this article, and what is being discussed here is moving the article to The Hollywood Reporter and leaving a redirect here so everyone can find the new location. TomTheHand 02:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow. OK. I'm going to move the article to The Hollywood Reporter. I'm going to make it clear: there will be no deletion of this article. I say again: there will be NO deletion of this article. Everybody can take a deep breath.  RasputinAXP  c 16:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

See? The move has been performed. This article's name is now The Hollywood Reporter and a redirect exists at Hollywood Reporter for back reference. Everybody OK? Did any of the dishes fall off the walls? Great.  RasputinAXP  c 16:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting that The Hollywood Reporter's own web site is Hollywoodreporter.com -- no "The". KarenAnn 23:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a wonderful article regardless of the missing "The"

This is a wonderful article written by someone (probably a journalist) who knew the inside scoop. I only wish the author had idendefied himself. To delete it becaue of a mising "The" seems like a ridiculous suggeston. Unbelievable when a redirect takes care of the whole problem. What are people thinking? KarenAnn 03:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"someone who knew the inside scoop". Yeah, that's a huge problem with this article. There's quite a clear policy prohibiting any "inside scoops"; see Wikipedia:No original research. What you have now is various people affiliated with the topic editing the article to make themselves look good and their enemies look bad. It's an absolute disgrace. The place for "inside scoop" articles is in newspapers or journals. Then, if the writer is judged notable enough, those articles can be sourced on this wikipedia article. Esn 03:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: This is a wonderful article regardless of the missing "The"

The only thing that is missing is a quick glance side bar with information such as the following(which is included in other publictions' wiki):

Type: Format: Owner: Publisher: Editor: Founded: Headquarters: Circulation: ISSN: Website: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.99.231 (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

POV

I have removed the following section from the article, for reasons that I hope will become clear:

Today's Variety editor, Peter Bart, once sputtered to a reporter, "They're not journalists at all," but even by Fox News standards, Bart himself is hardly regarded as an Edward R. Murrow. Yet 'Blinkie' Bart, as he's known to some in the industry, has a history of recruiting Reporter writers once they've established bylines. A byline was a popular perk in the old days of print journalism for writers and reporters, when people got their business news a day later on paper 'dan' rather instantly on TV or via the web. Of course Bart's loose, colorful, and sometimes questionable standards of ethics have been fodder for industry gossips, wags and tattlers for years.

The last sentence especially wanders closer than I'm comfortable to libel ("questionable standards of ethics"?). If someone can cite everything, feel free to put it back up, but right now it reads more like a personal vendetta against Bart. Thor Rudebeck 22:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This whole article has numerous problems. Large parts of it violate WP:NOT#PUBLISHER, WP:NPOV/WP:NOR and WP:V... among others. That section you deleted seems to be back now. I would urge all regular contributors to look at those policies. Until then, the POV tag stays on top of this page. Esn 03:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Public relations section

I have taken out this section, which not only needed to be rewritten but contained such questionable statements as " Current publisher John Kilcullen hardly seems a paragon of editorial ethics." Wikipedia does not need this sort of unsourced problem material lying around. 205.167.180.130 (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

BLP

I removed As publisher of Billboard, he was sued in 2004 by two Billboard staffers for race discrimination and sexual harassment. Among other allegations, the suit also said Kilcullen compromised editorial integrity to appease advertisers. The company settled the case in 2006 as it was about to go to trial for an undisclosed amount. I think that amount of detail is WP:UNDUE weight for this article but nothing should be said about the issue unless it is sourced per WP:BLP. So if someone wants to restore this; please cut it down to one sentance and provide a citation.--BirgitteSB 21:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

THR Today

I added the following text:

However, staffing levels began to drop again in 2008. In April, Nielsen Business Media eliminated between 40 and 50 editorial staff positions at The Hollywood Reporter and its sister publications: Adweek, Brandweek, Editor & Publisher and Mediaweek.<ref name="PaidContent">[http://www.paidcontent.org/entry/419-nielsen-business-media-lays-off-between-40-50-mainly-editorial PaidContent], April 9, 2008.</ref> In December, another 12 editorial positions were cut at the trade paper. <ref name="DeadlineHollywood">[http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/layoffs-at-hollywood-reporter-12-the-staff/ Deadline Hollywood], Dec. 4, 2008.</ref> In addition, 2008 saw substantial turnover in the online department: THR.com Editor Melissa Grego left her position in July to become executive editor of Broadcast & Cable, <ref name="BroadcastCable">[http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/114455-Melissa_Grego_Joins_B_C_as_Executive_Editor.php Broadcast & Cable], July 8, 2008</ref> and Managing Editor Scott McKim left to become a new media manager at Knox College (Illinois).

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by B2bwriter (talk • contribs) 23:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I added nowiki tags to the above to prevent the footnotes from appearing at the bottom of this page. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

THR Today

I edited out a paragraph that was mostly personal opinion on Hollywood trade papers basically calling them High School Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"a unique hybrid publication"

What's unique about it? I find it hard to believe that there are no other trade papers which also serve a consumer audience. To be honest, the current wording looks at least semi-promotional. 86.141.198.90 (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

As To "Hybrid" Status--

I'd have to agree with previous assesments that certain of these article segments do sound pretty self-congratulatory and promotional--as if some lines were culled from a press release. I'm not criticizing the magazine, just noting some of the article wording. But on the other hand THR does seem quite the unique animal; when it turns up on the shelves at Borders in a small Central California coastal town , it's apparent that this trade paper is making an unprecedented attempt to expand its reach to the everyday movie goer. Lantana11 (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Draft

I would like to request consideration/review of my work at Talk:The_Hollywood_Reporter/draft, which I am proposing as a replacement for the current article. It represents quite a body of research and I appreciate your time taking a look in advance. I realize it is difficult to compare two entire versions of the article and am happy to go over it section-by-section or do something else that may be easier. The images are most placeholders for now, since copyright-protected images like magazine covers are not allowed in draft-space. Thank you in advance for taking the time to give it a lookover. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 05:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

David I think that it is not appropriate for article subjects to draft entire articles and then propose it as a substitute. Just glancing at your draft I see that it does not include any reference to the apology the Reporter made for its role in the Hollywood blacklist. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

If there are yawning gaps in the article or errors why not address them point by point? I'm not an entertainment maven and I only have this article watchlisted because of the blacklisting text, which I added years ago, but I would like a fuller article as much as anyone. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the belated reply. I apparently forgot to watchlist the article. WP:CRITS and established best practice is to avoid dedicated sections for controversy wherever possible and certainly to avoid primary, self-published sources such as citations 27-29 for controversy, which the current "The Hollywood Blacklist" section relies heavily on. I find it suspect that The Hollywood Reporter itself has made very WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims about its influence on the anti-communist agenda, yet I have not found any independent, secondary sources that verify such a significant historical event. Such a bold claim would certainly require multiple, secondary sources, as oppose to self-published ones. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 22:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

"David I think that it is not appropriate for article subjects to draft entire articles and then propose it as a substitute." I don't know why you think it's not appropriate, people redraft poor articles in their sandbox and update them all the time, and they don't usually "ask for permission". It's how the encyclopedia markedly improves over time. You should count it lucky that this editor has alerted people beforehand. On the surface the sandbox article looks to be an improvement, but just ensure that it's neutral and covers any issues which people think are notable here. The "conflict of interest" thing will make a lot of people really scutinize your work though and suspicious because the community usually scoffs at anything they think is "paid editing".♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

"According to The New York Times, The Hollywood Reporter use to host two parties a year that were widely considered "rather sad." " -not encyclopedic, I'd delete that from the draft.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

How about something like "unsuccessful" rather than deleting. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 19:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Unless the article is documenting something about a serious scandal involving a party, or a notable event in its history happening in one, personally I don't think anything even the NY Times has to say about their parties is that encyclopedic. It's sort of like writing an article on the Wiki Foundation and saying that Sanger thought Jimbo's consumption of mince pies was excessive at the 2002 Christmas party.;-) It's possible you could state something like The Hollywood Reporter has received criticism for its lavish parties, with xx from the New York Times referring to them as "sad"., but it still doesn't seem something to really want to include. If their parties have received significant press in other sources then it's possible though it might be worth covering. I've done similar things with hotel balls.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Meh, I disagree in cases like this where hosting events is a revenue-generating part of their business and part of a NYT profile, rather than routine event announcements, but I just trimmed it per WP:COIMICRO and it generally not being a detail warranting of substantial debate. The draft is still great without it. To keep things even-keeled, I also trimmed the similar positive editorializing about events. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 20:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• I think this looks more or less ready. Perhaps the prose could use some polishing, but that shouldn't hold you back from updating the article. I feel uncomfortable migrating this to article space with placeholders however. Could you perhaps do the update yourself, so that we don't have placeholders in main space? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• The reason I don't feel it is appropriate for article subjects to draft articles is illustrated by the subject-approved draft, which makes no mention of the Hollywood Reporter's acknowledged role in the Hollywood Blacklist, as previously noted. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you could respond directly to CorporateM's points about the sources currently used for the magazine's role in the blacklist, rather than restating your original point without acknowledging his response? That would certainly work better at finding middle ground, and we should certainly not be referencing negative content which may have BLP implications to primary or self-published sources. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Saw this on COIN. Putting aside the "subject writing article" and "readers expect independent editors to write articles" mega-issue, I note that this draft does not include any reference to the well-sourced blacklist issue. It does have the other issue in the controversies section but not that. @CorporateM: WP:SELFPUB specifically allows material sources write about themselves. Coretheapple (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• I've only looked at this briefly after being alerted. There's no justification for removing the Hollywood blacklist, particularly after the Hollywood Reporter issued a public apology. Primary sources are unproblematic here, and for issues like this are often the best sources. But there are secondary sources too. Based on a ten-second Google search, they include:

• Jeff Smith, Film Criticism, the Cold War, and the Blacklist: Reading the Hollywood Reds, University of California Press, 2014, p. 273ff.
• Jerry Roberts, The Complete History of American Film Criticism, Santa Monica Press, 2010, p. 85. (Google won't let me link to the page.)

I agree that it's inappropriate for the subject's representative to rewrite the whole article. It means that checking everything is a lot of work, and the end result is a ghostwritten product with no way of alerting the reader to its provenance. It would be easier for others if necessary changes were proposed in stages. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with SlimVirgin in all respects. Removal of the material sourced to the Hollywood Reporter, such as its public apology, is beyond ridiculous. This article should not be written by The Hollywood Reporter. The existing article appears to be fine. If there are problems with the existing article, the company or its representatives can feel free to propose additions or corrections. Utilizing that procedure would place the least burden on editors unaffiliated with the subject. Coretheapple (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I've added some refs and more details to that section, so that it now looks like this. It should probably be moved out of "Controversies" and into "History" with its own subsection, "Hollywood blacklist." SarahSV ^(talk) 01:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I am marking this edit request as answered, as not further discussion has occurred for three months. The edit request may be reopened if discussion arises again. Altamel (talk) 04:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Altamel: As it turns out, this secondary source does support the claim that The Hollywood Reporter had a role in the blacklist and apologized for it. The section still seems to rely very heavily on self-published sources. (it looks like the secondary source I had used in the draft is not available online, but I could dig it up again)

But I was wondering if you had time to look at the rest of the draft, which has not been discussed much here. @Dr. Blofeld: had some minor tweaks I implemented. @Crisco 1492: said it looked ready. Because of the controversy here on Talk, it might be better to go through it step-by-step. For example, the current Early Years section is obviously cited to poor quality sources and not very comprehensive. The Origins section I wrote is better-sourced and more complete. Being that the draft content I produced is more negative/controversial than the article's current content, accusations of COI corruption would be rather silly. The publication's early contentious relationships with the industry and low integrity in terms of separating news and advertising relationships are pretty "yawning gaps", to quote @Figureofnine:. CorporateM (Talk) 14:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

It ill behooves you to make light of the concerns that have been raised. You sought to rewrite the article and omit a major negative aspect of its history. So yes, your contributions are suspect and no, you are not entitled to the presumption of good faith for that reason in combination with your being a paid employee of the subject. However, time permitting I shall certainly examine your editing request here. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Hollywood Reporter. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000845237

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Request Edit 1

As discussed above, I'd like to request an editor consider replacing the current "Early years" section, which is incomplete and poorly-sourced, with something along the lines of the better-sourced and more complete version from my draft below. Was also thinking a lot of the article's current sections like "Ownership changes", "2010 relaunch" and "Deadline.com lawsuit" could probably be consolidated under "History". CorporateM (Talk) 13:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Current

Early years THR was founded in 1930 by William R. "Billy" Wilkerson (1890–1962) as Hollywood's first daily entertainment trade newspaper. The first edition appeared on September 30, 1930, and featured Wilkerson's front-page "Tradeviews" column, which became influential. The newspaper appeared Monday to Saturday for the first 10 years, except for a brief period, then Monday to Friday from 1940. Wilkerson ran the THR until his death in September 1962, although his final column appeared 18 months before that.

Proposed

Origins The cover page of the first issue The Hollywood Reporter was founded in 1930 by Billy Wilkerson, after his barbershop business went out of business. It was the first daily trade newspaper in Hollywood for the movie industry and it competed with the more established, New York-based paper, Variety. The Hollywood Reporter covered production projects, revenue, industry trends and gossip. Its columns included Wilkenson's "Tradeviews" column, his wife's gossip column called "The Rambling Reporter" and a gay gossip column authored by Mike Connolly from 1951 to 1966. The magazine published mostly negative film reviews and wrote critical opinion pieces. According to The Complete History of American Film Criticism, the early Hollywood Reporter published the most "salacious" stories that Wilkerson could verify on movie industry executives and celebrities. According to The Man Who Seduced Hollywood, the publication "[exposed] corrupt studio practices." The magazine developed a confrontational relationship with the film industry interests it reported on. Some studios barred Hollywood Reporter journalists from the premises and the head of Fox Studios set fire to copies that were delivered to employees. Within two years it was one of the most influential trade publications for the movie industry. Studios eventually started paying for large advertising placements at the paper in hopes of more favorable coverage and in response to threats from Wilkerson to write negative articles about those that didn't advertise enough. According to The New York Times, the entertainment trade press have long relied on trading positive press coverage for advertising dollars. The publication did well financially. Wilkerson spent the profits on gambling and investing in night clubs and hotels in Las Vegas. Wilkerson also used the paper to accuse industry interests, such as the Screen Writers Guild, of communist affiliations.

I have a problem with this per WP:GHOST, and suggest that it be offered up as suggested sources rather than as a draft. It is unacceptable for the subject of this article to draft it. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Figureofnine:, there is no problem per se with a COI editor offering a draft, and it can very well make the process more painless for all involved. It is easier to check sources than to make a brand new draft from a dump truck of sources without context. GHOST is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and edit requests are the correct way to go about this type of suggestion.

At first glance, it looks like the whole thing could probably use a bit of toning down. Looking at the first paragraph, "influential" and "salacious" could probably be replaced with more neutral terms. Looking at source 5, seems like the bankruptcy could probably use some context, and overall, the draft reads as very critical of Wilkerson.

Having said that, this is outside my area of expertise, (I have no idea who Wilkerson even is, and I've certainly never read anything by or about the publication) so I'll leave this to others. Just my two cents as someone totally uninvolved. TimothyJosephWood 16:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: I went through and tried to tone down a couple things based on your feedback. It's been a long time since I originally wrote this, but I seem to remember some criticisms being warranted based on the sources and am not sure they are actually excessive. It is tricky, because with topics like this, a lot of the sources are written by competing news sources, but these are mostly book sources and reliable sources like NYT. As far as having some familiarity with the topic, user @JG66: and @SNUGGUMS: have both shown some interest, however fleeting, in the now GA article on a sister publication and they ?may? have some familiarity with the topic. CorporateM (Talk) 16:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Readers have a right to expect that articles, and large sections thereof, are written by persons not affiliated with the subject matter. If sections of this article are going to be drafted by the subject then this article will warrant a COI tag. Coretheapple (talk) 18:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

"Readers have a right to expect that articles..." No, they don't; they can expect that articles comply with WP policies and guidelines, regardless of who writes it. That is the purpose of the edit request process.

Also please carefully review Template:COI, which is to be used not to indicate that the article has been edited by someone with a COI, but to indicate that the COI has resulted in problems with the article's neutrality.

WP:GHOST is an essay. WP:COI is a guideline. WP:NPOV is a policy. TimothyJosephWood 19:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

One of the previous versions proposed by this editor omitted a significant issue bearing negatively on the subject. That's why it is not a good idea for COI editors to draft sections and have them put in the article by nonconflicted editors. That's common sense, and it doesn't even take an essay to determine that this practice is a blow not just to Wikipedia's reputation but to the reputation of the subject. Coretheapple (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

There is a process for vetting COI editing requests. If you don't like it, take it up at WP:EDITREQ or WP:COI. TimothyJosephWood 20:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

You have every right to be all gung ho about edit requests from COI editors, including paid editors as in this case, who want to ghostwrite entire sections of the article. But many editors, myself included, find this practice to be highly suspect, deeply offensive, and bordering on gaming the system. Just an opinion, not a reflection on this particular edit request although as I say in the recent past negative material was omitted. Editors should not have to have the burden of combing through contributions to determine if other stuff has been omitted too. If readers don't have the right to know that what they are reading is subject-supplied copy than Wikipedia is worth even less than it is reputed to be. Coretheapple (talk) 21:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Readers have all the same rights we do: to read an article, verify its sources, find further sources, make edits as the sources permit, find consensus where disagreements arise, and help build an encyclopedia. That's the way this works. No one has the burden to do anything. Nearly all of us are volunteers. If you find that the practice of submitting drafts for vetting as COI edit requests is detrimental to the project, you should take it up at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and seek consensus to change the relevant guidelines. That's how all of this works, with very few exceptions such as WP:COPYVIO, which is mostly determined by applicable laws that WP is obliged to comply with. TimothyJosephWood 23:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The COI guideline at WP:COIRESPONSE actively discourages this little time-wasting exercise in which the paid editor would like us to engage. You may want to thoroughly read the guideline and not just the parts that support scurrying around on behalf of paid editors. Coretheapple (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Two other points: One is that if you are going to put in a section break, it should not be POV ("tangentially related"). It is anything but "tangentially related." Secondly, This sentence in the guideline - When large amounts of text are added on behalf of the article subject, it means that the article has, in effect, been ghostwritten by them, without the readers' knowledge - is not meant to be approving. It is an expression of something to be avoided. I hope this clarification is helpful to you. Coretheapple (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:COIRESPONSE does not actively discourage it, it says to be careful when evaluating it. The break was not POV/ This discussion has more to do with requests in general, and little to do with the substance of this actual request. And this is probably a good place to end this, since you seem to be must more interested about arguing in the abstract, and it's not clear that you have even read the suggestion above. TimothyJosephWood 23:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Not "abstract" at all. The first comment on this raised this very point. This is precisely the kind of situation addressed in both the guideline and in WP:GHOST, which is specifically cited in the guideline. WP:GHOST was cited as a further discussion of the subject, not to tell editors that it ought to be ignored. I don't see how much clearer the guideline can be on this kind of activity. I think this is a question of you disregarding the guideline not that the guideline is at all amorphous on this subject. Coretheapple (talk) 00:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

CorporateM—I'm sorry, but it looks like this discussion has stalled. Given the most recent comments in this and previous threads, I'm going to mark this edit request as declined due to no consensus. However, it has been several months since the latest comment, so if you believe that the consensus has changed and you can address the concerns of the above users, you are free to open another edit request. Altamel (talk) 05:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)