Talk:Joseph Michelli

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

This page is requested for deletion as it is not relevant and seems to have been created as a personal attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericjcarrmiddletownde (talk • contribs) 20:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joseph Michelli. 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:

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resultsource[edit]

I see the content lower down is sourced, but that it doesn’t appear to be appropriate for the lead - as the lead is supposed to be a summary of the larger parts. The sourced material represents that a party (UCLA), other than Michelli, hired the third party. For these reasons it isn’t something worthy of the lead.73.76.46.100 (talk) 14:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone have an issue if I went ahead and made that change? 73.76.46.100 (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have an issue, and have restored the cited information, as this extra text is essential to qualify the "best-seller" status of the books. Edwardx (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Log requested by NatGertler[edit]

As per the request, and rightly acknowledged, considering that Forbes Contributions are not considered a primary source, presented here is an update log and future considerations. All @editors are encouraged to participate.

  1. Revised the book list to incorporate the latest three publications. For enhanced clarity, there's a suggestion to adopt an encyclopedic format, possibly utilizing a table with key rows like date of publication, publisher, and a concise summary. This approach may prove more sustainable for future additions than the current breakdown.
  2. Highlighted the individual as the recipient of the Customer Experience Professional Association Impact Award, ensuring proper sourcing for this significant achievement. A proposed refinement involves relocating this information from a standalone entry to the infobox exclusively.
  3. Considering a reorganization of the career section before the books section. Addressing the issue of excessive verbiage due to contributions by multiple editors would be recommended. Any objections for the trimming down?

Kamilahar85 (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit continues to be problematic. You are sourcing his supposed professorship to a Boston Globe article that makes no mention of that position (any more than it made mention of the award when you previously used it for that.) The statement about the CXPA award is sourced to the CXPA itself, which means that it can be judged as accurate but, not being a third-party source, we don't know that it is worth of inclusion. For some awards, we have actual articles on the awards, the awards are notable in themselves, so if someone wins and Oscar, a Peabody, an Eisner, we know that that win itself counts as notable. For the CXPA awards, not only do we not have an article on the awards, we don't even have one on the organization. If we had an independent third-party source covering the fact that he won that award, that would be a sign that coverage is due. (And linking "American" to a page on the citizenship requirements of the US is overkill; folks know what an American is.)
As for the bibliography, yes, that would be better than having separate sections on each book with the rather hype-y descriptors they now have. Since they are generally about the cultures of various companies, we could say that in the lead-in, and then each entry could be just your basic bibliographic information plus a mention of what company is being covered. While some major authors here like Stephen King have separate bibliographic articles that are in table form, bibliographies within the main author articles are usually just lists rather than tables; it's much easier to maintain that way. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very useful. Will do as instructed and points well taken on the sourcing requirements. 100% agree on bibliography edits, happy to oblige. Kamilahar85 (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_Michelli&oldid=1209040330"