User talk:CorporateM/Archive 15

suggestion

Hi, I would like to suggest if you could create a page about kioui (http://www.kioui-apps.com) and or any of the applications. (Jccompagnon (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC))

My standing offer is usually this. If you can provide a list of citations to articles from established news outlets that cover the company in substantial depth and put them into proper citation templates, I'd be happy to whip up a Wikipedia article on a volunteer basis. The news articles provided should not be brief mentions, just quotes, press release reposts, blurbs, etc. but articles where your company is the subject of an entire piece and they should not be cherry-picked to avoid news articles that include negative information.

If you are not willing to devote the time to do so, or there are no in-depth articles from credible news sources (not blogs, blurbs, press release reposts, etc.) than your time is probably not well-spent here. Additionally, you should be warned that in most cases where a PR rep asks me for "help" on a volunteer basis, they end up being unhappy I didn't make the edits they wanted and launching all kinds of personal attacks and other accusations as a result.

CorporateM (Talk) 14:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

GANs

I'd like to do these, but, after I checked them over, I realised I don't have the context to do so - I'd need to compare quite a number of other software GAs. They don't look bad - they might have issues with tone, but, presuming there's no major issues left out, I don't see any content issues - but I'd rather a more expert reviewer takes it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden Thanks for helping out anyway. Viralheat is actually a much less technical startup article and may be easier to review without expertise than SAS (software). I filed it under Business, rather than Engineering/software.

You are probably on-target about tone. I get the feedback that I have a slightly promotion/positive style of writing everywhere I contribute, COI or not, as a result of having a PR background and spending many years writing press releases (or so user:DGG tells me). That is exactly the type of thing I find gets weeded out in GA reviews, which helps avoid the speculation that the bias is intentional. CorporateM (Talk) 18:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll have another look in a day or two if noone takes it up. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Ending RFCs

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs for a link to the appropriate noticeboard to request a formal close of an RFC. --Mirokado (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk page stalkers

Per my usual broadcast where I declare major COI projects, any editors that choose to stalk my COI contributions may want to follow me to: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Fluor_Corp. where I have proposed a draft of the Fluor Corp. article. CorporateM (Talk) 21:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Viralheat

The article Viralheat you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Viralheat for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Augbog -- Augbog (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Woot! CorporateM (Talk) 00:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for update

Hi CorporateM. I would like to take you up on your standing offer, if I may? I have made suggestions to this page on its' Talk page with citations. Disclosure - I work for the company and have endeavored to follow COI rules. I am happy to discuss anything that is questionable in my proposed edits. Thank you in advance for any help you may be able to give!! (kenclem (talk) 02:44, 04 March 2014 (UTC))

Hi kenclem. I'm happy to look through your suggestions and the article itself, but I do notice off-the-bat there are many suggested edits I probably wouldn't do. Additionally a lot of the article is unsourced and it doesn't include any criticisms, controversies, etc. (it's also quite likely that there are none that belong in the page, which is common especially for smaller companies).

I guess my point is, once I get involved, there will be no turning back, and I will not necessarily make the edits you want. This tends to lead COI editors to accuse others of having a bias or agenda when they do not get their way, when it is almost always the opposite way around.

If you're comfortable with all that, I'll take a look. CorporateM (Talk) 03:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Brilliant Earth was accepted

Brilliant Earth, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-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!

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ DrivesWarehouse

Hello,

DrivesWarehouse is a online store of Polyspede Electronics Corp located in Dallas. When you left message I could not understand this part "It didn't look to me like the topic met Wikipedia's requirements for an article to exist." Can you tell us how we can improve the article to met Wikipedia's requirements?

There are secondary sources which we had use as references. for example: Local newspaper Dallas Chinese Daily Date: 31th January 2014 and http://efytimes.com/e1/130318/DrivesWarehousecom-Of-Polyspede-Electronics-Corporation-Becomes-Largest-Hitachi-AC-Drive-Distributor-In-The-United-States

I will be thankful if you can lead us in right direction to improve the quality of article so that it can met the terms.

Regards, Vishal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishal1811 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The rule is WP:CORP. There must be at least two profile stories in credible, independent sources that cover the company in-depth. Typical sources are things like The New York Times or a national business publication. It is just advice and you may continue submitting, but I don't think the article will every qualify, not because there is anything wrong with the article, but because the subject of the article just hasn't been covered in enough sources. The only way to improve it would be if the sources that are needed existed and if they do not, which is most likely, there's nothing to do. CorporateM (Talk) 05:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Updates to Rentech Page

Hi CorporateM. I am a representative of KNT Designs and we have been hired to do a number of things for Rentech including reworking their websites and revising information on social media and other reflective pages. We are looking to re-order the content you are currently managing on the Rentech Wiki page and would ask that you allow the edits and review them so you can see what we are looking to do. We have attempted edits now twice and were certainly not looking to cause any issue; please advise. They have changed their business model since your posting and we are looking to simply make it accurate. I would be happy to put you in contact with the VP of Investor Relations who has initiated these changes. Your time is greatly appreciated and hopefully you can review the changes made. We did not have a chance to cite references. --Kntdesign (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kntdesign: It seems I was quick with the trigger finger. I saw some sourced content removed without explanation and thought it was vandalism. Based on your note, you were just moving it around and hadn't pasted it back yet. CorporateM (Talk) 03:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

@CorporateM: No worries... if you go to www.rentechinc.com and review the March 5, 2014 press release, that will be the reference for the change to the Alternative Energy section and it is being moved to the bottom as that will no longer be part of the business moving forward once the transaction is completed. I need to work on other items at this time, but I assume you will allow me to make the changes tomorrow? Much appreciated :)--Kntdesign (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Press releases are generally not admissable sources, unless they are only being used to confirm an employee count or headquarters location. We can only use credible, independent sources, such as bylined press articles. CorporateM (Talk) 04:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent Payoneer Edits

Greeting Corporate M

A little over 3 years ago, I created the Article on Payoneer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payoneer). In actuality, I resurrected an existing article, which was slated for deletion because of blatant advertising. I had a little spare time earlier today, and took a look back at my baby. I noticed that you had recently given it a haircut, and following the history, understood why. I was planning on writing articles on a number of payments companies back then, but ended up getting a real job that left me with little time. I write a lot about payments, but mostly in print and on the web (http://www.themerchantsguide.com/resources.html). I was hoping to reinstate my original article, with a few updates. I think you’ll see that the original was pretty clean and passed muster with User:Rhaworth – a worthy editor. Based on this history, and some others I’ve read, it seems like the Wiki is like the Wild West with not enough lawmen.

Best,

Meshatz (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The original had stuff like "industry-leading global payout platform that simplifies the world of commerce". It was an improvement to just stub the article, but some of that content might be worth keeping if it is re-written and sourced to credible, independent publications. CorporateM (Talk) 23:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought the sources were all reasonable if not good. Let me see if I have time and can come-up with something. I will run it by you. Unfortunately I will admit that my Wiki mark-up language skills are rusty. We'll see what the weekend holds. If it is decent, you can lock it against random edits, can't you? I would hate to put time in, and have random (and some not so random) folks make all these edits. Meshatz (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Meshatz, but you and I are both "random folks" ;-)

A lot of the prior sources were press releases or the company website. We need independent, credible sources like The New York Times or established trade magazines. CorporateM (Talk) 00:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

If you can give it some level of protection, I will do minimalist once-over. You can edit and lock. I think I get the idea about references. Best regards, Meshatz (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Responding to your comment on Drmies' page

Hey Corporate M,

First off, thanks for taking the time to answer my query...I do appreciate it! Secondly, I've edited my user page to reflect your first concern that this account would be passed along - should I leave my position, this account would NOT be passed down. It has my name in it, and nobody else has the username and password to it. I've edited my page to reflect that, and I apologize for any misgivings my accounts gives - I'm certainly not trying to do so.

As for the college pages, I certainly don't disagree that the pages I've created could use some improvement...I've been using pages I've found on the Template:Georgia Tech page and been trying to follow that model. I realize this means having more than just degrees offered on a college's page. Could you give me some advice on what other (well-sourced from third-party sources, of course) information would be useful to add to those pages? I'm hoping to work towards having enough information to create a template that could go at the bottom of the page. I disagree with you that "some, if not most, of the articles on [my] user page look to me like they should not exist" as each college encompasses many departments, and it appears to be standard practice for each to have an article. This is a major research university, after all....but I also realize I may have some more legwork to do to make the article noteworthy enough.

Could you help me out? Thanks! GRUcrule (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

My specialty is company and software pages, where the community has much more scrutiny about notability and promotionalism. WP:ORG is the notability standard for organizations, but for an individual department to have a separate article it's more of a WP:LENGTH or style-type of issue. For example, I could create an article on History of public relations in the 1800s, but why would we do that? Obviously that belongs in History of public relations, even if the 1800s article would meet notability standards. OTOH, if I had enough content from credible sources to fill a page, History of Public Relations could start getting overwhelming in length and there could be a need to break it up into sub-articles. There would have to be dozens of detailed sources to justify it.

COIs often ask "how do I make subject xyz notable enough for an article" but an article either should exist, or it should not. The obvious thing to do is to delete them, and all the others that are presenting you with a poor example, which are most likely written by the universities themselves. However, the community has such an affinity for academics that you will not receive the same scrutiny as commercial entities. It's hard to say if the articles would even be deleted in an AfD, though they are obvious candidates.

Anyways, user:Drmies I think is correct regarding the username. As long as part of the username is your personal name, that's allowed. I will not nominate your articles for deletion, though I would normally, merely because I prefer to avoid the drama that would result. CorporateM (Talk) 13:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're saying, even if I disagree with it. It was agreed upon on the Talk:Georgia Regents University page by other editors to create a separate history page, because it can be so extensive (it's not right now, I fully realize) that it might make the main article far too lengthy...the process of consolidating two universities into one brings two extensive university pasts into one place, which could be a bit long. I'm not really concerned if they're notable, because I firmly believe they are because there's an inherent difference between a department and an entire college, which houses multiple departments and likely has some reason to be notable on its own (for example, the Hull College of Business has some well-known professors and alumni. Which I also realize needs to be in the article, especially to help allay concerns about notability in unto itself). I think the reason so many COIs approach it the way you're saying is because they don't understand the foundational thinking of Wikipedia - but I get that a page's subject should be notable enough BEFORE creating an article. Perhaps my biggest flaw so far is knowing, but not going through with, that mindset while creating these new articles. (As usual, lots of learning on best practices here). Thanks again! GRUcrule (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SAS (software)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SAS (software) 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 O1oface -- O1oface (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 13, 2014)

The knee of a patient is examined with help of radiography after an injury. Hello, CorporateM. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Injury Previous selections: Assassination of Anwar Sadat • Rare breed (agriculture) Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Nominate an article Review nominations Have your say in future selections Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC) •

Your submission at AfC Tapad was accepted

Tapad, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-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!

North8000 (talk) 12:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes in Payoneer page

Hello CorporateM., I made several contributions in the past to Payoneer page, including new edits I added today. I backed the info with relevant and independent references and removed information which wasn't supported by previous references. I just saw that all my work has been reverted. Could you please advise on the reason that my edits were deleted and perhaps assist me with correctly publishing this information in the Payoneer page? Regards, Juanparve (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC).

@Juanparve, Your version had promotional stuff like "business platform that allows users to easily transfer money and receive payments" and "By removing geographical obstacles, Payoneer eliminates the limitations that typically surround international business which benefits payers and payees alike." It also removed the assassination controversy. If there are genuine errors, then those need to be fixed, but on the balance the edits diminished the quality of the page. CorporateM (Talk) 17:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Your recent editing history at OMICS Publishing Group shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dougweller (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, I don't really think it's inappropriate to revert someone, who reverts you based on baseless accusations of being a sock of a banned user, then accuses me of OWNership as I make my first edits to the article ever. I think you have placed this warning on the wrong user page... CorporateM (Talk) 18:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

No, this is a standard warning when an editor gets to 3RR, no one else has reached 3RR. Dougweller (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

CorporateM, I have left a message on the OMICS talk page and strongly suggest that you self-revert your edits of today. --Randykitty (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I count two reverts and would consider it a matter of common sense to revert POV railroaders, trolling, harassment, COI, etc. but it seems I am outnumbered and didn't realize how contentious the article was. I'll mozy on somewhere else to avoid the drama. CorporateM (Talk) 23:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 14, 2014)

An April Fools' Day hoax marking the construction of the Copenhagen Metro in 2001. Hello, CorporateM. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: April Fools' Day Previous selections: Injury • Assassination of Anwar Sadat Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Nominate an article Review nominations Have your say in future selections Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC) •

This week's article for improvement (week 19, 2024)

Lobamba is the traditional and legislative capital of Swaziland. Hello, CorporateM. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Lobamba Previous selections: April Fools' Day • Injury Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Nominate an article Review nominations Have your say in future selections Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC) •

Your GA nomination of SAS (software)

The article SAS (software) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:SAS (software) 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 Hahc21 -- Hahc21 (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I see that it was actually passed but the scripts are fickle. CorporateM (Talk) 16:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Your AfC contributions

Hello CorporateM. I'm a "frequent stalker" of yours and I think your work is an excellent example of good COI editing. I was curious, though, to see that you have recently been reviewing some AfC submissions. Would you care to provide your perspective in this matter? As an outsider, it doesn't seem like AfC reviewing would be appropriate for a COI editor. Couldn't your past financial conflicts perhaps bias you against particular types of organizations or subjects, leading you to decline or accept a given submission based on past/previous interests rather than content standards? And would you ever accept an AfC submission on behalf of a paying client? I know your work is valued here, and I'm sincerely curious to hear your thoughts. 103.16.26.166 (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

It wouldn't make very much sense for me to submit something to AfC if I was going to accept it myself. It would be curious why I submitted it to AfC in the first place.

I am probably more prolific as a volunteer than as a COI. I guess I'm not connecting the dots on how my COI on other articles would make me unfit to review AfCs where I have no COI. I have always chipped in at AfC every now and then. Maybe you can explain a bit more what you mean? CorporateM (Talk) 19:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that you would submit to AfC and then accept it yourself, but that perhaps a company might contract you to review and edit a submission that they had submitted. That's not crazy, is it? But that's sort of secondary to my other question, which is really less of a question and more of a request for you to share your perspective about how your past financial conflicts may or may not influence your reviewing process. For example, say you were hired to write an article about a very notable financial technology company, and you became very familiar with the company, its members, its services, and the particular coverage it had received (also, they paid you). Couldn't that experience influence the way you perceive a smaller financial technology company or even financial technology related concept that was waiting for review at AfC? Or do you filter out subjects with which you've had a previous financial connection? I guess I'm just trying to see the line at which point the COI editor hat comes off (where you're asking for editors to review your work) and the reviewer hat goes on (where you're reviewing another editor's work, which might itself be COI editing).103.16.26.146 (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding covertly approving a client's article, we should be able to be naive, AGF and not speculate about volunteer accounts being bribed for astroturfing purposes, but so long as these manipulative tactics are common and done on a massive scale, there will be this problem. The solution is to remove such astroturfing tactics from the site effectively-enough so that we can return to being naive and so that such speculations can't be credibly made in all but the most extreme cases. This requires a great many things: higher content standards, legal intervention, more education among marketers and so on.

I think the argument you may want to make is that I spend a substantial portion of my day listening to companies push their point-of-view. I am basically a professional POV-pusher manager. This means hours and hours of exhausting, tense work listening to marketers push their point-of-view, exaggerate their company's significance, and so on. This may create a pro-business bias after hearing their arguments for so long, or I may use Wikipedia as an outlet for my frustrations with my day-job and have the opposite bias. This is something that can reasonably be compared to how every editor has minor biases related to their background, their motivations for editing, and so on. CorporateM (Talk) 18:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for entertaining my questions, Sir! To be honest, I think you need a long beach vacation. Happy editing! 103.16.26.151 (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 16, 2014)

Entertainers at a festival Hello, CorporateM. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Festival Previous selections: Lobamba • April Fools' Day Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Nominate an article Review nominations Have your say in future selections Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Evad37 (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC) •

Studio One

Hi CorporateM I am the one responsible for the Studio One Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio_One_(company). My question is why the body was edited so heavily. I understand the Award Section (I was about to delete it after talking with the help desk.) I am interested in adding the below to the current article. If you disagree can you please state a reason why.

Studio One (Marketing Company) is an award winning [1], full-service content marketing company [2] based in New York City. Studio One creates branded or brand-aligned content in a variety of formats that is distributed across a network of websites. [3] Studio One is a long-standing member of the Interactive Advertising Bureau [4] chairing the Content Marketing Task Force. [5]

History Bob Blackmore and Andrew Susman founded Studio One, formally known as Studio One Networks, in 1998. Previously, Blackmore had served as Executive Vice President for NBC TV Network and Chairman of the American Advertising Federation. Susman is a former Marketing Director and Director of Business Development at Time Inc. [6]

American Honda [7] and Nestlé USA were among Studio One’s first clients. In 1999 Studio One and American Honda announced plans to produce and distribute the first series of syndicated programs for the internet. [8] Over the years, the company has gone on to develop content programs for many of America's best known brands, including Intel, Bridgestone [9], Pantene [10] , Iams [11] and Kellogs [12].

In 2007, Studio One helped founded the Internet Content Syndication Council (ICSC). [13] The mission of the ICSC was to promote the growth of the content syndication industry by improving the understanding of its impact on the advertising, media, creative and consumer communities. [14]

Two years later, Studio One formed Studio One Networks Ventures, which made equity investments in media and technology companies in exchange for participation in the company's programming. [15] In 2012, Studio One launched its Content Asset Management Platform (CAMP) to help brands track content performance.[16] Also that year, Studio One launched a journalist certification program in a bid to assure the production of quality content. [17]

In 2013 Studio One founded the Content Marketing Task Force with the IAB. [18]

References Jump up ^ Outstanding Websiteretrieved <April 3, 2014> Jump up ^ Here's The Entire Content Marketing World In One Bafflingly Complex Chart by Jim Edwards; at Business Insider/ published September 14 2012; retrieved <April 3, 2014> Jump up ^ Content is King by Anne Sherber; at Digiday; published November 14 2011; retrieved <April 3, 2014> Jump up ^ General Members retrieved <April 3, 2014> Jump up ^ Content Marketing Primer by IAB; published December 16, 2013; Jump up ^ Studio One Touts 'Decade of Delivery' by Fern Siegel; at MediaPost; published August 20 2009; retrieved <April 3, 2014> Jump up ^ American Honda Motors Co Inc by Jonathan Graw; at LA Times; published June 8, 1999; retrieved <April 3, 2014> Jump up ^ IQ News: Honda to Sponsor Syndicated Content by Sloane Lucas; at AdWeek; published June 7, 1999; retrieved <April 3, 2014> Jump up ^ Studio One Touts 'Decade of Delivery' by Fern Siegel; at MediaPost; published August 20 2009; retrieved <April 3, 2014> Jump up ^ Google Warns Brands To Be Up-Front About Native Ads by Laurie Sullivan; at MediaPost; published May 31 2013; retrieved <April 3, 2014> Jump up ^ Content Syndication Gets More Targeted and Niche-Oriented by Ellie Behling; at eMedia; published August 27, 2010; retrieved <April 3, 2014> Jump up ^ [1]retrieved <April 3, 2014> Jump up ^ ICSC BOARD OF DIRECTORSretrieved <April 3, 2014> Jump up ^ [2]<April 3, 2014> Jump up ^ Studio One Launches Ventures Division published September 9, 2009 retrieved <April 3, 2014> Jump up ^ Studio One Launches Content Management Dashboard Platform to aid brands in publishing branded material by Charlie Warzel; by AdWeek; published June 11 2012; retrieved <April 3, 2014> Jump up ^ It's Hard Out There for Freelancers by Charlie Warzel; by AdWeek; published May 7 2012; retrieved <April 3, 2014> Jump up ^ Content Marketing Primer by IAB; published December 16, 2013;

Thanks for all of your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia.mielczarek (talk • contribs) 17:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Please stop editing the article and discuss your suggested changes on the Talk page of the article one at-a-time. CorporateM (Talk) 17:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment on recent edits

@CorporateM: Good morning, afternoon, evening.... I received an email notification of changes to the Husain Haqqani article, section that you edited. As I read the edits, they have now biased the article's NPOV again to skew facts to make it appear as if Haqqani is free and clear of all that mess. The editor has a long history (based on review of Contributions) dating back several years in editing this and other articles about subjects close to Haqqani and his sphere of influence. I thought I'd ask your opinion and see if you feel the edits are neutral (each in its own right is, but when taken together with the rest of what is written, they bias the point of view, in my judgment). As I am a conflicted party, I can only raise questions, but not intervene directly to edit the article. Would you have a look please? --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to these edits made by Bill Thrace? From what I can tell the edits look minor, acceptable and do not appear to skew the content in a specific direction. Maybe you can point out a specific change you object to? CorporateM (Talk) 15:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@CorporateM: That's why these type of things need more than one view and one pair of eyes. I agree that in and of themselves, the edits are all neutral and presented properly. But this particular deletion below was a carefully worded sentence to make clear the Supreme Court lifted a BAN and ALLOWED Haqqani to travel. What is left out of all this editing process is that Haqqani made a hard commitment to the Supreme Court to return on 15 days clear notice, and when the Supreme Court asked once, twice, three times, he did NOT do so. That is very different from what is in the article now -- which makes it seem that all is hunky dory that he doesn't go back and may never go back to face the findings of the Judicial Commission. The edits have now re-written this important aspect of the history as it actually occurred, and therefor I believe it is inaccurate as presented in the whole. I will find you a reference in a few minutes that clearly states his requirement to return at the Supreme Court's first demand.

In January, 2012, Pakistan's Supreme Court lifted the travel ban and allowed Haqqani to leave the country.

--Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@CorporateM: Relevant phraseology from credible reference [1] and more recently [2] is:

Haqqani's lawyer Asma Jahangir yesterday filed an application in the Supreme Court which asked that the bar on him leaving the country should be withdrawn as he had fully cooperated with the judicial commission investigating the alleged memo which had sought US help to stave off a possible military takeover in May last year. In its order, the apex court said Haqqani would be allowed to travel out of Pakistan on the condition that he provides details of his visit to the registrar of the court and that he would be bound to return on four days' notice if his attendance is required by the judicial commission or the court.

Hope that helps make the point I think has been lost in the article as it stands now. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I was wrong, it was "four days' notice" not fifteen. Apologies --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

We don't need all the details when using summary style on a topic with a separate article, but I corrected it so it didn't make it sound like the lift of the travel ban was permanent. CorporateM (Talk) 16:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

(unindenting)@CorporateM: I respectfully disagree. May I suggest one other fix that will perhaps make the point at the end of the section? If the last sentence of the section, which now reads like this:

Haqqani, who had been permitted by the Supreme Court to travel freely, has not returned to Pakistan, citing threats on his life.[23]

were to read like this:

Haqqani, who had been permitted by the Supreme Court to travel, has not returned to Pakistan as required under his initial undertakings to the court, citing threats on his life.[23]

then I would say it is accurate and reflects the gravity of his undertakings that he has failed to accept thus far, whether for legitimate reasons or not. This is surely an important point in summary formats -- an oath given that was never fulfilled. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ICSAlogo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ICSAlogo.jpg. 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done Fixed. CorporateM (Talk) 18:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Essay

I have read your recent essay. I posted some thoughts at the essay's talk. Thanks for the effort! Capitalismojo (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Even though it's in my user space, you should feel free to edit away if you like. CorporateM (Talk) 21:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Images

When you write articles at the behest of corporations, perhaps you should hit them up for images to add into the articles? Software screenshots, studio shots of their products, etc. all would add to the quality of the articles (making the client happy), and net us freely licensed images (making Wikipedia happy). Just a thought. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@User:Sven Manguard My COI work has netted us quite a few free images, as well as updated logos, screenshots and other acceptable non-free images. Regarding free images, I often obtain them myself with my iPhone, since legal departments are resistant to donate their images under a free license. For example, while I'm in New York for the upcoming Wikipedia conference, I plan on taking some storefront and product photos for the Triumph International page, which will help in my bid for GA. I also physically drove to an electronics store to get some photos of Monster products[3][4], which were Photoshopped by user:Crisco 1492.

Although images are less likely to be a COI issue than content, it does sometimes come up as a possible COI issue. CorporateM (Talk) 03:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• If any of the stuff you write about had branches here, I'd help get images (I have fun with photography; check out my new edit notice). However, I agree with Sven... the companies should realize that they need to give in order to get. Sven is pretty good with that; he's negotiated free screenshot releases from several indie developers (several of which are now FPs... celebrities and photographers have realized how much exposure donating an FP quality image can be, such as File:Fernanda Lima in 2012.jpg, File:LG 시네마 3D TV 새 모델 ‘소녀시대’ 영입.jpg, File:Katie Green, Nikon Solutions Expo, 2008 (crop).jpg, File:Kyle-cassidy-weird-al-yankovic.jpg, File:Ego Likeness high res (Kyle Cassidy).jpg). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes I get a 25-year-old screenshot of version 1.0 or a 60+ year-old image and I'm like a miner that struck diamonds. Then in other cases I'm holding on to an archive of great images bugging the client for a consent letter for over a year now.

The other thing I've thought about is stuff like images of different gauge or material Monster cables for the Speaker wire article. A Triumph brand undergarment from the early 1900s for Lingerie#Origins. Brilliant Earth could probably provide loads of images of rare jewelry that might be hard to find a picture for. That just feels spammy though. CorporateM (Talk) 05:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oh yeah... Triumph would have had advertisements running before 1923, right? If we could find something published before 1923, it would definitely be free enough for the article. Not sure how encyclopedic it would be in the article on the company, though. RTI deserves praise for its donations; even a thumbnail size image helps.

Brilliant Earth being a company that has hired you, or one with an interest in open copyright? It's fine for them to donate images if they want, or license them as free on their own site (or Flickr feed). Samsung regularly publishes free images on Flickr (like the Girls Generation group shot above, and some television sets... it's not spammy if we use them, so long as we follow Wikipedia's image policies. Commons also doesn't care that much; SuicideGirls (NSFW) has released numerous free images which are not used on Wikipedia, bare educational, yet happily hosted on Commons (248 NSFW images from their Flickr feed, for instance).01:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Comodo Internet Security

Hi.

After reviewing you recent edits, I am afraid I must say you have to take it easy: Unclosed tags don't make the article look good. And from my experience in WP:FA, I do know that the Components section that you erase is definitely required. Comprehensiveness is one of the criteria of WP:FACR.

Oh, and please do not mistake WP:SPS with WP:ABOUTSELF. We don't have a policy that totally forbid primary sources.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

As I don't have expertise on this subject, I would trust your judgement. My experience has been that primary sources are considered acceptable for version history, but should be used only in a very limited fashion for product descriptions. I would lean towards restoring the components list in a concise single section. CorporateM (Talk) 02:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• That's not quite what the wording of SPS is, but that's an interpretation which is acceptable under current policy. Essentially, SPSes are acceptable for non-controversial information about the subject, when said information does not include information about another individual and is not self-serving. So YOB, year of graduation, etc. would be acceptable in a biography, for instance. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. Then I am going to bring some of those contents back. Since the source would be the software itself, I won't crowd the text much but if you felt it is something that is not immediately obvious, just drop me a note and I will add a footnote. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

---

With a deeper analysis, I think spotted another problem too: In Wikipedia, everything that is likely to be challenged must have source, but not everything must have footnotes. The lead (article lead and local leads) and topic sentences do not need footnotes if and only if what they represent has adequate sources. In addition, in lead section, almost always use {{Citation needed (lead)}} instead of {{Citation needed}} unless the article is a stub and has no much sectioning so to speak. (If you don't believe me, see Microsoft Security Essentials article for yourself; there is not a single footnote in its lead even though it was promoted to Featured.)

The following sentence was a summary:

Comodo Internet Security initially received mixed reviews; it was generally praised for its firewall and its value for price, but criticized for its poor antivirus detection. Over time, however, its antivirus component received better reviews.

...because the section later proceeds to cite the sources that gave it mixed review and the sources that later gave it positive reviews. So, if you'll excuse me, I am going to remove {{CN}} from it.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know that our policies technically allow original synthesis in the Lead, but it is difficult to avoid when summarizing the total body of literature. I've moved it to the Lead. CorporateM (Talk) 15:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Whining time

I'm discouraged, and you get to hear me vent. I hope something positive comes out of it.

While I have a lot of things to do on my to-do list, I decided to address one of the items at Category:Requested_edits. Unfortunately, the first one I looked at sounded complex, and I wasn't in a mood to take on something that taxing, so I decided to work on the OTRS backlog.

I addressed three consecutive items, every one of which was someone trying to make a COI edit. In each case, I told them to use the requested edit template, while warning them of a backlog. So there is a sadly long backlog, and I just added to it.

In any event, maybe writing this will spur me to do something.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there a specific Request Edit you have in mind that is giving you heart-ache? CorporateM (Talk) 20:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Responding specifically to your question:

1. I looked at one of the recent entries in the category, but it doesn't seem to be there, so someone else may have addressed it. I appreciate the implicit implication, if I read it correctly, that you were willing to tackle it. More on that later.
2. My general concern is that I want to help de-populated the list of requests, and found that my actions yesterday are more likely to add to the list.

I'll follow up with some more general observations.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

As you well know, Wikipedia has a curious culture. Not only are editors expected to do a lot of work for no pay, there is even a feeling among some editors that taking credit for volunteer work is a bit too much. Yes we have barnstars and some other ways of thanking contributors, but it is not a major part of the culture. I say this as introduction to the observation that we do not have an easy way (AFAICT) to identify who is working on the RE backlog.

I've expressed interest in improving this process, and think it would be good to start with those who have worked on it, as a way to think about improvements. Yet we do not make it easy to find those editor. For example, I started this whine because I saw a requested edit that appeared challenging. It was in Category:Requested edits, I don't see it now, so I think someone addressed it. However, when successfully addressed, it is removed from the category, and it isn't trivial (or maybe not possible) to identify removals from a cat. I did find Category:Implemented requested edits, so maybe it is one of those 236 items, but I do not know how to identify additions to the list. (I have this tool but it either isn't working, or I am using it incorrectly). Even if that worked, it is a rather crude way of finding out who is working on a backlog. With issues like Copyright, there is the ability to look at, say April 6 and see who did what related to problems on that date.

I'm taking too long to get to the point. If we want editors to address problems, we ought to have an easy way to keep track of how many problems there have been, and who is addressing them. I'd like to look into a way to keep track, perhaps by month, of all RE, and how they were handled, so we could track the counts of reports over time, the timing of resolution, and who is working on them. I have some other thoughts, but this is a start.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

There are a lot of examples of how a process like this can be done well on Wikipedia. AfC and Edit Requests are both comparable and despite their shortcomings are operated reasonably well. It is not unreasonable that the Request Edit process was not well developed in the past, because it was rarely used. Now that it is being used more, it is a good time to improve it.

What is needed is a set of management tools and instructions like this. You would need to partner with a technical person to do it properly. User:Technical 13 I think? developed a lot of the AfC coding and a lot of the AfC code could probably be re-purposed to build a similar set of tools for Request Edits. The toolset may reside in its own Wikiproject, a merge with AfC or Edit Requests, or something else.

The main thing I dislike about AfC is that it encourages COIs that have failed to manage their COI well to re-submit endlessly, even though COI editing is "very strongly discouraged." The way I wrote the page I linked to, it encourages factual corrections and bringing serious problems to our attention, while discouraging and offering warnings about actually writing the article (but allowing for exceptions where it is done well)

Regarding who takes credit, I see no reason for the volunteer and the PR person not to both take credit and for each to take pride in their work when it is done well (or embarrassment when it is done poorly).

Hope this helps! CorporateM (Talk) 16:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Public Storage Article

I am reaching out because I've read some of your good work on Wikipedia. Would you be willing to take a look at the Public Storage page and help bring it to a higher level or educate me on that process? I work for Public Storage and have noticed grammar errors creeping in. Of greater concern, I also feel there is an issue with sourcing, etc. and NPV of a major contributor.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PSA1972 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate you bringing it to my/our attention. It is on my watchlist. CorporateM (Talk) 22:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and attention! PSA1972 (talk)PSA1972 — Preceding undated comment added 22:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

You did a terrific sterilization job on this article. Nice job... You are very good at public relations or keeping controversy out of human existence. I guess the motto is "what people don't know, can only kill them". Stevenmitchell (talk) 00:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I've heard every accusation imaginable. I write a negative article and I'm accused of being a covert paid editor for their competition. I write a positive one and it is said I have a non-disclosed COI or I'm "hooking up" PR colleagues. A PR person asks me for help and I do not support their viewpoint and suddenly it is said that I am sniping the competition. It may be your first time, but I have seen this rodeo many times before. As always, the best thing to do if you have something constructive to offer is to be specific, use the article Talk page, focus on the content and use high-quality sources. There are some discussion strings on the Talk page already between user:Smartse and myself you are welcome to join. CorporateM (Talk) 01:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk page stalkers - please help!

I submitted a Request Edit passing along a few corrections I received from someone affiliated with a BLP two months ago and nobody has answered it. Is anyone around that can take care of it? CorporateM (Talk) 22:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Kind of a quiet page. I looked at the proposed edits and refs. They were good and reasonable. I've made the changes. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

McKinsey & Company

I think the best route would be to drop a note at WP:BUSINESS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Act-On

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Act-On 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 Edge3 -- Edge3 (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! I didn't forget about your messages... I've just been a bit busy. Let me know if you need help with anything! Edge3 (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@user:Edge3 No problem. Thanks so much for picking up more of my GA submissions! You are more thorough than most and have picked out some errors I have made that others may have missed. BTW - something you should know about that article, is the Version History could be expanded quite a bit if we accept the Customer Experience Matrix blog as an acceptable source. It is a personal blog written by an independent industry analyst. Such industry analysts often have a non-disclosed financial connection to the companies they report on, but we also typically accept even primary sources for version histories and industry analysts are some of the best authorities for B2B tech companies, so qualifying that source for this use is a tough call.

I could use help with a lot of things, but then if I asked for your help on all of them, you might regret offering ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 01:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I help out wherever I can. :) As for Customer Experience Matrix, what content do you want to add to the article? Self-published sources may be considered reliable if the author's work "in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" (WP:SPS) Edge3 (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Edge3 . Stuff like "It also added Salesforce.com integration and more sophisticated campaign management tools [in 2010]"[5]. He does also write articles for industry trade publications that are not self-published, but his own work such as the annual B2B Marketing Automation Vendor Selection Tool (VEST) report does not appear to be discussed by independent authors, suggesting his work has not attracted significant recognition in the field. I know you're right about the infobox; I just don't like it and I have no good reason for it, so I'll change it to the proper software box. CorporateM (Talk) 03:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Cracker Barrel

Hello, CorporateM. You have new messages at WWB Too's talk page.
Message added 12:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your submission at AfC SinnerSchrader was accepted

SinnerSchrader, 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!

Edge3 (talk) 12:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra

I like what you're doing at Deepak Chopra, but I'm having trouble with this. What's the use of keeping the non-URL "source"? I tried the Wayback Machine, but I can't locate any version of it. If I were you I'd remove the whole "reference", or at least comment out. Bishonen | talk 23:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC).

@Bishonen, user:Hipocrite provided this link where the source has been re-produced, however it seemed a bit sketchy as far as if they had permission from the publication to publish their copyrighted text, so I was playing it safe. Nothing I would consider important enough to debate if you want to put the new link in. CorporateM (Talk) 23:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

That's helpful, I'll put it in. Or, I'll take a look at the circumstances first. Lateeer... it's past my bedtime. Thanks. Bishonen | talk 23:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC).

P.S. Just, the reason I tried to find it was that endocrinology isn't "the study of the effects psychology have on physiology" (or, even, the effects psychology has), not by a long shot; maybe Chopra thinks it is, but we can hardly state it in Wikipedia's voice. Never mind, you're doing great work, see you tomorrow. Bishonen | talk 23:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC).

Your GA nomination of Act-On

The article Act-On you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Act-On 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 Edge3 -- Edge3 (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Woot! @Edge3 That was my 20th GA article. I've now written about 20% of our GAs for WikiProject Software and 15% for WikiProject Companies. Granted that is largely because both projects lack a lot of highly ranked content. I've got a couple more still in the review queue and some to work up to GAN-ready. Hopefully I can hit the 30% mark before the end of the year. CorporateM (Talk) 02:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Congrats on the achievement! May you have many, many more GAs. Edge3 (talk) 02:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Damiani (jewelry company)

Dear CorprateM,

Please edit the Damiani (jewelry company) mercilessly. Geraldshields11 (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

James T. Butts, Jr.

Hi CM, I see others are involved now, so I feel kind of uncomfortable about joining in. Just wanted to let you know that I hadn't forgotten and wasn't ignoring. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin No problem. It still has some poorly-sourced contentious material about a BLP (some of which it seems I may have added myself through the draft), but I don't see its current state as warranting any urgency and WP:NORUSH is appropriate at this point. Since when were you uncomfortable wading in to an article where a lot of editors were involved? ;-)

I just got an image donated under a free license and I'm working on looking for more sources for stuff like his birthdate and colleges attended. So ball is in my court anyway. I was very happy to see that user:Jimbo's offer to bring BLP-type issues directly to him was in fact genuine and effective. CorporateM (Talk) 15:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you point me in the right direction?

I got an e-mail that a page I submitted is marked as proposed for deletion because it didn't have adequate sources. The page is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_interferometer_spectrometer_and_radiometer

I had thought linking to NASA's JPL page on the device would cover my bases, but I must be missing something. Can you point me in the right direction to get whatever needs fixing fixed? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radical-inclusion (talk • contribs) 17:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@Radical-inclusion I changed it to an AfD so others could weigh-in. In order to have a Wikipedia article on something, the article needs to establish that the subject is "worthy of notice". Generally the way of doing this is to find multiple, credible independent sources where the subject of the Wikipedia article is the subject of the source. An individual piece of a space probe does not seem notable to me (others may have a different opinion). Is there something about this piece of the space probe that makes it of historical significance? CorporateM (Talk) 22:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@CorporateM I see where you're coming from. I can't seem to remember why I added it aside from the curiosity about what it was then frustration because I found that the page didn't exist. I'll differ to your judgment on this one since you're clearly a more vetted wiki-er. I'm also going out on a limb, but I'm assuming I'm using the talk feature correctly. Anyway, thanks for your time! Radical-inclusion (Talk) 14:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Banc De Binary

Hi! I should have mentioned this earlier, but I took care of it just before running off to give a lecture - I've added the AfD tag to Banc De Binary. I don't have an opinion on whether it should be kept or not, but I figure that it is perfectly reasonable to ask the question again, especially in light of the previous messed-up AfD. More generally, I wanted to add that I agree with what I thought you were saying, in that we should never overlook potential real problems with articles just because we may disagree with how someone has been tackling them. :) I'm very aware of that issue at the moment because of a different article, and I'd intended to see if there was any call for the requested changes on Banc De Binary when I had the chance, so I'm very happy to see that you were able to look into it. - Bilby (talk) 05:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @Bilby. Whether I can actually fix the problem is another story. Given the context of this particular article, it is likely the article will be kept based on COI arguments, and not based on sources and content. CorporateM (Talk) 14:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your two hours' cleaning this up, it looks much better now, and there is a lot to like. Just to clarify, since I've also been in touch with a principal, and so am expecting to be treated as a COI myself, I didn't see you marking these as COI, so I guess they are volunteer edits? Also, were all those new sources mostly from history, from Google, or elsewhere? Just getting started with my own review. Okteriel (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC) By the way, you have some of the best edit summaries and piecebuilding techniques I've seen. Very considerate, makes it very easy to review. Okteriel (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The sources are mostly from the local university library's online archive of newspaper clippings, as well as those acceptable sources that were already in the article. Google News has grown increasingly empty I think due to all the copyright issues they've had with publishers. If you need a full-text copy of one of them, I can email it to you.

I have no COI, but I have dealt with enough paid or unpaid POV pushers on Wikipedia to expect an editor unhappy with my edits to start making accusations - it is a predictable part of their behavioral patterns. Simultaneously, I've also become jaded enough to assume anyone making non-NPOV edits to a company page probably has a COI, regardless of whether their agenda is to promote or attack. However, since we can't prove anything about anyone, the best thing to do is focus on the content and what is said in reliable secondary sources. That is part of our founding principles anyway. CorporateM (Talk) 23:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

You say you're doing bold edits but then edit war to keep them in? C'mon. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Please use reliable, secondary sources and you will find me to be less of a bother ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 23:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Smiley face aside, please read WP:PRIMARY - "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." - and wait for other opinions rather than edit warring. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought the interview was a good source for the founding date, for this reason, but it looks like everything's in doubt. CorporateM, I appreciate your saying, of yourself, "I have no COI". Based on how we edited harmoniously last night, there is hope for the article to grow now from its stub status. I need to tell you the same thing I told BDBJack, though, if our edits seem too aligned to anyone: if the content of your edits looks COI-inspired to others, I yield to them the right to treat me and you as the same editor (based on the theory that everyone who may have ever heard anything from Oren can be dismissed). You may think differently. Of course, if evidence starts coming in that anyone else besides one editor has clear anti-BDB bias, I'll need to investigate further to see if there is sufficient reason to treat them as inspired by the same conflicted individual. Anyway, it's been compared to a snakepit, see you there, let's not step on anyone. Okteriel (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

No idea what you're talking about, because I don't actually know what edits you have made. I doubt enough source material exists in high-quality sources to make it more than a stub. CorporateM (Talk) 20:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

COI editing

Retina-X Studios and Mobile Spy are obvious COI creations as are other edits by the editor. As the editor has not stated his affiliation with these organisations on Wikipedia, what's the current thinking on how to handle this without breaking WP:OUTING? I discovered this when another editor posted to a user talk page about the articles' creator. Could you ping me please when you reply, my Watchlist is horrendous! Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm the "another editor." I hope I didn't do anything wrong. I don't think OUTING factors in because the COI editor's username makes it quite clear he's not trying to hide his off-wiki identity. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Generally it is acceptable to OUT someone that has already outed themselves, though sometimes they do so without knowing any better. I spend a lot of time cleaning up promotional articles and in comparison those two are very mild. I don't think they are sufficiently bad to warrant a COI tag, but they should be merged into a single page per WP:ORGVANITY if you have the time to do it. CorporateM (Talk) 03:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)