User talk:CorporateM/Archive 19

Talk page stalkers

A while back I said I would try to announce recent major COI projects I was working on here on my Talk page, so that anyone that chooses to stalk me specifically regarding my contributions in that role, could do so easily. Here's what I've been doing recently in a COI capacity:

• Nestlé Purina PetCare - A draft was recently implemented, nominated for GA and got a reviewer right away (now GA)
• Noel Lee - failed GA due to not enough detail. I substantially expanded the article and re-nominated.
• Heather Bresch - Significantly overly controversy-focused BLP. First draft shared on Talk about two days ago.
• Yelp - Suggested a bunch of copyedits, updates, and other tweaks. Hoping to get it translated for French and German in the future
• Elgato - I did this product brand page (the company itself is not actually notable) a while back and it is currently pending GA review
• CSG International - A new draft was just recently implemented, cleaning up promotion and replacing it with a more neutral piece. Pending GA review.
• RTI International - Currently in a long conversation with a new editor about RTI's work in Iraq; will probably start an RfC soon.
• Autism Research Institute - Not currently a client, but I did their article a long time ago and posted a comment about it more recently regarding some recent changes to the page.
• BabyFirst - Continuing to protect it against a network of vandal socks, incorporated a video and fixed a coding error that was preventing an update someone else added from showing up
• Shaygan Kheradpir - Submitted this article, however some of the more promotional aspects of this page are not from me and I disagree with them.
• McKinsey & Company - Very large complex article wrapped up for now and pending a GA review.

CorporateM (Talk) 01:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Also:

• List of acquisitions by Juniper Networks CorporateM (Talk) 21:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

And:

• A couple final sub-sections proposed at Invisalign that should make it GAN ready. CorporateM (Talk) 04:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Per User:CorporateM/Coolsculpting

Please read WP:MEDRS. We do not allow primary sources and the popular press for medical claims. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Doc. Let me keep working on it. I have a list of "Review articles" that I think are the sources you're looking for, but many I had a hard time trying to get access to. CorporateM (Talk) 19:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I am cleaning up some of the primary sources in some of your previous medical related articles. The independent secondary sources come to significantly differing conclusions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey user:Doc James. Invisalign is actually primarily a business article at this point, without much in the way of medical claims, however I did recently throw something together at User:CorporateM/Invisalign that would add the debate about its efficacy in comparison to braces, which of course includes the very significant 2005 study that found it under-performed wire braces by 18 points on the American Board of Orthodontics's standardized grading system at the time. 2005 is of course almost ten years ago and more recent studies have had more favorable results. CorporateM (Talk) 02:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

We use secondary sources. Interestingly there have been no systematic reviews since 2005 thus that 10 year old source is some of the best that we have. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@User:Doc James Check out the discussion section from this 2012 source, which summarizes some of the more recent findings. It's been a controversial subject among orthodontists, so different sources say different things. I also noticed from the source you used, that you only added the most critical aspects of the source, which also includes quite a bit of content about convenience, hygene, etc. citing various studies. CorporateM (Talk) 02:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

No I added details from both sides. The most important bit is that they have been poorly studied. But they are "likely more comfortable and faster for the dentist to apply" which is now supported by a secondary source. Also "They are likely useful for tooth crowding of the front teeth that is of a moderate degree" The source you link to is the inside net of NCSU Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@user:Doc James does this link work for you?

For example, this article you used says "Certainly there are major advantages... the aligners can be removed for eating, brushing and intimacy; patients experience less dental pain, have better oral hygiene and fewer dietary restrictions; and the treatment planning software (ClinCheck) is an excellent tool for visualizing and analyzing potential treatment outcomes...." This is similar to what is stated in other sources, except what I found was actually conflicting reports on pain levels, as oppose to Invisalign being less painful. I suspect because it is difficult to measure. This makes me wonder if you are editing contentiously, because this text is actually higher up in the article, so you would have had to have glazed past it to get to the criticisms you added. 02:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

That is a primary source this link Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@user:Doc JamesOk, I haven't done much work on medical subjects, being that I primarily work on business topics. Can you explain what you mean by it being a primary source? The author has no affiliation with Invisalign and is summarizing studies not authored by the same person. It looks to be in a proper medical journal. I thought that when a study summarized the pre-existing work on the subject, that this was an ideal medical source. Also, you clearly found the other source to be reliable, so would you oppose if I suggested adding more content from it? It could be used to support quite a bit of the material I already put in my draft and since you have already indicated that it is a proper source, that makes things easy. CorporateM (Talk) 03:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

We are looking for review articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@user:Doc James That might clear things up for me actually, because I've seen the big "Review article" labels on some sources and it might explain why I feel like I'm swimming in an ocean of source material. Just to verify, if an article does in fact "summarize the current state of understanding on a topic" in a "Background" or "Introduction" section, but it is also "reporting new experimental results" in other sections, is that not allowed? So the entire source, not just part of it, needs to be a review. CorporateM (Talk) 03:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes the entire source needs to be a review. The review typically needs to be pubmed indexed. And also it should have an impact factor that is at least greater than zero. Ideally we use sources from the last 5 years; however, may use older sources for obscure topics such as this one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@User:Doc James Got it - I will keep this in mind next time (if there is a next time; I don't do much in the medical arena). I'm surprised we don't use older sources, because in business topics the older ones are often the most precious and difficult to find and we want to cover the entire history. But it sounds like for medical claims we focus on the most recent literature? Do you use a specific tool to find Review articles specifically rather than wading through the ocean of primary sources? 03:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes pubmed. You can limit your search to review articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@user:Doc James Yup, just found it. Sorry if it turns out I was being a bit of a jerk. I honestly thought you were just browbeating me, since by any business page standards, CoolSculpting would obviously qualify for a page based on the volume of source material in the press. I see why the press is not a good source though, as one article said the dead fat cells were consumed by white blood cells (instead of macrophages); even I know that because I have a basic education.

Anyways, this helps ALOT. It's late in my time-zone, but I'll re-work user:CorporateM/Invisalign based on these standards this week and ping you when it's ready. The medical claims-type stuff is all that's left to make it GAN-ready. I'll also work on the Cryolipolysis page eventually, but after the discussion closes out. I appreciate you being patient with me. CorporateM (Talk) 03:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sig Mejdal

The article Sig Mejdal you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sig Mejdal for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vile-eight -- Vile-eight (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing User:Wizardman! Is there any way I can persuade you to take on another GA review on a minor BLP Noel Lee (executive)? The thing is it already waited in the queue for months; it failed review and I immediately fixed all the issues raised before re-nominating, but waiting several months for a reviewer twice-over is just nasty. user:Ritchie333 was the initial reviewer and seemed content with it being renominated, but didn't want to take on the second review him/herself. CorporateM (Talk) 22:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it should be an easy GA review. I didn't want to do GA2, because I'd done a bit of content work improving it past GA1, which I think disqualifies me from being a reviewer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Noel Lee (executive)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Noel Lee (executive) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Noel Lee (executive)

The article Noel Lee (executive) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Noel Lee (executive) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Noel Lee (executive)

The article Noel Lee (executive) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Noel Lee (executive) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The GA review was passed (not failed), but there is something buggy about the scripts. CorporateM (Talk) 02:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Paxata

The article Paxata you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 14 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Paxata for things which need to be addressed. 23W 21:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Paxata

The article Paxata you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Paxata for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 23W -- 23W (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Mutual Mobile page

Reaching out as it is unclear as to your preference for removing the right side bar with corporate information and logo for Mutual Mobile. This is common feature on many pages, for example The Coca-Cola Company, as well as other company-focused pages where you provided meaningful edits. Can it be returned?

Bobdeuce (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The infobox is not a problem; I've restored it. The issue is with language like "breakthrough products" and a dedicated section on awards. Awards are primary sources, because they are reporting on events they are directly involved in. In most cases they do not carry historical/encyclopedic significance. Unless however there are secondary sources on them, such as a profile story on the company in the local/trade/national press that includes it. Also, external links are not allowed in the body of the article and are typically associated with spam and linkbait.

If you see other company pages that are setting a poor example with similar content, I would like to know which they are, as I do quite a bit of work here fixing these types of problems. CorporateM (Talk) 20:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance, and for adding back the infobox. I had taken corporate language from the website for "breakthrough products" but also understand your POV on using the informative and historical versus corporate-speak and unintended linkbaiting. Will make sure any future edits and updates consider these, and secondary sources for those bearing significance. Thank you for your help.

Bobdeuce (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

A particularly bold claim, like being "breakthrough" would require particularly strong sources. The company website should only be used for things like revenue, number of offices, corporate structure and sometimes to summarize current products offered, but this requires a complete re-write from the website. Some very large companies have books about them written by independent historians, which are the best available sources. However, for a smaller company like this, you're probably looking at media sources. The sources that are acceptable should generally be bylined by a journalist, published in a reputable media publication, and include more information than just a brief mention; Care should be taken to avoid press release reposts, contributed articles from the company, quoted commentary from the company and to use interviews only with caution, as much of their content is coming from the company, rather than independent sources.

Hope this helps. Cheers! CorporateM (Talk) 20:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

3O request removed

I've removed your listing at WP:3O as there hasn't been any discussion to this point (at the link you provided in any case). 3O is used for listing debates between two parties so that a neutral third party can weigh in. You are welcome to repost your request if it becomes a discussion between two parties or with a link to an existing debate. Happy editing! DonIago (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@DonIago I guess I thought it was like RFC, where you might start a fresh string posing the question. If you click Edit on the string above that one and do a CNTRL F find for MERIP, you'll see all the discussion that has taken place about it, mixed in with discussions about other sources. Most of the other sources are pretty clear cases. AP is reliable, CorpWatch is not. Student-written op-eds are not. This one remains contested. CorporateM (Talk) 16:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. FWIW 3O posts should also be made with 5 tildes rather than the usual four so that your username isn't included, as a way of "neutralizing" the post (yeah, anyone who wants to can still look it up, but it's the spirit of the matter). Anyway, no 3O requests should link to the discussion without starting a new thread for it. I'm not sure whether yours will be accepted given that there was another editor involved, but it looked to me like they haven't contributed in over a month. Best of luck anyhow! DonIago (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@DonIago Ugh, yah, he said he was going to be traveling for "a few months". Any suggestions? I don't want it to seem like I'm taking advantage of his/her absence and since I have a conflict of interest, nobody is going to answer a Request Edit while the contesting party is unavailable to comment. However, there are some legitimate NPOV-type issues they have raised with strong sourcing that I would like to fix and having an NPOV tag on an article I brought up to GA is no fun. CorporateM (Talk) 16:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It may be that someone checking 3O will take your request in any case, so I wouldn't worry about it too much yet. That said, the prior discussion appears rather lengthy and involved. You may need to look into opening a case at the dispute resolution noticeboard if the 3O request is shut down again. I don't think anyone would expect a dispute to simply be tabled indefinitely because one of the disputants is unavailable; personally I'd think the best approach there would be to revert to the last stable version of the article until they're available to weigh in, but that's just my two cents.

Anyway, I wouldn't worry about it at this point. If someone takes the 3O request it may be a non-issue. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

talk page visitor Doniago's sentence "Anyway, no 3O requests should link to the discussion without starting a new thread for it" confused me for a moment, as I thought he was saying that no 3O request should do that. Of course, 3O requests should refer to the section in which the issue was substantively discussed. I'm sure that's what Doniago meant. You may want to refactor the page to clarify. I don't feel able to tackle your request myself, but I don't see that there could be any objection to your addressing those "legitimate NPOV-type issues they have raised" if you want to. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Doniagouser:StfgWell, I started working on those "legitimate NPOV issues" here and found myself changing my mind after looking more closely at the sources. For example, one thing Exit wanted to add was that the inspector general found in 2008 that the RTI program in Iraq did not have adequate measures to evaluate success. This is reported in the AP, a clearly appropriate source. However, it turns out just one year later the inspector general said it was measurable at that point and had in fact benefited Iraqis. So it becomes a "are we going to cover every blow by blow here or what?" OTOH, Dr. Savage actually gives RTI credit for establishing local government in Iraq in a major way. This section is just a summary of RTI's most notable work and not the place for a detailed narrative and political analysis. I'm going to keep taking a closer look CorporateM (Talk) 17:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that sentence was poorly-phrased on my part. Apologies for the confusion. DonIago (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Studio One edits 2015

Hi, I see that after I added all secondary sources yesterday, many of them were still removed. Can you please explain? Especially the paragraph starting "In 2007..." I used secondary industry-respected publications. AEF (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Marcia

Hi AEF. I've been meaning to send you an explanation. Sorry I haven't! Most of the sources I removed were primary sources. As mentioned previously, secondary sources are independent not just of the organization, but of the events it's reporting on. So for example, you can't cite a trade association website to cover a partnership or membership with that trade association. This article, which you said was a "secondary industry-respected publication" says that article was from PRWeb, a press release distribution service, and from glancing at the content it's pretty obvious it's a press release or slightly modified from one. CorporateM (Talk) 15:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I will continue to search for more sources - this company definitely deserves to have a presence. AEF (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Marcia

@user:AEF I wonder if there are any substantial profile stories on the firm that are already used in the article and may not be completely mined for useful content. CorporateM (Talk) 23:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Blackstone Audiobooks article edits

Hi, I had requested some corrections and updates to my company's article, which were declined. I understand why the narrator list was removed, but I am unclear as to why noting that we have won awards in not acceptable. I read the link that you directed me to, which says "The significance of an award can be justified if the award is notable enough for its own Wikipedia article or if secondary sources (independent from both the organization and the award-organizers) cover that the organization was honored with it." Both of the awards mentioned have their own articles. We have won many Audie Awards; is it mentioning Grammy nominations which is an issue? Also, is there a reason we can't have links to other relevant articles? Thanks for your help! HappyListener (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@HappyListener Upon closer investigation, you are correct. I have implemented the awards. The Audie Awards do appear to be significant and have their own article. Also, this is a perfectly acceptable, secondary source. Thank you for pointing it out to me. We get so many trivial awards added by COIs, I did not pay close enough attention to this was an exception. CorporateM (Talk) 22:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! HappyListener (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

One Horizon Group

You seem to believe that the wiki page for www.onehorizongroup.com is subject to deletion.

You are clearly mistaken. This is a NASDAQ Capital Markets listed company, ticker symbol OHGI.

If you are having difficulty understanding the company's business and product then please revert or go to our home page, SEC filings and/or NASDAQ.com. You can also review our US patent application in the USPTO reference 13/642094.

I expect our company's entry in Wikipedia will no longer be considered for deletion.

- One Horizon Group, Inc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onehorizongroupinc (talk • contribs) 11:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Onehorizongroupinc I edit a large number of articles, so I don't necessarily remember this one. But looking at the AfD discussion, it appears it's more focused on promotion and copyright infringement as rationale for deletion than it is about whether they company is notable. If you want to save the article, you would need to delete anything that is copy/pasted from another source, remove all the trademark symbols, remove any primary sources published by the company and make sure all that remains is utterly neutral information cited to credible, independent sources. If they are indeed notable and you did that, you could probably turn the tide of the discussion. CorporateM (Talk) 20:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Dany Bahar - sentence tweak

Hi CorporateM, sorry if this is unnecessary to run past you but I left another short message on the Dany Bahar talk page as I realised the paragraph we agreed doesn't make it clear that DRB-Hicom had recently acquired Proton. I've made a slight tweak to the first sentence and added another source (Bloomberg). If you could take a quick look that'd be great, again sorry if this is mundane enough for a COI editor – not sure it is so would rather run it by you. I'll add an image and infobox next. Thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I looked through the edit-history, but all I saw was wikification, which is an acceptable non-controversial COI edit. Can you provide a diff of the edit you'd like me to look at and an explanation on why the acquisition is relevant to his profile? CorporateM (Talk) 20:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I edited the talk page - the paragraph in italics we'd been working on (for the second paragraph in the Lotus subsection) - in the article it just mentions "DRB" out of the blue in the second sentence (one of the two parties he filed against, Lotus being the other) but there's no explanation that they were the new owners and the ones who launched the investigation. So I'm suggesting a change to the first sentence from "Following an internal investigation, amid allegations that he was misusing company funds for extravagant expenses, Bahar was dismissed from his role as CEO in June 2012" to "In June 2012, six months after Proton was acquired by Malaysian firm DRB-Hicom, an internal investigation by the new owners led to Bahar’s dismissal from his role as CEO amid allegations that he was misusing company funds for extravagant expenses." I added a Bloomberg source so it's ready to go if you're happy with it. HOgilvy (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Medical Issues

Hi! I have been having some medical issues which only allow me to be at the keyboard for 20-30 minutes at a time, but I want you to know that I still believe in what you are doing and will do anything I can to help and to show other COI editors that if they follow the advice at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide they will get help from the Wikipedia community.

I can still proofread, check for neutrality, check references, etc. while stuck in bed or in a doctors waiting room (I print out a copy of the Wikipedia page and any pages cited and mark them up).

I Just wanted you to know my status. The doctors predict that I will recover fully. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem @Guy Macon. Hope you get better soon! CorporateM (Talk) 15:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see

The talk page at The Promenade Shops at Saucon Valley which is, surprisingly, a lifestyle center. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Inform

Hello, CorporateM. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#Seminars_in_cutaneous_medicine_and_surgery.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Silverseren^C 05:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Columbus Museum of Art updates

CorporateM Thank you for your response to my request for edits on the Columbus Museum of Art page. I'm not terribly familiar with Wiki etiquette, so thank you in advance for your patience.

This particular line: The Museum also features an outdoor sculpture gallery, a cafe, and "Eye Spy: Adventures in Art", an interactive exhibit tailored towards educating children. Eye Spy: Adventures in Art closed in 2009. I would suggest: The Museum's 18,000 square foot Center for Creativity includes the Wonder Room, an interactive space that mixes art, play, and open-ended activities. The Center for Creativity is also home to the Big Idea Gallery and Innovation Lab.

Under Expansion, I would remove most of what is there as it is several years old. The most up-to-date description of the project is below. I'm not certain what to provide for source material. As a member of the Museum's communications department, I am responsible for providing this information to the public. The link below will take you to the Museum's newsroom where you will also find these materials.

http://www.columbusmuseum.org/art-matters/newsroom/ http://www.pitchengine.com/pitches/62fc61a4-f20a-44b5-a63b-4bef4a5bb426 http://www.pitchengine.com/pitches/ca557877-1821-4063-a5fc-d53de7da6f39

Here is the text I would suggest: The Museum will open it's new 50,000 square foot wing to the public on October 25. The event will mark the completion of the third and final phase of the Museum’s Art Matters campaign.

The $37.6 million project encompasses major renovations to the Ross Wing and lobby area the Museum added in 1974 and the construction of a new wing. These changes will result in a unique meeting and special event complex, as well as new Gallery spaces to showcase the Museum’s permanent collection and expanded space for high-profile traveling exhibitions.

The first phase of the capital portion of CMA’s Art Matters endowment and capital campaign was the renovation and repurposing of Beaton Hall. The building now houses 85 percent of the Museum staff, thereby expanding public space in the Museum. The project was completed in September, 2009.

The second phase was the renovation of the Museum’s historic Broad Street building, now named the Elizabeth M. and Richard M. Ross Building, which was unveiled to the public January 1, 2011. The project included: transforming Derby Court by raising the floor to improve accessibility, installing a luminous skylight, and improving acoustics; reimagining the entire first floor as a Center for Creativity; renovating, installing new seating, and improving acoustics in the auditorium; and performing upgrades to make the building more accessible for all visitors.

In June, 2012, the Columbus Museum of Art, in partnership with the City of Columbus and Columbus Recreation and Parks, opened its new West Garden. The garden is a gateway entry experience to the Museum and includes an ADA accessible walkway from the street to the entrance. The garden will provide a safe drop-off point for school and group tours and will be the sole ADA accessible entrance to the Museum during the renovation of the Museum’s 1970s addition and construction of its new wing. The garden is free and accessible to the general public during regular Museum hours.

Again, thank you for your patience as I familiarize myself with this process> 70.61.245.34 (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC) Nancy

This post is way too long to read Nancy, especially for an editor like myself that doesn't have a huge interest in the page (I don't remember specifically what my contributions were to this page in the past). It would be helpful if you started with one specific item. CorporateM (Talk) 18:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	You know what? You deserve this. Not many people can do what you do without causing massive drama. What you do is precisely in line with what I advise every article subject or representative who I encounter on Wikipedia, or in my past life as an email response volunteer. You play a straight bat, and I applaud you for it. Guy (Help!) 16:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much! @JzG: It's certainly a lot harder to do things the right way, so I appreciate every ounce of Wiki-love I get for doing so. I'm happy to see that I apparently have a "very good reputation" and am worth emulating, if you listen to anything @Cullen328: has to say on the matter.

I didn't know that I didn't start drama around here; I thought drama was required to get anything done isn't it? Har har. Actually even though doing Wikipedia ethically is not super profitable, it's given me a lot more confidence in starting and running my own business and I'm starting to look at doing other ventures. Right now I'm working on a deck-building company. CorporateM (Talk) 18:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Harrison Ford used to build decks, then went on to gain notability in other ways. You deserve the barnstar. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I am lazy <g>

Might you add the actual refs to the depuffed version on the HB talk page ? If it then gets a little more consensus, I could cut and paste. Or I might make more mods as needed to gain consensus. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Collect:  Done CorporateM (Talk) 19:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Coming in from the cold

@CorporateM: I appreciate all the good advice you have given me. I am grateful that more than just a few people take the "assume good intent" part of Wikipedia seriously. I meant well as I have been making sure that I use good third party citations and use my real name in all of my edits. So, I want to come into the sort of compliance that will ultimately benefit the community. Anyway, I wanted to thank you for the time and attention that you have given to me over the last 72-hours Chrisabraham (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Elgato

The article Elgato you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Elgato for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

New topic

Greetings CorporateM, On Feb. 12th you asked me to move my draft contribution for the Wiki page: National Report, to my NigelCovington85, sandbox. I believe I followed your Wiki code instructions correctly and have moved the draft as directed. I took last week off and returned today and found no activity since the move. I believe I entered something incorrectly because I see no reply. My Wiki skills and knowledge is nil, this is my first effort. So a little history I am the paid editor-in-chief for the National Report and I have declared my COI. The company first became aware that we had a Wiki page in late December 2014. However much of the content (some of which has been removed) was inaccurate. Sources cited at that time referenced several interviews that were conducted by a former employee we had to let go last month. The individual claimed or presented himself as a spokesperson for the company and during those interviews made erroneous statements about his position by creating phony job titles for management positions the NR has never had. Unfortunately he released misinformation to the public through these arraigned interviews which appears to have been used as sources for the company's Wiki page. After looking at the Wiki page for the first time in December the company asked me to pursue these issues and present a history of the company that reflects it accurately. We also wanted to include information about our writer's contributions. We are a satire site not a "fake news site." Our business relations are professional though we openly admit we produce humorous, or not humorous "bullshit." During the 12 months of 2014 the site tested fake news stories contributed mostly by one writer. Fake news as a genre was dumped in Jan. 2015. My purpose here is to provide accurate information that reflects the vision of the co-creators, which I am one of two. The purpose and mission of the company was to create an entertainment website for satire lovers. The only other thing we'd like to do is add a mention of all writers and credit them for some of their work. After that hopefully I'll never have to see Wikipedia again from the perspective of its internal behind the scenes workings. Honestly this is way out of my league and I'll be happier when I can go back to writing for publication again. I very much appreciated all the effort of those who've helped me get this far in the process over the past five weeks. Thank you all. Nigel CovingtonNigelCovington85 (talk) 05:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@NigelCovington85: I started fixing the wiki-code in your sandbox to show what I mean. The current article is correctly formatted, but the proposed draft is difficult to even review as just a big blob of text. Unfortunately the way Wikipedia is you really have to learn Wiki-code to make any kind of decent contribution. An alternative way would be to point out errors individually, providing credible, third-party, secondary sources for each correction; this way you would not have to learn wiki-code to produce an annotated draft and I can merely implement your corrections if they comply with our policies. CorporateM (Talk) 15:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Uber

Hi there CorporateM, I saw your edits to Uber and response to the Request for Comment I began there and wanted to introduce myself. In case you didn't see, I have disclosed on Uber's talk page that I work for the company and am making suggestions and getting involved here as Uber's official representative. It seems like you've shown an interest in the article and your edits were constructive. Also I notice you've helped others who have a COI. Both of these things lead me to wonder if you'd be able to help more on the Uber article, which definitely needs some attention. Since from your user page I understand that you do sometimes work for clients on Wikipedia, I have one specific request if you are going to edit the article further or get involved in discussions of the article: that you clearly state that you are not working on behalf of Uber and do not have a COI with the company. Basically, I don't want anyone's wires to get crossed and for them to think that there's anything underhanded going on. Thanks so much! Craig at Uber (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Craig at Uber: I started trimming the article working from the top-down with the expectation of getting to the controversies after the RFC closed. I do have an interest in Uber, but I didn't actually notice there was a COI editor involved. Your username is in the same format that a very specific Wikipedia consultant advocates for, so I think the best thing may be for me to bow out. I spend a lot of time helping article-subjects and PR reps, but try to avoid situations where another paid consultant is involved, except for with purely administrative issues. CorporateM (Talk) 22:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough! I'm glad you were able to help out with editing so far and comment in the RfC. Thanks also for adding the connected contributor template for me. Craig at Uber (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Elgato

The article Elgato you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Elgato for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Infront Sports & Media

Dear CorporateM - I wondered if you could help me to update this page again due to my COI? I did put up an Edit Request on the talk page but as yet have not had any response. The Notable Work section could do with updating in respect to the information about the subsidiary HBS and innovations in technology re major sports event broadcasting. I have inserted all info to the talk page and provided references as links. Thank you in advance if you do feel this is a worthwhile update. HablasESport!121 (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for help on Infront Sports & Media

Dear CorporateM - thank you very much for your assistance with the Infront Sports & Media page. I've managed to dig up some new references that highlight the broadcast innovations achieved by the subsidiary in question and wondered if you might offer further assistance. I feel the page requires an update not purely due to the industry recognition via the new award but also due to the previous awards mention in 2010 for the last event - which highlights technology that has since moved on. I feel this is relevant to the Notable Work section of the article - its obviously a question of how best to implement it. I very much appreciate your guidance due to my COI. Thanks again. I will provide the new references on the articles Talk Page. I hope that is acceptable. HablasESport!121 (talk) 10:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

fyi, NPOV discussion

[1].

Non-free rationale for File:CrashPlan screenshot.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:CrashPlan screenshot.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Bombardier Innovia APM

Thank you for your edits on Bombardier Innovia APM. Cheers. JBH (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: Thanks! It's always a pain spending time cleaning up an article, only to discover that it needs to be deleted, but I can't figure out whether a page warrants deletion or not until I start digging into it anyway. Were you going to take it to AfD or should I do the honors? CorporateM (Talk) 03:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I have CSDd the article twice (1 delete 1 decline) so it might be more appropriate for you to AfD it. Thank you for all of the work. JBH (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Your Sagework court case reverts

Please explain why you demand a secondary sources on a court case filed against Sageworks. What is more definitive than the filing itself?

Incidentally, the mention of the law suit comes from a secondary source, www.rfcexpress.com. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 09:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Harald Forkbeard: I have requested article-protection for now at the edit-warring board, but I will offer an explanation of our sourcing requirements shortly (it's 5 am here). However WP:RS also has guidance available, it's just not very concise. CorporateM (Talk) 09:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that a court case must not be mentioned unless it is endorsed by a layman historian? If so, this is the most nonsensical policy imaginable and calls for a thorough explanation. It simply makes no sense. If there is a law suit, that fact exists, and should be indicated in the article.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 10:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

We use sources not just to verify facts, but to verify their significance and the neutral manner of portraying them. For example, as far as I know this lawsuit could have been legal harassment and completely baseless, or in a few years it could result in one of the biggest scandals in US history. We require secondary sources to interpret the lawsuit, tell us how to cover it neutrally and verify it is significant enough to warrant inclusion.

Here for example I removed a bunch of information that is probably correct, but also not really of any interest to a historical reference work. Culling through primary sources is original research, which is great if you're a historian or journalist (a secondary source), but Wikipedia is a tertiary source that just repeats what those secondary sources say. We don't dig into court records ourselves. CorporateM (Talk) 10:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

(EC, rats, 3rrnb opened? while i was composing) Hey, Harald Forkbeard and CorporateM both of you know better. I personally appreciate HF having been involved constructively in the Sageworks article, while it was beset by COI and other problems, and I appreciate CM very much from our interactions on PR firm articles. Would you please discuss the issues at Talk:Sageworks#Lawsuits and sources? I am not an admin, but if you would allow me, I'd say "freeze" on the current version of the article (the wp:wrong version ??, which happens to have the passage included) and have a "de novo" new discussion and allow other editors to weigh in. Otherwise it can be named edit-warring and you both can be blocked; I'm trying to help in my probably imperfect way. I'd really rather have knowledge developed among editors at the article, about Sageworks and about proper Wikipedia coverage, which is needed...there are gaps in my and other editors' knowledge there. The article has other real problems, including legacy language from the COI editor(s) that should be changed, and what to do about security issues repeatedly suggested. And, please, if you would humor me, I'd appreciate if you could both register about any connection or not to Sageworks or competitors, at Talk:Sageworks#Association(s)?. sincerely, --doncram 10:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Doncram: I already reported both of us to the edit-warring board and requested protection. I have nothing to disclose - never heard of them before. I am surprised you believe there is something to debate here about mining court documents for content. But if so, I'll play along. CorporateM (Talk) 11:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! And my link for you to post about associations was wrong, so could you please state that at the bolded "Association(s)" point within Talk#Sageworks#editors associated with the subject? ? sincerely, --doncram 11:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice of amended RFC

There is an RfC related to paid editing on which you commented or !voted, which was just amended. See Wikipedia_talk:Harassment#RfC:_Links_related_to_paid_editing Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done I've commented there. CorporateM (Talk) 22:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

You win!

I'll avoid you and all of your shitty corporate spam as long as I can. Please avoid taking clients in topic spaces where I am already active. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This is the exact sort of thing that encourages undisclosed paid editors to use sockpuppets and other means of avoiding detection. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bob Muglia has been accepted

Bob Muglia, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

APerson (talk!) 19:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@APerson: That has to be the shortest time I've ever seen an article wait for a review at AfC! Question: Do you think the article is large enough for a GAN or too small? CorporateM (Talk) 19:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Although I have woefully little experience in that area at the moment, I feel like the article is a little too short for a GAN at the moment. The example of a good article from WikiProject Articles for Creation's article grading page is Jay Barbree, which has around 1400 words. However, I definitely think there's room to expand the article, especially with respect to his role at companies other than Microsoft. APerson (talk!) 19:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

In response to your first observation, I once declined a draft in 4 minutes not too long ago. APerson (talk!) 19:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) At 4.7K, I don't think it's too short. There is no length requirement for GA. Ask yourself if that is all there is to write about that person. Once someone asked me about Ladislaus III of Hungary, a GA at 2.1K, and contains really all there is to write about that person. An interesting list is User:The ed17/Good articles by prose size, which proves there are very small GA articles out there. Prhartcom (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I might just nominate and see what happens. Even in cases where my GA reviews have been rejected as not "comprehensive" due to the lack of source material, I've still gotten good feedback in the process.

@Prhartcom: Wasn't sure if I should go ahead and restore that Kotaku source or if it was already on your radar. CorporateM (Talk) 00:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Would you please, thank-you. Prhartcom (talk) 06:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Stop

Stop pinging me. I am attempting to ignore you. Will you stop? Hipocrite (talk) 03:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure. I was trying to be polite by notifying you when/where you are mentioned. CorporateM (Talk) 03:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Do not notify me of anything, ever. I waive all notification rights with respect to you. Do not contact me, ever. Hipocrite (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 03:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Spidey-senses tingling

This individual appears to have an undisclosed COI regarding Sunil Kumar Verma, Lalji Singh, and Vijender Kumar. 1250 edits, and maybe a grand total of 50 not related to any of them. Kumar is a legal expert, whereas the other two are molecular biologists. Thoughts? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492:I'm not sure if I'm missing something, because I don't see any reason to suspect a COI. 3 articles does not make one an SPA. Two of the articles are GA and look quite good, with exception to the fact that they both have dedicated Awards sections that rely heavily on primary sources. I would consider that WP:ORGAWARDS should apply to BLPs as well. The third article I have sent to AfD on notability grounds. Unless I'm missing something, I think you are the one that owes the other ed an apology.

It is always difficult to know just how paranoid we should be, but I think this is on the other side of that delicate line. CorporateM (Talk) 15:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. It's always nice to have a second opinion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Involuntary celibacy

Thanks for looking through the sources, The last time when I DRVed this subject, an absurd amount of inherent canvassing rushed in if you view the DRV nearly every editor who "voted" delete in prior debates came and votestacked discussion and simply refused to accept reliable sources. I've learn my lesson, and requested assistance. Given the contentious nature of this subject, I could not go alone. What else can I do, is this RfC being viewed as an AfD or will it just drag on indefinitely? It naturally makes me uncomfortable when a small group of vocal opponents can disregard sources and delete notable subjects (I assume because having something restored questions their deletion judgment). It is this type of mentality that makes me want to retire. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Valoem: In all such discussions like that one, there is far too much discussion about people, process and personal opinion, and not enough about sources. Regarding @Hafspajen:'s argument, while I don't see a problem with us having lots of articles about different concepts around a lack of sex if each concept has enough reliable sources, it would make sense to work on an article like sexual frustration first, before trickling down into pages like this one. CorporateM (Talk) 02:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Would you mind giving my comments (1, 2) on the AFD/RFC fiasco a look? I believe my analysis is accurate, but my perspective is limited. Reply here if you so choose. I don't understand the vehemence of some participants about what seems to me to be a relatively simple disagreement. BusterD (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the eyes. I'm still a bit amazed that such a minor subject can elicit so much animosity. I see the two DRVs much the same way Valoem has assessed above. I've asked an admin I trust to help me better understand what is not obvious. BusterD (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@BusterD: I think the problem is with Wikipedia's decision-making process. No decision is ever "final", so whoever is on the losing side is likely to appeal, over and over. Eventually people get angry and frustrated, it becomes a behavioral issue and only then do admins and arbcom have authority to act, resulting in blocks and bans of editors that could have been productive members of the community and only after the incident has demoralized the community. What's needed is a way to obtain binding content decisions with no opportunity to appeal, ending disputes once and for all. CorporateM (Talk) 02:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with you at all, dude, though you know I still love ya. Since "consensus can change", making binding decisions may be a poor strategy. Frustration is nothing compared to a failure to accurately measure consensus as it exists. Let's say that in the present day, company A had very little market impact and only one patent. Virtually no coverage, so no article. Let's say that patent turns out to be self slicing bread, and while nobody had faith in it at the time, 50 years goes by, and you can't even buy a loaf of bread at the store that doesn't slice itself. Breadknives only warrant a short section in the Knives article. But the name of company A, which failed and never made money, has become a very famous trademark. It's clear that an article on such a subject should exist. No, I think a higher tolerance for frustration is what is necessary. One of my mentors is an admin now retired from the pedia. Once I opined to him how frustrated i was about a subject I knew to be non-notable and a coatrack for another BLP. In just a few minutes He'd put that page, an article which had survived previous seven AFDs, up for its eighth. And then he proceeded to demonstrate exactly how to handle such a situation. I was flabbergasted. Through the use of good faith, strong policy knowledge and a collegial attitude, he was able to get that cesspit put into the dampdark where it belonged, and nobody has thought to restore it since. It's not the number of discussions or the amount of frustration it took to complete them. Instead, I believe what we do is to maintain a (sometimes adversarial) process which does a pretty fair job of doing the right thing over and over. Even if I disagree with the outcome, I believe in the process. That's probably why I still work here. Certainly not because I'm accomplishing so much or getting such acclaim... Keep on keeping on, little brother. You make me proud to know you. BusterD (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@BusterD: I know what you mean. I recently got an article on Angela Beesley Starling deleted on something like the 18th attempt. The article-subject previously requested deletion, but at the time BLPREQUESTDELETE didn't exist. However, by "binding" and "final" decision, I really just meant for three or six months - however long it takes for folks to cool off and move on. Just enough to remove the opportunity of immediate appeal and give all editors the satisfaction of getting an opportunity to make their case to the court and having a decision passed down. It could for example be an opt-in process where two editors in a conflict can agree to a binding 3PO. CorporateM (Talk) 02:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Valoem did actually wait three months on a "no consensus" DRV. I can understand frustration, but the disagreement hasn't been settled sufficiently yet, because several editors in good standing (including an admin/arb) disagree with the status quo. The more I consider it, the more I think Coffee might have done Valoem a favor. We're in a fresh AFD, and there's a poverty of arguments for deletion so far. The page seems to meet NOTE to me... BusterD (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@BusterD: Is there a fresh AfD discussion? Can you point me to it? I didn't mean that the OP did anything wrong. On the contrary, by having additional checks and balances to supplement mob rule, a decision may have gone his way in the first place. CorporateM (Talk) 03:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It's the same discussion you joined and sourced. User:Coffee made it an AFD March 15, and relisted it yesterday. There it sits in the regular queue. As an AFD, it looks like no consensus now, and in a fresh AFD, no consensus defaults to keep. Of course, the votestackers (to use Valoem's terminology) could arrive... BusterD (talk) 03:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@BusterD: I didn't look into the vote-stacking accusations, but in my experience such canvassing accusations are almost always baseless. They generally originate from someone that is unhappy the discussion isn't going their way and doesn't understand what reason there could be for others not to see things from their point-of-view. That being said, actual canvassing is one of the reasons mob rule alone is not enough. CorporateM (Talk) 04:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW, your talk page has always been on my watchlist since our previous association, so no need to ping me unless some special need arises. I frequently read your talk. We may make progress yet; both Tarc and Hafspajen have made gestures of reasonableness. Amazing what a good faith effort might do. For my part, I don't have any dogs in this hunt. I thought I saw an injustice (so to speak) and thought I'd think about it myself. It was only after I'd decided to involve myself that I noticed you'd been helping Valoem's case. BusterD (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Your Continued Edit Warring on Sageworks page

I noticed you have resumed editing on Sageworks page without first reaching consensus on the Talk page. You are essentially continuing edit warring by pushing a pro-Sageworks angle in this article. Please desist and return to the Talk page to develop a consesus.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a common tactic used - often un-intentionally - by editors with a strong opinion about a subject. They will protest any edit that differs from their viewpoint and insist consensus must be established before edits can be made. Then they will continually insist that not enough consensus has been established, effectively road-blocking others from making changes to their preferred version.

This is simply not how it works; editors can make any edit at any time that is directly supported by credible, independent sources and discussion ensues after edits are made if an editor objects to them, not before. CorporateM (Talk) 18:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

You used the research paper reference that I provided first, then put a pro-Sageworks spin on it. You are engaged in an edit war with me, and should return to the Talk page so we can develop a consensus before making controversial edits.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Harald Forkbeard: I didn't put a pro-Sageworks spin on it, the source has a pro-Sageworks viewpoint and the information I added was mundane, basics. In any case, if you'd like to request page protection, the right place is here. You have to submit a request for an administrator. CorporateM (Talk) 20:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

A favor

CorporateM, could I ask a favor and get a second opinion from you, when you have a spare half-hour or so? Could you please read an article I wrote that a reviewer is saying has to be deleted and merged into another article. He says because I don't have a Critical response section and a Cultural impact section it isn't notable. My response is that there is a critical response, just not a section, I weaved the critic's responses into the article. And he's right, there isn't a discussion of cultural impact because (drum roll) all the cultural impact has taken place in unreliable sources (cymbal crash). No obligation, you don't have to do this, you don't have to get involved, but I am curious what your opinion is. If you want to take a look, it is here: Carreidas 160. If you want to see more, see the GA1 review page. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@@Prhartcom: I have probably created more GA company pages than anyone else on Wikipedia, but have zero experience in articles on fictional topics like characters and so on. I'll take a look, but I'll ping @Tenebrae: under the hopes they may have more expert input. CorporateM (Talk) 22:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I made a mistake asking you for anything. Please forget it. Prhartcom (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Even so, you really shouldn't revert others Talk page edits, with few exceptions for legal threats and personal attacks against a BLP. CorporateM (Talk) 04:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Infront Sports & Media Page

Dear Corporate M, many thanks for your previous revision of the page. I've since provided further references that I feel you will agree are more neutral and better citations in support of the update I am recommending to the Notable Work section of the article. The previous 'award' was in 2010 for innovations that were relevant at that time but have since been overhauled by Infront and subsidiary HBS and as a result of these technological advancements (and new industry recognition / awards for their work), I felt the update would be beneficial to the informative nature of the article. Perhaps you wouldn't mind letting me know your thoughts /helping me to update the page?

I've not put out another 'edit request' thought I'd come to you first due to my COI and you being a specialist in this area. The citations are on the Articles Talk Page with my update recommendation. Many thanks for any assistance you can offer. HablasESport!121 (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand. Where is the updated request? All I see is basically the same proposal, with trademark and copyright symbols. Doing a quick CTNRL F to look for Infront in the sources, none of the sources appear to even mention them. CorporateM (Talk) 16:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi CorporateM, Thanks for your help. Sorry if I wasn't clear. It is the Infront subsidiary Host Broadcast Services (HBS) that is responsible for the media production arm and relevant technological innovations in broadcasting. It is HBS that is referenced in the new articles. HablasESport!121 (talk) 09:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It looked like the sources were about the event, rather than the company, and mentioned the award in passing. Nothing that suggests they are significant. I know it is probably your legal team or branding pushing for it (or something), but it is really embarrassing to ask us to put trademarks and copyright symbols into the article. CorporateM (Talk) 15:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi CorporateM, thanks for updating the citations in the article. I'm rather confused as I've not asked for trademarks or copyright symbols to be inserted into the article. I was keen to have the article updated in terms of broadcast innovations in the Notable Work section, as the previous mention is not in line with the current day achievements and I felt it was therefore slightly outdated. The fact the company is literally leading the broadcast industry through the work employed for the broadcast of the largest sports event worldwide is quite considerable - not for advertising purposes but for technological broadcast innovation. Anyway, with the new citations included - although the article is not exactly communicating those innovations, the citations do. I feel this is a good compromise. So, many thanks once again for your support. I will try to find the additional citations you have requested for the History section of the article. In the meantime, if you have any further advice for improving it further, I'm always grateful :-)

HablasESport!121 (talk) 12:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Patents on bios

Heyo, you seem to be knowledgeable about this, so I thought I would just ask you directly. Is including information on a BLP about patents earned discouraged by guidelines? It just seems like a worthwhile thing to mention to me, but it's certainly not my area of wiki-expertise. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know. Cheers, HiDrNick! 23:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@HiDrNick: Only if there are secondary sources. We cannot ourselves judge their significance. If they are significant, a secondary source will cover it. I have a COI affiliation with Qualcomm, which is a patents-based business, and so I have learned through my research there how complex patents can be. Many are fraudulent, contested, etc. We are not patent experts and cannot interpret primary sources. CorporateM (Talk) 23:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It is a frequent COI edit on tech exec bios. CorporateM (Talk) 23:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cover page of McKinsey Quarterly.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cover page of McKinsey Quarterly.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

new essay

The ArbCom case against me is vexatious indeed - I shall not contend against those who taste blood. The main complaint even includes my essays - so I wrote one which I hope you will appreciate WP:Wikipedia and shipwrights. It would be fun to see how others react, indeed. Warm regards, Collect (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Collect: I don't know anything about the ArbCom case you mentioned, but regarding the essay, it does come across as not serving any particular use. It reads almost like a poem about Wikipedia and therefore may be using Wikipedia as a web-host. CorporateM (Talk) 19:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

http://www.chinapage.org/story/gourd.html Rhoark (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Naveen Jain

thanks for your help with this page which has been in the control of RonZ for the last 10 years. I think legal dispute section is still the biggest section even though it's 10 years old and should really be on the corporate page. I have made suggestion in the talk page for your review. The current version is full of Point of view and not supported by facts such as Mr. Jain acting with the intent and with inside information. Every public company has corporate class action lawsuit and I have never seen this information on personal bio page and generally belongs in corporate page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-expert-edit (talk • contribs) 14:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The page is on my watchlist, so there is no need to ping me here; I will respond there.

The problem with POV pushers is that pushing, begets more pushing. You push one direction and it only leads other editors to push harder against you; next thing you know, it's an all-out-war. CorporateM (Talk) 14:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Naveen Jain talk page section headings

Let's discuss.

If you would like to rearrange the comments to pull the content discussions out of the other discussion, I'm fine with it. I did what I judged to be the simplest way to provide a proper section heading for the jumble of comments per WP:TALK. (more to follow) --Ronz (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The section currently contains:

1. Unsubstantiated accusations against me. As with the numerous past attacks of similar nature, I expect nothing will come of them, other than we'll continue to have to take actions against the coi editors. It is extremely troublesome to see that the coi-editors have once again canvassed others to take up their positions.
2. The request to review the article is certainly a good suggestion, and in line with WP:TALK and WP:DR.
3. You asked about Wiki-expert-edit (talk · contribs), so I gave the briefest summary of the coi evidence to alleviate your concerns that he might be associated with the paid editing organization. Unless his editing and comments change dramatically, a COIN report should be filed, but I see no need to rush it.
4. You mention that the article is bare-bones. I agree. There's been some discussion on this in the past, and I hope progress can be made this time around. The topic should be discussed, and I'll participate if you start it first, but I think we'll be focusing on Wiki-expert-edit's requests in the short term now that he's returned.
5. We started some discussion on the inclusion of board memberships, making some progress from past discussions on this topic. I would like to continue this under a specific section heading for it.

So I decided to refactor the section heading to follow WP:TALK and focus on the comments about improving the article. --Ronz (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ronz:Even if somebody violates Talk page guidelines, I don't think it's appropriate to re-factor their comments (or section headers), except in rare cases of legal threats and major BLP issues. It creates the impression that you are trying to censor criticisms of your editing. Whether you are owning the page (I'm not saying that you are) appears to be a subject of legitimate discussion and a viewpoint held by more than one editor.

If you take a look here, you'll see a half-dozen section titles called "MORE Bad Edits by CorporateM" and "Shoddy Editing By CorporateM". The sock-master responsible for those sections was eventually arrested for online harassment and their account blocked for similar reasons. Editors are able to reach their own conclusions.

I chose just one of your bullets above to respond to. In general I think most people do not change their views when challenged, but rather become further entrenched in them. Rather than the two of us discussing it further, I would prefer to just wait and see what others have to say with the expectation that each of us will follow the natural flow of discussion and make edits that are representative of the total discussion, as oppose to whatever our personal stance happens to be. CorporateM (Talk) 20:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:TALK says otherwise. I think it best to follow it. Most importantly, I think it best to focus on improving articles. --Ronz (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your viewpoint, and greatly appreciate your contributions to the article and talk page. You're more practical than I, focusing on content and ignoring disruptions and drama. The best way to deescalate a situation is often to ignore it. However, I've seen too many cases where all that did was all a hostile editing environment to thrive before ArbCom was called upon. I think it important that we create an editing environment where editors can collaborate and new editors are welcome, and leave ArbCom to disputes that are not so clear cut. --Ronz (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ronz: That would be my advice - just ignore it and move on. We should provide some reasonable and polite response to the article-subject, but the main next-step I see being is building out the rest of the article ourselves. I'm speculating that the biggest thing missing is more information about his leadership of Infospace, Intelius and to a lesser extent, Moon Express. If the sources allow for it, ideally we would have an analysis of his leadership style, key decisions he made, etc. Would take a bit of research to find out. CorporateM (Talk) 21:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I've done extensive research, looking at every source ever used or proposed, and looking for sources for most of the claims and concerns brought up. I can summarize my impressions, though I think we could benefit from your coming at this fresh. --Ronz (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ronz: Haha, and here I was subtly implying that you should do it ;-)

BTW - everyone else on the page already knows that I do some paid editing myself, usually bringing any page where I have a COI up to "Good Article" status, as a way of encouraging close scrutiny. It's why I have a lot of experience dealing with article-subjects and why I mentioned how I try to avoid articles where paid editors are involved, but I spend a lot of time working with article-subjects and other COI situations that don't involve paid editing. The link I shared you was an exception, because I was already invested in the article before the paid accounts showed up. Of course I have no COI here, but thought you might be confused by my saying I need to bow out if it is a paid editor. CorporateM (Talk) 00:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to share in the humor. Sadly, the article is so bare-bones because anyone that doesn't add what the coi-editors want is harassed. --Ronz (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Very nice rewrite and assessment on the talk page. Well done and thank you. --Ronz (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Request edit: National Report

Hi, If you have a chance, would you mind looking at User talk:NigelCovington85/sandbox. There's a request to remove content about a contributor to the National Report, but it's properly sourced and [http://nationalreport.net/?s=Paul+Hor ner&x=0&y=0 he was a contributor]. It would be much appreciated!--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I just noticed on Talk:National Report that there used to be an article for Paul Horner that was nominated for deletion, but the decision was to merge it into National Report.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson:. From my point-of-view, a request edit reviewer should be focused on reviewing content for COI issues and not for general quality issues. Sometimes an editor with a COI puts together a very mediocre draft, but as long as it doesn't conflict with Wikipedia's objectives, it's just part of the incremental improvement process.

That being said, there are some minimum standards. In this case large swaths of the content appear to be original research. Many of the references are not in ref tags and when I did finally find the reference it was referring to, it was a broken link. I think the editor means well, but the draft is not an improvement and it is not the reviewer's burden to fix the submitter's work. CorporateM (Talk) 14:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! That's helpful information. It really helps to have your input! Is your point specific to the request to remove the content about a contributor... Paul Horner? Or, unacceptance of the entire draft?

There have also been some issues (fake news, approach for sections, etc.) that were stirred up with my changes, partly due to an oversight on my end. Anyway, there seems to be a lot of strong opinions one way or another regarding National Report.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for jumping in on this! If you want help with the Paul Horner article, let me know. In the meantime, I remember having run across an article that said he was a "former" lead writer for the NR and postd that to National Report.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: I've asked DGG here on if some consensus building process is appropriate; given that the prior discussion resulted in DELETE, I'm not sure it's proper to merely re-create it counter-consensus without discussion. CorporateM (Talk) 03:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. I wasn't sure if he met notability guidelines, but it sounded like you researched and learned more. Whatever works.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

This Huff Post article might be of interest

Those Guys Getting Picketed For Demolishing A Piñata Store Run A PR Firm.

This story is: A. Funny B. Tragic C. Stupid D. All of the above. E. Other ______.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@Smallbones: I didn't find it funny or entertaining or anything, but it is unsurprising. Wikipedia tends to attract those types of characters and they will rationalize the justification for their behavior one way or another. CorporateM (Talk) 14:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Help with merger proposal

Can u help with this this: it may not be your area of expertise, but could tell me which users need to be involved? Lbertolotti (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Labour economics

It seems to me that this guy deleted some important stuff from the labour economics article in the process of adding new material. I think we need to restore some old material without deleting the new content. Lbertolotti (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Lbertolotti: It looks to me like most of what they removed was unsourced. CorporateM (Talk) 14:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM Some of it was unsourced, but as far as economics goes, it's more prevalent in economics courses than labour theory of value. I was wondering if we can find an economist user in wikipedia to review this article.

The Cobra Group

I feel the need to inform you that your continuous edits to the page The Cobra Group have seemingly inadvertently removed totally the short description on the history of the company, including the fact it was founded in Sydney, Australia as well as the fact the group began as a subsidiary of the DS-Max group. The way the page is currently suggests it was founded in Hong Kong, which is not the case. Next time you edit the page, please research and restore the correct information in whatever way you see fit. Your edits weirdly appear to be inadvertently biased in favor of the company. I use to watch this page myself for a long time till late-2013, and returning to the page this year I was shocked to find that basic well-known information about the company has been totally removed systematically in turn ruining the integrity, flow and grammar of the article. Colliric (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I now see on the talk page that you were lobbied to make many changes to the page by an employee of the company. You need to do more research because this individual has presented you with laundry list of demands attempting to turn the bias of the article towards the company. Yes, much of what he put forward is correct however Basic information has been vandalized in the process such as that mentioned above. DS-Max supplied this organization with merchandise and operated in partnership with the Cobra group through a direct business relationship. The company was founded as a traditional MLM offshoot of DS-Max, with the latter company controlling the supply of product. As you can see on the talk page, the company itself has attempted to control the article through direct and vicious edits in the past, lobbying you in this matter appears to have allowed the successful vandalism of the article to some extent. Colliric (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey @Colliric: You need to calm down buddy. I edit a large number of articles, so I don't remember much about this particular page, but I see from the article-history that I primarily edited the page over one-day in October of last year and the edit-summaries are primarily about removing op-eds, junk sources and unsourced content. If you have a problem with the article, you should be more specific and cite credible, independent sources to support your point-of-view. CorporateM (Talk) 17:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement

• Hello CorporateM:

Please consider participating in this week's vote for TAFI's upcoming Week 17 collaboration. Last week's voting did not receive many participants. Thanks for your consideration. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)