Talk:Marco Arment

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography 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 articles inactive .BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging articles

Ohio Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to current discussions.OhioWikipedia:WikiProject OhioTemplate:WikiProject OhioOhio articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Marco.org (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. (edits to this page, declaration)

Don't know why this line "He frequently writes about technology matters, feminism, Apple, and social justice." was re-added by User:Gilliam. It has no citation. I read all of his posts and listen to his podcasts. He certainly has written about "feminism and social justice", but I wouldn't call it "frequently". He certainly does write frequently about technology. William Spaetzel (talk) 13:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will self-revert.– Gilliam (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marco Arment. 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/20151016032554/https://peace.land/ to https://peace.land/

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.

• 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) 22:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Originally posted on User talk:Psantora here.

Regarding your partial revert, no. We only list the official homepage of the subject of the page, and only one. Any additional homepages of the subjects are not listed, per

The other pages are not the official page of the subject, but of organisations that the subject is involved in (he created overcast and instapaper, overcast.fm and instapaper.com are the websites of those subjects, not of this subject - hence they are indirect).

I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying and I don't agree that it fits for this case. Let's move this to the talk page of the article in question. - Paul^T+/_C 06:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now,

Accidental Tech Podcast redirects to this page and, while it doesn't have its own section, it does qualify as a main topic for the page. At the very least both Marco.org and atp.fm should be listed. I understand you are tying to apply the content guidelines, but sometimes a little discussion is required to find the best solution for a given page. - Paul^T+/_C 06:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I just self-reverted to remove the Overcast and Instapaper links since they have their own articles. I do still think they add to this page, but I understand your argument regarding them and am willing to compromise. - Paul^T+/_C 06:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you edit warring,

WP:BRD works. - Paul^T+/_C 06:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@Psantora: (sorry, this edit conflicted) that something does not have an own Wikipedia page does not mean that we have to link to the homepage of that somewhere. If it is not important enough as such, then why would it warrant a link. We keep links to a minimum per policy (of which the guideline is an extension). Especially if the subject does not even warrant an own section but only a fleeting mention, it does not warrant an external link.

Marco.org has never been removed, and was always (ai, I see I accidentaly removed it in the first edit, my apologies) linked. That alone disqualifies all other official homepages of this subject, the twitter is hence not appropriate (and more so since the already listed official website is prominently listing the Twitter). On rereading your edit summary, no, these do not often have exceptions. The guideline states 'under a very few limited circumstances', which simply means that there are not often exceptions. As I stated above, it boils down to 2-3 on the thousands and thousands of pages I have removed them from.

I agree, we need a discussion, but that discussion, per

WP:ELBURDEN is about whether links should be included. Anything that does not warrant inclusion should be included until a proper rationale shows that it needs to be included. I see no reason for inclusion of Marco's twitter (in line with guideline), and I do not believe that the link to Accidental Tech Podcast is warranted either, as it is indirect and does not get more than a fleeting mention in the article (and also that one is prominently linked from the official homepage of the subject, marco.org). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC) (extended --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC))[reply

]

@

Accidental Tech Podcast. - Paul^T+/_C 08:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@Psantora: Yes, there are exceptions on Twitter, but they are rare - very rare. As I said, I did thousands of removals, and brought many of them (when contested) to noticeboards. The general consensus there is still, removal. I have been brought to AN/I for these removals, and the general consensus was 'give him a barnstar, they should indeed practically blanket be removed with very little exception'. In any case, you added the twitters in the first place, and the burden is on you that it here passes the bar. I presume you have multiple independent reliable sources showing that the twitter use of this person is on multiple occasions notable in itself? In any case, it is currently not reflected in the article, so no, I see no reason why this Twitter feed is an exception on the 'we list only one official page of a subject, with only a very few limited exceptions' .. and that is nothing but vague.

You have sources that the subject is notable. That is currently not reflected in an own article, or in this article. Again, it is not on me to show that the subject is notable - if it is not shown to be notable I am in my full right to remove them. In any case, this page has as subject 'Marco Arment', it is NOT the subject of this page. I can also show multiple sources showing that the Audi A8 is notable and worthy of its own article, still we do not link to the official homepage of the Audi A8 on Audi.

WP:EL

).

I agree that your case for the atp.fm is the strongest, but it sounds that that redirect should be converted to an article where it is then the official link. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

there is no deadline. Creating an ATP article is indeed something that I'd like to find time for (and listing those links above was a good start at it, thanks for the push), eventually. There should be a separate article with its own official link, but in the meantime there is a reasonable argument for the link to stay here at the current main topic for the subject. - Paul^T+/_C 18:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

If twitter links would be a benefit (to which I very strongly disagree), then our guidelines, and discussions regarding those points in our guidelines, would not be so strongly suggesting to the opposite.

At your revert of my edits I started the discussion. As, again, global consensus has rather consistently been to not have these links, that wouldnot be overridden by a local consensus, and links are removed unless their inclusion can be justified (which is on the person who wants to include the links). We don't leave material standing (your status quo) for material for which there is consensus to not have it there. Pointy note: the status quo would be without twitter links.

As I said, the atp link has the strongest case, if there was a deeper discussion already in the article I would likely not have opposed when so reasoned (however, I will again object if an own article exists). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys,

I have no explanation for this, but when looking at this page on Safari (iPhone X, 13.3.1), multiple references to Tumblr do not appear. Not sure why this is the case, or how to resolve it. Maybe someone else has info.

These two excerpts are verbatim from my iPhone, with [Square Brackets] denoting omitted text.

"As a developer, he is best known for being chief technology officer for [Tumblr] and creating Instapaper and Overcast."

"Arment worked as lead developer and chief technology officer (CTO) of the [Tumblr] microblogging platform and social networking website from its inception in February 2007 until September 2010"

--Fieryaleeco (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]