Talk:CD Baby

message: Certainly, the CDBaby and CD Baby articles need to be merged, but in which direction? *Dan T.* 06:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: This article is severely lacking in citations. I removed most of what I could not verify through a web search. I added citations to claims made on the CD Baby website and clarified that most of the information is coming directly from the subject of the article. There is still a good deal of language I don't agree with later on in the article, and there is definately room for more diversity in the source of information for this article, and verification from independent sources. Nerwin81 06:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a publication edited by volunteer editors like yourself.  The answer to "Who picked..." is whomever made the edit that put them there.  If you believe an artist was left out, who should have been included (and is notable by Wikipedia standards) than edit the article to put them there. The section has since been removed, but I'm not sure why. Pgapunk (talk) 05:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Has anyone else noticed that CD Baby seems to censor reviews of CDs?  They seem to absolutely refuse to post a (even just slightly) negative review of a CD in its reviews section.  This angers me, as what is the point of reviews if they only show those which rave about a CD??  I feel this should be incorporated into the article provided that others have noticed this tendency as well. --smileyborg (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship 

message: Anyone seen this?
http://sivers.org/blog
Wamnet (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disc Makers buys CD Baby 

message: CD Baby has a tradition of including hilariously funny text elements into their e-mails. 
Example: 
"Your CD has been gently taken from our CD Baby shelves with sterilized contamination-free gloves and placed onto a satin pillow.
A team of 50 employees inspected your CD and polished it to make sure it was in the best possible condition before mailing.
Our packing specialist from Japan lit a candle and a hush fell over the crowd as he put your CD into the finest gold-lined box that money can buy.
We all had a wonderful celebration afterwards and the whole party marched down the street to the post office where the entire town of Portland waved "Bon Voyage!" to your package, on its way to you, in our private CD Baby jet on this day, August 26, 2009.
We hope you had a wonderful time shopping at CD Baby. In commemoration, we have placed your picture on our wall as "Customer of the Year." We're all exhausted but can't wait for you to come back to CDBABY.COM!!
Thank you, thank you, thank you!
Sigh...
We miss you already. We'll be right here at http://cdbaby.com/, patiently awaiting your return."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.161.133.225 (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hilarious e-mails 

message: CD Baby relaunched the website with major infrastructure changes (using ASPX) to support future growth, including redundancy that protects the original material on the site in a way that initially was not available to the artists and incurred significant risk to them. The website is no longer being run with the original or revised PHP of Sivers.
Did the new changes harm the artists, or did the new version seek to shield the artists from harm which had been present in the old version?
Crasshopper (talk) 07:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical history 

message: Interesting article about Cdbaby´s new owner.
www.thecmuwebsite.com/article/cd-baby-owner-avl-digital-sold/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.221.40.161 (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  CDBaby sold again. 

message: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ls47fGMsS8 Scott Manley makes mention of them inappropriately copyrighting and distributing CC3.0 licensed music and spamming strikes against YouTube users posting Kerbal space program videos because the music is used with compliance in the game. Ransombot (talk) 02:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. CD Baby (among others such as The Orchard and Go Digital) are huge copyfraudsters on YouTube. Nobody knows why because Google refuses to address the issue of copyfraud on YouTube. They assume all claims are not only made it good faith, but are 100% valid unless and until the claimant either removes the claim or a court rules otherwise. Why? Who knows? They won't talk about it. But, the prevailing presumption is that they profit from copyfraud, so turning a blind eye to it is the best financial move for them. Of course, Google's complicity in YouTube copyfraud means that no reliable source will ever talk about the copyfraud committed by CD Baby and others and, for this reason, none of these allegations will ever appear on Wikipedia. This is unfortunate, but it's a combination of complicity from the Powers That Be (of which Wikipedia is a follower, according to their own policy), and Wikipedia's reliable source policy.68.42.32.128 (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  CDbaby copyright strikes against youtube 

message: This page should not be speedily deleted because... (it provides information on a website that holds a unique niche in a market, it explains the purpose of a website. An innovative website happens to have an article about itself, does that warrant it's removal from wikipedia solely because it simultaneously markets the site. If so, delete the page on amazon. ) --98.116.127.217 (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested deletion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on CD Baby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080813054046/http://www.side-line.com:80/news_comments.php?id=34389_0_2_0_C to http://www.side-line.com/news_comments.php?id=34389_0_2_0_C
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Doesn’t seem encyclopedic to have a section “In the news”, kinda weird DemonDays64 (talk) 00:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. They've been removed now Rayman60 (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the news name 

message: I see no discussion here supporting the notion that this article reads like an advertisement and in my opinion it doesn't. Removing tag. --Pgapunk (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , It's significantly cleaned up, but a little bit remains, for example the COMPANY exercised editorial discretion to infuse things about conference they host. Please see Special:Contributions/Chriscdbaby. The user name, and an involved party's employee or contractor to engage directly with corporate reputation management effort falls as COI editing, and undisclosed paid editing if it wasn't explicitly disclosed. While it maybe sourced, hands of the company should be having no direct editorial control of the article as such causes article to be presented in curated in the way they want it.Graywalls (talk) 06:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand Conflicts of interest were involved in earlier edits. By the way, do you know why the "notable artist" section was removed? Pgapunk (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  It doesn't read like an advertisement 

message: I see nothing in the article or on the talk page supporting the claim that someone was paid to create or edit this article. It reads from a neutral point of view. Removing tag.
--Pgapunk (talk) 05:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: , It's significantly cleaned up, but a little bit remains, for example the COMPANY exercised editorial discretion to infuse things about conference they host. Please see Special:Contributions/Chriscdbaby. The user name, and an involved party's employee or contractor to engage directly with corporate reputation management effort falls as COI editing, and undisclosed paid editing if it wasn't explicitly disclosed. While it maybe sourced, hands of the company should be having no direct editorial control of the article as such causes article to be presented in curated in the way they want it.Graywalls (talk) 06:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand Conflicts of interest were involved in earlier edits. By the way, do you know why the "notable artist" section was removed? Pgapunk (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV and Claim of Paid Editor Tag