Draft talk:Dan Virtue

Summarize Fact Check

I want to address the recent edits and respectfully contest several of the source removals.

I agree that UK Reporter and Vocal Media do not meet Wikipedia's reliability standards and I accept their removal. However, I believe the following sources were removed without sufficient justification:

Cultr (cultr.com) — This is an independent music and entertainment publication. The article in question (How Dan Virtue is Shaping the Future of Networking In Music And Beyond) was written by staff writer Ben Beamish and is an original editorial piece, not a press release. It meets WP:RS criteria and I would ask that citations relying on it be restored.

Resident Magazine and Film Daily are established entertainment publications with editorial standards. I am not aware of any paid arrangement with either outlet regarding these specific articles.

I would also note an inconsistency in the edit: the Cover Hollywood citation was retained despite that site having characteristics far more typical of press release distribution than Cultr or Film Daily. I raise this not to argue for keeping Cover Hollywood, but to point out that the same standard was not applied consistently across the article.

Regarding the removal of the photograph File:Dan Virtue.png — the stated reason was that it appeared to be a screenshot of an original image. I want to clarify that the subject's team holds full copyright ownership of this image and has the right to use and upload it in any form, including digital formats. I am happy to provide documentation confirming copyright ownership and re-upload the file with proper licensing through COM:OTRS if required. The removal of the image on technical grounds without first requesting clarification was unnecessary.

I have made the required paid editing disclosure in accordance with the Wikimedia Terms of Use and am committed to working collaboratively to bring this article to an acceptable standard.

Skejt25 (talk) Skejt25 (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Making a disclosure does not exempt you from scrutiny, especially when you've added, or attempted to add, fake black-hat SEO paid sources. UKReporter is part of the ZZED farm, and DailyScanner is part of the "Marketing Folks" SEO farm.

You can read about Cultr and Film Daily here: User:Kuru/fakesources. These are terrible advertorial/SEO sites now. No idea what they used to be, but once they start mixing in unmarked advertorials and "brand partnerships", then they're far past WP:RS. Same with "resident.com", that was a domain takeover from four years ago, and this contradicts your claim. The "publisher" is also a marketing/advertising flack. "Pinnacle of luxury lifestyle" such as it is. No idea where "Vocal Media" came from - I presume that was part of the material they gave you that you trimmed prior. Also, I have no objections if there are other sources you feels are equally terrible and would like to remove. Please note that we have higher requirements for WP:BLPs - we need rock-solid sources, not this junk.

Yes, you will need to have the actual owner of the media contact OTRS and release the material under a compatible license. We can't accept your word for it as an anonymous account. I promise we take copyright seriously, and it was indeed necessary. Sam Kuru (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2026 (UTC)