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 sourcedmust 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 is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Finland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FinlandWikipedia:WikiProject FinlandTemplate:WikiProject FinlandFinland
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
There's a new tag saying "This article contains paid contributions. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page." Now I'm just asking about opinions and tips about how to make this article more neutral. I've only written about facts from reliable sources, so what especially should be added, removed or altered?Jjanhone (talk) 05:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the article reads as if it was written to praise its subject rather than to describe him neutrally. You are working on this subject as a paid editor since 2015 and you write what your client asks you to write not what you as a third party think about the subject so, your edits must be reviewed by an uninvolved user to ensure the neutrality and verifiability of the information presented. Also, the article lacks inline citations in many sections, which makes it extremely difficult to verify the article content. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been started and edited by Tikka's "fans"(?), see what the last version looked like before I started editing the article in 2015: [3]. So you can notice that I've also removed praising from the article. And no, I don't write what my customers ask me to write (sometimes they have the weirdest wishes) but follow the Wikipedia policies and explain them that I just cannot do what they want. So I believe my edits are far more neutral than those that are editing for their own articles or articles about their idols - I don't have my feelings attached to subjects. Should we just remove all sections without sources?Jjanhone (talk) 07:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to the policy "if you place the Paid tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article." As a paid editor I'm not allowed to remove the tag myself, but if any volunteer editor thinks that the neutral point of view of the article is ok, they are free to remove the tag as told in the Template:Paid contributions instructions: "If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning."Jjanhone (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello MB! 5 years ago you added a tag about "written like a cv". Can you see any progress on the article? As Tikka has been working in so many roles that has got media attention it's difficult to formulate the article. So any ideas with that? Jjanhone (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Taneli Tikka has been involved in more than 30 companies as a board member or as an advisor." In the lead said as: CEO, board member or advisor. Being adviser to a company is vague and of a very different importance to being CEO of a sizable company (advising on what? The sandwiches in the canteen? Where to go on the works annual outing? Which font to use for the annual report?). This is an example of how the article 'reads' as promotional - intending to inflate rather than report. Pincrete (talk) 09:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Pincrete for such a concrete example. Unfortunately I could not just remove the advisor word from the sentence as the source said "more than 30 in A or B or advisor". But I moved the sentence in the history part so that it is not getting that much attention anymore. Anything else I could do for the article? Jjanhone (talk) 09:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It reads as promotional in intent. I've no idea what, or how important his advisory roles were - if they were relatively trivial, or if any of the board memberships or CEO positions were unimportant or short-term, why mention them at all? Why not simply be concrete about named, relatively important roles? I don't speak Finnish, so I cannot be more specific about the info nor the quality of sources? BTW, you don't need sources for lead info, as long as it is a faithful summary of the main body of the text and is not controversial or WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Pincrete (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any issues with this article that can justify the warning added at the beginning of the article? If yes, can you give an example please?Jjanhone (talk) 09:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is an invalid RfC. The statement, whilst brief, is not neutral; and there is no evidence that the suggestions at WP:RFCBEFORE have been exhausted. The tag concerned was added in June 2019 by GSS (talk·contribs); have you asked them directly why it was added and if it is still justified? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my mistake in RfC process, I asked for more comments as the discussion on this page has not proceed in months. Redrose64. I had not pinged GSS before but I did it now.Jjanhone (talk) 06:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jjanhone: According to the template, "if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain why you tagged the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning." ––FormalDudetalk07:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's true @FormalDude:, but actually it should be "any editor but a paid one is justified...". So if you think it's not needed, feel free to remove it as I cannot do it myself. Jjanhone (talk) 08:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
talk 07:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)