Talk:Codentify
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
 | The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
Quick update needed edit
Hello all,
I was contacted by PMI's legal department who told me that the case mentioned in the very last sentence of the "Criticism" section ("The directors, managers and legal representatives of PMI and its Argentine subsidiary...") has been closed on 29 September 2017 and all parties involved cleared of any wrongdoing. The decision number is CFP 1776/2016, there hasn't been any coverage in the press but it is very public (unfortunately not available on the web, though worst-case scenario we can upload a copy of the decision somewhere), and final.
Would anyone object to adding a clarification along the lines of "On September 28, 2017, the Federal Criminal Court of Buenos Aires No. 2 issued a decision rejecting the accusation.[1]
Thanks, Pplc (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, added that clarification and the CoI template above. Feel free to ping me if anyone needs more details. Pplc (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
References
- ^
Cámara Criminal Correccional Federal No.2, "Costa Marcelo y otros s/ asociación ilícita y otro", 28 de septiembre de 2017
CFP 17766/16
Request for quotation edit
User:Pigsonthewing, in this diff you cited a court decision in Spanish. Would you please provide a translation of the quotation from that source, that shows that the content is verified? I have reverted, until you can provide that. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to teach you how to read an article history; and indeed its talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Suspicious referenceless edits edit
User:Nounou2002 started with some edits very much worth the benefit of the doubt. Then they rebutted a lot of the criticism with no sources and ostensibly slight passion. And their last edit (as of September 2023) is re-adding a section that was previously chosen to be removed (as discussed above) with a court decision passage added (making it presumably relevant again). Additionally, they seem to have only ever made edits to 1 other article. This does raise some questions regarding the impartiality and the objectivity of the edits. But in any case, I would like to raise the question of whether their second to last edit and the one before that should be undone. (I undid their last edit, but I now presume it to have been erroneous on my part and have since reverted my undo). Karland90 (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)