[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:LPI Media

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]
Resolved

The information I removed from the article is nearly a word-for-word copy of the information at Yahoo Finance. It's fine to use that as a reference, but the wording must be our own, not a direct copy of theirs.—Chidom talk  17:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging would be a good idea

[edit]
Resolved

PlanetOut Inc. Acquires LPI Media Inc., Publisher of The Advocate and OUT http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/11-09-2005/0004212504&EDATE

149.99.42.22 14:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either merge or delete, this article doesn't assert the notability of the company. I'm prodding it. 71.127.225.54 (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. LPI is one of the top tier companies catering to the LGBT communities and has notability before and after being bought. We don't delete articles of companies just because they have been bought up as is witnessed that so many mega-company articles simply note what companies are in their domain. Benjiboi 17:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You must forgive me, but what I saw, didn't look like a contested merger. You said "We don't delete articles", but you said nothing of the merger. I don't know if you saw, but I moved the contents of this page to the PlanetOut_Inc.#LPI_Media (Which you didn't revert - BTW). I've got nothing against this company (in fact I know nothing about this topic what so ever). The way I see it is: a stub article, with a total of 14 edits in 2 years, a "home" for the information elsewhere, and its been up for merger going on a year - with a total of 2 comments. I don't see anything wrong with this information being merged - besides if suddently there is more information added on when its on the PlanetOut article - it can be moved back to its previous home. --ShakataGaNai (talk) 05:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My comment ()above in in e reply about Merging...started with "Nonsense", perhaps i should have been more clear - this article should be developed on its own, IMHO, LPI which I am familiar with for (without dating myself) many years. I probably didn't revert your merger as it didn't seem pure vandalism so, in such cases, dialog would seem to be a wiser course. Is a noted publisher and possibly the largest media voice (ergo the largest voice) within the LGBT community. Planet Out, meanwhile has it's own unique history and the buyout should be mentioned in that article but just as Rupert Murdock bought out Wall St. Journal we don't delete the Wall St. Journal we simply amend both articles to reflect that history. I will be happy to look into appropriate content for this article to expand it to the next level but still feel marge is inappropriate even if the article is largely ignored except for my protest of the merge proposal. Benjiboi 20:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think part of the problem is the fact that you are arguing with yourself. Or at least with some other imaginary party, because you certainly aren't arguing with me. You are once again talking about "deleting" articles, and I don't know if you understand this - but when we merge an article - we aren't DELETING anything. Go over to PlanetOut_Inc.#LPI_Media and you'll see that ALL the text is still there. Also, you never responded to the fact that this article _was_ a stub, with 14 edits in 2 years. I feel like I'm repeating myself - probably because I am - but I still don't see any reason why _not_ to merge it into another article. Again, this article was a stub and the other article is a more than relevant location. Also, the example of Ruper Murdock and WSJ is completely inapplicable - because they weren't stubs. --ShakataGaNai (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can save your disparaging remarks for someone else. I contest this merger and the volume of edits previous is noted and dismissed as I'm now here on working on it. Please allow me to develop this article. Benjiboi 21:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deep sigh. I'm going to give you a quick bit of advice. You can't simply say "No" to a merger and thats what you are doing by saying "I contest". You have to give valid reasons why, perhaps respond to what others have said. In this case, that would have been more than enough. That said: I see that you are working on this article - Great! Now its not a stub with only 14 edits in 2 years. I've already moved on. Next time a little more communication and this wouldn't have been a problem. --ShakataGaNai (talk) 08:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll refer you to my very first comment on the subject - "LPI is one of the top tier companies catering to the LGBT communities and has notability before and after being bought." Seems to me that was clearly a reason to re-consider merging and was a bit more than simply stating "I contest" or "no". Thank you for your suggestion about communicating, I'll have to remember that next time I want to merge an article that someone has contested. Benjiboi 18:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger date?

[edit]

There is something a little odd about the merger date information. The Howard Rice press release is referred to as being from 2007, but the press release index page at Howard Rice lists it as November 09, 2005[1]. Also, there's other sources like the Chronicle article about merger being bandied about in 2000.--Larrybob (talk) 03:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 sale to Regent

[edit]

Article currently says: "In April, 2008, the magazines published by LPI .. were sold by PlanetOut to Regent Releasing,". But the sale seems to have been completed on 2008 August 13 ( http://www.secinfo.com/dsvrp.tEX1.htm ), with 2008 April 7 being date of the letter of intent. How should 2008 August date be included in the article? --EarthFurst (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it seems the LPI, SpecPub and PlanetOut's "book publishing business" have not been sold to Regent Releasing, but to "Regent Entertainment Media Inc. ("Regent Entertainment")" (source: see secinfo.com link above) --EarthFurst (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that the LPI Media article should continue to exist for historical reasons, but that there should be a new article about Regent Entertainment Media, Inc. or Regent Media or whatever it's called now. See Legal Notice page of Advocate website, last updated October 7, 2008. There isn't much to see at the Regent Media website unfortunately except links to various publications (not including things published by Specialty Publications, interestingly.)--Larrybob (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on LPI Media. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on LPI Media. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on LPI Media. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on LPI Media. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LPI Media. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LPI_Media&oldid=1212616824"