Talk:Orivesi

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Finland Low‑importance

	Finland portal 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

jjanhone (talk · contribs) has been paid by Orivesi on their behalf. [1]

Paid contributions tag

A paid editor made contributions to this article, and has disclosed that fact on this page, therefore the {{paid contributions}} is a matter of fact and does not require discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is true, and we've tagged it as having paid editing here on talk. However on the main page I've checked the contributions and I removed the tag having confirmed that it did not need cleanup. Thus the tag isn't needed now, unless you feel I missed a problem with the contributioons? As far as I can tell there were two edits: this one which added a source and fixed a date, and when I checked it the source did not appear to be promotional or POV; and this one, which appears to consist of adding some gallery images which again, do not appear to be promotional so should be ok. - Bilby (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear that you didn't find any necessity for cleanup. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are several unsourced declarative statements in the article. I also removed one unfactual statement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. So the contributions by Jiahone are ok, then? - Bilby (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's my opinion that as long as there are contributions by a paid editor in an article, then the template is justified and should remain. Others feel otherwise, but I'm certainly not going to edit war if an uninvolved editor such as yourself checks through the article and then, having the opinion about the template which I don't agree with, removes the template. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: I think you have misunderstood how the template should be used. The template documentation says that.

This page may be used on pages that have disclosed, but still problematic, paid contributions and that require cleanup. Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article.

This means that it should be used in articles which are requiring actions to the content. Ie. without problems in the content, the motivation of the editor is not a valid reason to add the problem tags. Zache (talk) 10:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bilby already checked the article and after that removed the tag. Jjanhone (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Hörtsänä Arboretum Puutaulu.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]