Talk:Ovi (magazine)

Untitled

This is a warning to 189.164.158.253 to cease unauthorised changes to the URLS on this page. Should it happen again I will be taking further action with Wikipedia. (www.ovimagazine.com (talk) 06:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

This the final warning to the user who continues to revert the URLs. You have already been issued a Level 3 warning. The next time you change this page you will be issued with a Level 4 warning. Ovimagazine (talk) 11:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

About the URL

There is a revert war going on with changes to the URL among two www.____.com addresses:

ovimagazine

This site is registered, per WHOIS, to an individual in Helsinki, Finland. This is consistent with the text of the article.

theovimagazine

This site is registered with godaddy.com, according to WHOIS.

Based on this finding, I have concluded that ovimagazine is the official site. Since the article is being repeatedly vandalized by anonymous editors to change the URL, I am protecting another admin has protected the page. —C.Fred (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

- Thank you very much for helping to end this continued vandalism. Butcam (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I took a look through Alexa and the Internet Wayback machine and it's clear that "theovimagazine" started up significantly later. But, WTF - why are there two competing web sites with the same look and feel? It's totally bizarre. Mangojuice^talk 21:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Curiously, one of the blogs I read advised other bloggers to watch their links for people stealing their content (and ad revenue). If I had to guess, that'd be my speculation on why it's happening. Regardless, it doesn't need to be in the article: the official site is the one that should be linked here. —C.Fred (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at the history of activity on this page last night and it seems as though the vandal was busy. How is it now possible for him to create The_Ovi_Magazine? That's just as bad as vandalising this page. I became a bit confused also with the 'This article or section is written like an advertisement.' Was that created by the vandal or is a rewrite necessary? The copycat site is run by one of our former web designers who seems to have a grudge against us. We are the original site and are currently doing all we can to shut down the copycat for good. It is strange since we are actually a non-profit site that makes a negligible amount from ads. Butcam (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

About Deletion

Hi, what sort of changes need to be made to the text to avoid deletion? After all the hassle over the past few days I don't really want to see the entry just deleted. I have followed the example of other online magazines when writing the entries, so what needs to be removed or changed? Butcam (talk) 08:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What needs to be added is references to the magazine in independent reliable sources. E.g., if the main newspaper in Helsinki did a full column (not just a little blurb) about the magazine, then that would demonstrate it's significant enough to warrant an article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, can I have a few days to put something together before any deletion takes place? Butcam (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The deletion debates normally stay open for at least 5 days. But sooner is better than later: people will need a chance to review and comment on your changes if they are to be accepted. Mangojuice^talk 05:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, I have added references to the piece and changed the text. Please let me know if further changes are required. Butcam (talk) 07:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)