Talk:Raymond James Morgan Keegan

Image copyright problem with Image:MK Logo.gif

The image Image:MK Logo.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio?

What part is a copyvio? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjskord (talk • contribs) 04:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

If I had confirmed a copyvio in this article, I would have deleted it already. My "hunch" was related to the writing style and organization of some elements the article, which appeared to be consistent with a corporate public relations document. I have not subsequently identified any source from which this content was copied, so I think my hunch may have been wrong. However, the use of subtitles like "The Founding" and "The 1980s" is still inconsistent with an encyclopedia, and more consistent with a corporation's rah-rah version of its own history. --Orlady (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Careful with your "hunches" and inflammatory tone. This is completely original content, which I personally wrote. It was based on facts, which were all quoted and verifiable. I am a professional writer, rather than a hack, and I call them as I see them. Calling a 2 yr old company "fledgling" or the NYSE as "prestigous" are hardly 'peacock'. As far as subtitles, I prefer quality content than much of the incoherent patchwork on many wiki pages. Other edits were writing style differences - such as the obnoxiously long run-on lead sentence for Allen B. Morgan Jr. Nonetheless, I accepted your edits as another reader's POV. However, accusing someone of a copyvio is a serious charge. If your hunch is based on the content being "too clean" - see how long it took me to write it(based on the history). Mjskord (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not make any accusations, but merely noted my concern in an edit summary. As for "peacock" language, I stand by my edit summary comment. In context, calling the NYSE "prestigious" appears to be intended to present this company in a favorable light, and wording like "the bustling young firm was ready for prime-time" is the "rah-rah" language of public relations, not the writing style of an encyclopedia. --Orlady (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)