Talk:Wind-up Records

message: This article seems to lean towards the opinion that Wind-Up is a bad label. Even if this is true, it should be noted in a criticism section, not hinted at throughout the article. I would fix this, but don't know enough about the subject to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopherbassist (talk • contribs) 03:52, 19 August 2006
:I think the article is rather bloated. I mean that it has more links and lists than content. The label is a fairly obscure one...has the average person on the street ever heard of Wind Up like they have of Columbia, etc? No. So the content is a good length, but the links should be trimmed. I have compared this article to the higher quality articles about major record labels such as Columbia music and Sony Music, and noticed that relatively little room is taken by references to their artists, despite the higher notoriety of the artists. It seems like someone is trying to sell us on Wind Up's credibility75.26.5.96 23:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have rewritten the article in an attempt to present both arguments for the label and keep things in a fair light, and I have also seperated these subjects from the main article. I do not feel that information about controversy is something that should not be included in the article period, however. Part of providing information on the subject should also include providing information on public opinion of the subject, because it relates to the subject and it is interesting information that someone might come looking for. There are several articles on Wikipedia that provide information on public opinion for the same reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.193.105 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 20 November 2006
The article was not rewritten but unreferenced content was added that was untrue and libelous. There is no verified controversy. Article as edited by above user has weasel words. It is indicative of someone with a personal vendetta or chip on his shoulder. I do not personally think this label is notable enough for an entry of this length, but that is irrelevant as it clearly has enough notoriety to engender this kind of antipathy amongst a user. User claims to present two sides of a controversy, but without presenting any reliable evidence of an ongoing controversy it appears that he is including his own content, whether it is first hand knowledge, original research, or whatever- it is unencyclopedic and filled with weasel words. I am confident that I am preserving a higher encyclopedic standard by sticking with established and previously referenced and verified facts. User has consistently reinserted unverifiable and unreferenced opinions. There are no trade professionals who are anticipating the decline of the label and so the responding positive outlook section of the article is unnecessary. 67.121.146.4 08:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally, I think you're the only one with a vendetta and a chip on his shoulder around here, Hornet. 74.225.215.248 21:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I have removed the sections which badly failed WP:NPOV. They were completely unreferenced and filled with original research. --GentlemanGhost 12:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I don't think People in Planes or 12 Stones need to be on there.  Not like they are huge bands.  Never even heard of People In Planes.76.126.86.27 (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why selectively exclude two bands from a list of bands signed with the label? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Wind-up Records. 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/20091009152135/http://www.emigroup.com:80/Press/2009/press110.htm to http://www.emigroup.com/Press/2009/press110.htm
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 14:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The listing under Official Website "winduprecords.com" is no longer valid. 2601:18C:CC01:4F30:A443:BF42:4900:ECBD (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  winduprecords.com no longer links to a valid Facebook Page