User talk:CorporateM/Archive 20

Are you up for a challenge?[edit]

If so, Draft:Satwant Singh Dhaliwal has been abandoned by its contributing author as being too difficult. You are the right editor to take it forward if you feel like taking the challenge on. Your cutting to the chase style will work wonders for it, if wonders can be worked. Fiddle Faddle 10:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: I started digging into it, but I don't see any particular claim to notability. Probably the BLP doesn't qualify for a page. CorporateM (Talk) 13:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am undecided. In such cases I am tempted to accept and allow the community to decide. What think you? Fiddle Faddle 16:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: I would lean towards the assumption of something being not-notable, until proven otherwise, as oppose to the opposite. CorporateM (Talk) 16:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let it sit for a while in case the chap who started it off comes back. We try, do we not, but they will not always be led.Fiddle Faddle 16:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: I think the next step would be for the submitter to provide the off-line sources via email for other editors to weigh and verify, if they continue to participate.

In my opinion, it would better to encourage the editor to work on subjects of unquestionable notability. One of the biggest problems with AfC is we encourage submitters to re-submit over and over again on topics that will most likely never qualify for a page. This puts the submitter down a frustrating and time-wasting path. They will enjoy their time here more if they just move on to something else that is unquestionably notable. It may even be worthwhile to find a famous Malaysian academic and suggest it to them. CorporateM (Talk) 17:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You make a persuasive point. AFC has the right ideas and an awkward byproduct effect. But was summary deletion any better?

Judging my the correspondence on the editor's talk page I think I will leave him in peace and quiet. Fiddle Faddle 17:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: Something like this would do: "Hi ____. I have reviewed the citations in the draft, but haven't seen any that verify the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria to qualify for an article. Generally speaking, we need two credible, independent sources, such as books, press or scholarly works, that cover the topic in-depth in order to qualify for a page. These sources should not be brief mentions or quotes, press releases, or primary sources, but rather in-depth profiles from journalists or academics, etc. If these types of sources don't exist, then this topic doesn't qualify for a page. However if there are in-depth articles where this topic is the subject of the entire piece, please include them in your next re-submission."

Regarding your comments on the AfC, the version I looked at looked fine RE tone and I don't think we should reject on that basis, unless it's blatant spam, advert, attack piece, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 18:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was special. No good deed goes unpunished. He became unpleasant. Fiddle Faddle 21:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Truly the world is a wondrous place. Clearly different people have different notions of what is unpleasant. jefferyseow (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping To Learn From You[edit]

Long discussion

Hello CorporateM.

Re: Draft:Satwant_Singh_Dhaliwal

Thank you for your edit of the Satwant Singh Dhaliwal entry.

With respect, I am hoping you could help enlighten me so that I might learn from this occasion. I have some queries that you might help with if you choose to.

1. Removal of Recognition 1.1 Could you please explain? I am trying to understand how this is different from: 1.1.1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Awards_and_honors 1.1.2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_awards_and_honors 1.1.3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunku_Abdul_Rahman#Honours 1.1.4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._Ramlee#Awards 1.1.5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tan_Cheng_Lock#Awards_and_honours 1.1.6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Oppenheim#Awards etc. 1.2. There was a comment that I should have referred to things that others said about him, and I did in using the words of Prof Khoo Kay Kim and others, in an article written by Harmandar Singh published in The Star (Malaysia), and other publications (in print and online). 1.3 Please let me know what self-publication means so I can see where I have done that in this entry and make sure to avoid that in future entries.

2. Removal of Publication - Your comment, "Not a directory of self-published sources" 2.1 Is it wrong to have his books and papers in the entry? 2.2 Would you like me to find and give you a list of other entries on wikipedia with books and papers listed so you can also remove those?

3. Citation Error 3.1 I think in one of your edits you have caused a citation error.

Thank you. jefferyseow (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jefferyseow:I've removed the awards sections on the examples you provided, with exception to Albert Einstein. Winning a Nobel Peace prize is of course significant. Although it's intended for company pages WP:ORGAWARDS would provide some guidance. Awards should not be listed indiscriminately, but included as part of the chronology if secondary sources suggest they are a significant part of their biography. Similar with self-published works. We don't want an indiscriminate list, but if there is a paper they are known for.

More importantly, the article seems to rely heavily on articles that are not publicly available. They are not required to be publicly available, but we get so many hoaxes or mis-represented sources, it would be hard for someone to review the page without seeing them. Is it possible for you to somehow make them accessible? For example, by scanning print copies and emailing a PDF or telling us where/how to find them? CorporateM (Talk) 14:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CorporateM:Thank you for your response. Einstein isn't the only one with awards in Wikipedia entries. Dhaliwal's, received from our King, is the equivalent of a KCMG/Knighthood. I could provide a very, very long list of Wikipedia entries with awards listed, and do not understand why those are allowed and Dhaliwal's isn't. It cannot be that it is because he is Asian. That would truly be discriminatory.

What he is known for was being extremely hard-working and for the tremendous amount of work he did in genetics, especially in the area of mutation, tumours, cancer etc. evidenced by his published literature on the subject.

I get the articles from libraries, and handcopy the text into my hardcover paper notebook. If necessary I can type out what I have handcopied for you, although it will take me a little while to do that, and I hope I am not infringing any copyright by doing so.

The libraries in Malaysia do not allow scanning by members of the public - exceptions are given to Univ. students and faculty, and some of the things I have, eg. text from very old copies of the newspaper, The Straits Times, was from the National Library of Singapore, about 350KM away from where I live in Kuala Lumpur - I got those from my last visit to Singapore and I won't be going back for some time.

I do not understand what is meant by self-published works. I do not think Dhaliwal self-published anything. I believe you can see that the bulk of his writing was published in journals, and some were conference papers (published by the conference organization).

His books on Zoology etc. were published by our national (i.e. Government) publication unit, the Dewan Bahasa Dan Pustaka which is the guardian of our national (Malay) language (bahasa) and literature (pustaka).

In fact, Dhaliwal was responsible for bringing into the Malay language, translation of a very great many scientific terms in his Malay language version of his books - something that I did not add because there was no source that allowed me to connect the two, although his contribution to translation of those terms is mentioned in Harmandar Singh's articles, published in The Star (Malaysia) newspaper and others (links provided where online versions were available) which I relied on for other parts of the entry.

I do not know the late Professor Dato Dr. Satwant Singh Dhaliwal. Personally I have nothing to gain or lose if he gets an entry on Wikipedia or not. I thought that Wikipedia was for everyone. From all parts of the world. My interest is in getting the people that My country, Malaysia, values and considers worthy up onto Wikipedia. He may not be known by other people around the world (outside of Geneticists who, I am convinced, would be familiar with his name and his work), but then, there are so many people on Wikipedia whom I do not know. Just because I do not know them, does not mean they are not worthy. And just because you do not know Dr. Dhaliwal, does not mean he isn't worthy either - not everyone gets a knighthood, even here in Malaysia, and this is a Federal knighthood controlled by the central government, as opposed to those conferred by the different states (13 in all) in Malaysia.

I will be happy to help in any way I can - I'll handtype out what I have already handcopied into my notebooks if that will be useful, Harmandar's articles are available online and I do have a photograph of the one in The Star (Malaysia) newspaper which I can send to any email address - I have forgotten how large an image file it is so please give me an email address that won't bounce if the file size is large - but I do not have any copies of the others, other than the handwritten notes I took.

In the alternative, if you can make it to your own national library, it is possible they may have copies of our newspapers, and I am sure if you look in the science section of the library you will find Dhaliwal's work.

Or, please, everyone, stop saying that offline/print references are allowed. Please officially make it Wikipedia policy that NO referencing is allowed unless they be from online sources. That's a sure way to exclude stuff on Malaysia, older stuff, that has not made it online the way stuff from other parts of the world has.

My experience on this entry has probably been the most horrible since I started contributing in 2006. I've been confronted by what I feel are sweeping statements, and contradictory directions - one person asks me not to list what Dhaliwal wrote but what was written about Dhaliwal, but when I did that, extracting verbatims from Harmandar's article by others who have their own Wikipedia entries, I was told that this was promotional. From where I stand, the goalposts keep shifting, and there seems to be greater concern about style over content, IMHO.

Here's a list I have started on for you so that you can remove the recognition/awards/honours from them too. It's past midnight where I am so I am going to bed now and will continue compiling the rest of this tomorrow. When I am done, I will start on a list of entries that list out published works so that you can edit those and have them removed as well.

Is it true what is written here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not_(organizations)#Awards_.26_rankings ie., The significance of an award can be justified if the award is notable enough for its own Wikipedia page ? Dhaliwal's award can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Defender_of_the_Realm . So can the awards of the first Prime Minister of Malaysia, that you removed.

RGDS

jefferyseow (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A pointer to WP:POINTY seems to be in order. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jefferyseow: I will work on deleting most of the award sections on your list now. We do sometimes struggle with the accessibility of sources from other countries. The Straits Times usually shows up in my library's online archives search, but these do not. Unfortunately, we get so many hoax articles using made-up sources, that we can't just trust that a new editor is accurately representing them, especially for a new article. What we need is proof that there are at least two in-depth profile stories that cover the man in-depth (the general guideline for qualifying for an article). My suggestion would be to start by providing the article title, date and publication for two bylined, in-depth articles on the man, where he is the subject of the article and covered in substantial depth. These shouldn't be blurbs, press release reposts or short announcement-type sources, but in-depth profiles. If you feel these exist and you can provide the citation information, I will do everything I can to find them myself in order to corroborate. If these types of in-depth stories don't exist, than he unfortunately doesn't qualify to have a page about him. CorporateM (Talk) 17:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick skim of your list, though many of them were Nobel Prizes (clearly significant). Also, I'm more experienced with awards for company pages than academics. I'd be happy to take a closer look at the awards on your articles, but I think it would be better to first verify for certain whether the man qualifies for a Wikipedia page, as if he doesn't, it's not a good use of our time. CorporateM (Talk) 18:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CorporateM: the many that were Nobel Prize winners form the tip of an iceberg of other non-Nobel prize winners - Reagan, Judi Dench etc. do not have Nobel Prizes. So I am confused. Are you saying, if a person is already notable, then it is okay to list out their awards? But if that is the case, isn't the First Prime Minister of Malaysia notable? Why did you delete HIS award? In fact, if it is okay to list the non-Nobel prize awards of notable people, why did you delete the awards of those others earlier too? Why not delete their pages if they are not notable? If that is not the case and you are really just saying, it is okay to list the Nobel Prize but no other awards, then why not delete https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_awards_and_honors which are all the other non-Nobel Prize awards he received.

I am not trying to be funny here. I am trying to understand how you think, and judge, and choose. I put in Reagan and Eisenhower because you removed the awards/honours of the First Prime Minister of Malaysia. I've put in Malaysia's honoured late, National musician/actor/singer, P. Ramlee in case you wish to remove his awards - he did not have a Nobel Prize. Nor do Paul McCartney and Michael Jackson - I put them in too so you can remove theirs after you remove P. Ramlee's.

Justice and fairness is when something applies to EVERYONE across the board. When something does not, that's called discrimination or prejudice and I am trying to understand whether any of that applies here. So, yes, you might want to go over that whole list (and more to come) to see if they merit the Wikipedia pages they now have.

There are NO TWO BYLINED in-depth articles about him. Most Malaysians shy away from things like this, from the press, from prying eyes and THAT is why there is so little available about them. I started this entry because I saw ONE BYLINED in-depth article published in various places and accepted by a national newspaper (not a paper circulated across one state but across the whole of Malaysia with an Audit Bureau Circulation audited circulation of almost 300,000 copies), The Star (Malaysia). The link to that article in The Star is here at http://www.thestar.com.my/Opinion/Letters/2015/02/21/A-passion-for-genetic-science/ and the link to the other edits of that article are here: 1. MalaysiaKini, one of the few non-Government-owned national newspapers that publishes online http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/289949 ; Asia Samachar, a news portal for Sikhs in Southeast Asia and the surrounding countries http://asiasamachar.com/2015/02/17/the-sikh-who-almost-became-vice-chancellor-of-um/ ; The newsletter of the Royal Selangor Club an organisation, around since 1884 http://rsc.org.my/userFiles/file/BeritaJanMar2015.pdf

That two legitimate national Malaysian newspapers and that the newsletter of an association known to be stuffy and snobbish would take this article by Harmandar Singh - someone who has written in The Star under the name Sledgehammer for 10 years or more - prompted me to begin this article on a man who, in my view, deserves a Wikipedia entry - I cannot believe that saving people's lives, as must have been done through other peoples' discoveries based on Dhaliwal's research, is more important than entertaining people.

I did a Google Book search in which he showed up, as Satwant Singh Dhaliwal, in Information Bulletin from the Pacific Science Association 1970; Parliamentary Papers, House of Commons and Command Papers (UK) 1975; Malaysia in History (a publication of the Malaysian Historical Society) 1978; Proceedings of the Royal Society of London: Biological sciences, Volume 200 1978.

A search Google Book search for S. S. Dhaliwal showed him in Proceedings of the Ninth Pacific Science Congress in 1957 published in 1958 (later I found a PDF of this on Archive.org); Abstracts of Papers (Volume 9) of the Ninth Pacific Science Congress 1957; Bulletin of the National Museum Singapore 1961; The Malayan Agricultural Journal 1960; Commonwealth Journal 1961; Research Report, University of Edinburgh. Institute of Animal Genetics, ‎Conrad Hal Waddington 1962; Report of the Medical Research Council 1962; Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London (Vol 140) 1963; Papers by command - Volume 19 - Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons 1964; Sabouraudia 1964; Poultry Science 1964; Medical Journal of Malaya 1965; Berichte über die wissenschaftliche Biologie 1965; Mosquito News 1965; Bulletin of the National Museum Singapore 1965; The Educational Directory of Malaysia and Singapore 1965; Genetic variations in somatic cells: Proceedings of a Symposium held in Prague in August 9-11, 1965 published 1966; Malayan Scientist 1967; Annual Report of the Institute for Medical Research (Malaysia) 1968; The Straits Times Directory of Malaysia & Singapore 1970; Information Bulletin (Volume 23, Issues 3-5) Pacific Science Association 1971; Malaysia Year Book 1971; Micronesica 1971; Geological Society of Malaysia Newsletter, Issues 31-45 1971; IBP News - Volumes 21-24 - Page 20 1973; Natural History Bulletin 1973; Zoological Drawings 1974; Revue suisse de zoologie 1974; Record of proceedings (Abstract of Papers) of the Pacific Science Congress 1975; Annual Report of the Institute for Medical Research (Malaysia) 1975; Cytologia (International Journal of Cytogenetics and Cell Biology) 1976; Recent Literature of Mammalogy 1976; Information Bulletin of the Pacific Science Association 1976; Population Structure and Human Variation 1977; Malaysian Applied Biology: Biologi Gunaan Malaysia 1977; Accessions List, Southeast Asia (US Library of Congress, Jakarta) 1977; Biochemical systematics and ecology 1977; "Proceedings of the 17th Session of the Indo-Pacific Fisheries Council 1977 (Singapore held a few other years but not 1977 so I didn't cite or pursue this); Selection in Natural Populations 1977; The Medical Journal of Malaysia 1978; Technology for rural development: proceedings of a joint MSA-COSTED seminar, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, April 24-29, 1978; Human Heredity 1979; Bibliographic Guide to Government Publications (U.S. and Foreign) 1979; Malayan Naturalist 1979; Professional organisations in Malaysia 1979; Tropical ecology and development: proceedings of the Vth International Symposium of Tropical Ecology, 16-21 April 1979, Journal of the National Cancer Institute (USA): JNCI., Volume 32 1979; Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Volume 2 1980; Journal of Taiwan Museum 1985; Bulletin - Institute for Medical Research (Malaysia) 1986; Annals of the Carnegie Museum 1980; Animal Genetics and Evolution 1980; Library of Congress Catalogs: Monographic Series 1980; World directory of collections of cultures of microorganisms (World Data Center on Microorganisms, World Federation for Culture Collections, University of Queensland) 1982; Commonwealth Universities Yearbook 1983; Soybeans: Improvement, Production, and Uses 1987; Genetics Abstracts 1989; Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 1989; Agricultural Research Centres - Volume 11 1993; Medical Research Centres: A World Directory of Organizations and Programmes 1993; The Wasmann Journal of Biology 1994; Earth & Astronomical Sciences Research Centres: A World Directory of Organizations and Programmes 1995; Health, Disease and Survival: A Biomedical and Genetic Analysis of the Orang Asli of Malaysia 1999; Walker's Mammals of the World 1999; Soybeans: improvement, production, and uses 2004; Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference 2005.

These were mostly snippets but with enough information to show they referred to THIS particular S. S. Dhaliwal - as you would see if you did the search and browsed the snippet info on the search page. I was convinced the man was notable, did a great deal of work in many fields of genetics including Zoology, Medicine (Cancer Research), Agriculture (improve crop yield) etc., and worthy of an entry in Wikipedia - as you might also conclude, browsing the titles of many of the journals and other publications etc., conferences/symposiums he spoke at.

I was also convinced that - given the great amount of snippet and lack of partial view Google Book scans - that the story I could piece together of him would be short/scant given what I thought I would find - i.e. little - and that I would probably get shot down the minute I posted my draft because my work came from actual legwork at the library - no digital sources.

I undertook my search at the National Library of Singapore - for the time period involving Dhaliwal, I believed that there would be better coverage of him in The Straits Times, than in The Star and that I might more easily find the publications I was looking for there, rather than at our national library here - I have had unsuccessful experiences in the past - and so began my search there.

You said, "Unfortunately, we get so many hoax articles using made-up sources, that we can't just trust that a new editor is accurately representing them, especially for a new article," so the issue is one of trust, and the suggestion is that new contributors are less trustworthy than old ones. I have been contributing since 2006 - how many decades before I am no longer considered new, please?

Thank you jefferyseow (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not take my word for it but try doing your own google book searches on [ "Satwant Singh Dhaliwal" ]; [ "S. S. Dhaliwal" ] and [ "Dhaliwal S. S." Malaya ] Thank you. jefferyseow (talk) 02:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Jeffery, but this is an op-ed, which cannot be used for anything. This is just a blurb written by "Sledgehammer" as oppose to an in-depth investigative piece by a journalist. Based on this page, which says "About me" and is authored by "Sledgehammer" - that seems to suggest Sledgehammer is the person himself. This also says it's authored by "Sledgehammer", though in that article Sledgehammer claims Dhaliwal is his uncle. None are remotely close to acceptable sources. I don't think this is a good use of our time. All I can do is encourage you to devote your energy to other subjects that meet Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. CorporateM (Talk) 05:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you CorporateM, will you be removing the awards/honours sections from these or will you be explaining, so I can understand and learn, why you are not removing the awards/honuors section from these - the question is why did you remove the honours of the first prime minister of Malaysia, if the honours of these are not also similarly removed. Thank you.

Thank you jefferyseow (talk) 09:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop[edit]

I've just reverted several of your edits, in which you removed valid and valuable content, often with no edit summary. I note that I'm not the only editor to do so (for example, this edit by User:The Banner). You may be blocked from editing if you persist in such behaviour. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, most of those were dedicated awards sections using primary sources, or in many cases, no sources at all. They would be easily removed from company pages, where we are more watchful of promotion. However, on academics, I realize the community is more willing to accept promotionalism without seeing it that way and I have no intention of starting a fight I know I can't win. Your message seems out-of-context, because it is referring to a single editing session, but you make it sound like it's a "behavior". CorporateM (Talk) 03:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sageworks Saga[edit]

I see you are whittling away at the Sageworks article. This really makes me wonder about the POV dispute removal, given no agreement has been reached.

I deferred to doncram, but resent your persistent efforts that beg the suspicion of a POV bias. Otherwise, why this dogged persistence on this insignificant article? Please explain.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 06:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like you are the one pushing a point of view, Harald Forkbeard, a distinctly anti-Sageworks point of view. I disagreed a bit with CorporateM on another matter just yesterday, but on this, he is right and you aren't. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, the article was brought to my attention here. I am always this persistent, when I see a problem such as this one. That is, with exception to topics like Linux, open-source, etc. where I know NPOV problems can't be helped. The article's been in the back of my mind as something to spend a bit more time on.

The NPOV dispute tag does not seem warranted; nobody but you feels the article contains an NPOV problem, despite quite a few editors being involved and hearing out your arguments. CorporateM (Talk) 00:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hobbies[edit]

You want expensive? Try photography.

I won't be doing that again but I'm very glad I did it. At the time I was just so fed up with arguing for the obvious that I was willing to take that shortcut, rather than jump through the grant-making hoops with no likelihood - after a lot of time-wasting - of it being approved. The stuff you're talking about is all no-brainer, though, and I'd be very confident of approval for that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthonyhcole: I've asked Makyen if he wants the gig here. I'd want to avoid any financial entanglement with WMF, so I would just pass any money off to the developer actually doing the work, if I can find a willing participant. I think fixing the NYT reference generator, Wiki-blame and other tools should be easy, but the real kicker would be if we could develop a tool that gives a rating of the likelihood that two accounts are the same person. If such a feature were developed by WMF, they would have access to the core software and could use stuff like device IDs and IP addresses, without exposing that data to the public. But even without them, some kind of natural language processing could probably be used to identify the likelihood that two accounts are the same person with greater accuracy and less work than manual investigations; leaving the borderline cases open to greater scrutiny. CorporateM (Talk) 02:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very, very worthy project. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Bresch[edit]

I've lost track of your draft alternative article, which is a useful resource. The links are somewhere in the great walls of text on her talk page. I think it would be helpful if you could put a link to your draft somewhere down at the current bottom of the Talk page. Lou Sander (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lou Sander: It's at user:CorporateM/Heather Bresch. I trimmed it down to just the Career section just now, to make it easier (so it's not filled with content that's already covered). It's not perfect, but I imagine you're probably just looking for the sources; I've also provided a bunch of references on the Talk page here and just above that (in case you missed it) are some minor quips about the early life section. If there's anything else I can do to be helpful, let me know. CorporateM (Talk) 22:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about VisualEditor/Feedback[edit]

Hello, CorporateM,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether VisualEditor/Feedback should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VisualEditor/Feedback .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Rberchie (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rberchie: Woops! I sent it to CSD and corrected the link that sent my post to the wrong location. CorporateM (Talk) 16:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Walter[edit]

Hi - nice work on the article this morning. You didn't get much thanks for the total rewrite. I think we were all trying to take in the details and cites etc.. but it's good. It lasted the first day anyway! There's a steady stream of IPs and SPAs because of the TV show, and they tend to either be anti-O'Brien or True Believers. But the 'mysteries of real life Walter O'Brien' is the more interesting story. The producer must be loving it. Question: Wiki normally refers to someone by the last name but I noticed you used first sometimes and last others, is that an intentional device or should the article standardize on last name? -- GreenC 01:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Green Cardamom: I may not do it consistently, but I prefer using the full name upon first reference in each section, even though I believe our Manual of Style does actually encourage us to only use the full name once at the top of the article. I often use first names in the Early life section, because it will usually include the parents' names and jobs, so there is a need not to confuse the article-subject with other family members with the same last name; then I'll use the last name in other sections. In general, I don't think those types of minor editorial quips are worthy of debate.

Strong views is one of the most prolific motivations for editing, which is why articles tend to focus on controversy and tend not to be neutral unless a diverse range of editors have been involved over time. However, when both sides of a debate gain an interest at the same exact time, and they are unable to foster thoughtful, collaborative discussion and editing, it can get pretty nasty. CorporateM (Talk) 02:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just on those offline sources for the article. Dug up a print copy of the Eirpac X.25 network user's manual (the network that would have had to have been used for the alleged NASA hack). It has a 1987 publication date and the available connection speeds were 300 bits/second, 1200/75 b/s (1200 b/s download and 75 b/s upload (Asymmetrical) and 1200 b/s with different phone numbers from each. The 2400 b/s connection rate would have been a later addition as would 9600 b/s but by that time (early 1990s) the first ISPs were running in Ireland. On the regional Irish newspapers, most of them did not have a large online presence and where they did in the 1990s, they were just taster articles from the weekly print edition. Without contacting them directly for copies from their morgues, it will be necessary to rely upon other online copies and scans. (Would be original research to contact them but it should be possible to contact them via e-mail.) Apart from the Irish Times coverage (one of the two main daily Irish newspapers) of this SecGen press release, there doesn't seem to be anything reliable. The local/regional newspaper coverage is typical "local kid does well" stuff but it never made it to the national daily newspapers. These regional newspapers are very small circulation newspapers. One of the journalists that wrote a 1993 article (New Ross Standard, I think) is now a regional reporter for the main Irish TV station (RTE). Some of the claims in the Daily Mail article, especially about selling more computers than Dell and Gateway before 1993 are odd because Dell and Gateway were not that active in the Irish market at the time and were really only mid to late 1990s entrants into the Irish computer retail market after they established manufacturing and distribution facilites in Ireland. Most PCs sold to the public in Ireland at the time would have been sold through local computer shops. It looks like the main online sources for the article will be limited to recent online sources. There are possibly a few more offline sources that might have some information but it is getting to the stage of having to do more research than many of the journalists who recently cover the story. And that kind of information probably would not acceptable for Wikipedia. Jmccormac (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmccormac: While interesting, it's true that this is original research and not allowed on Wikipedia. I understand what you're saying, both in this post and many others, and I hear you loud and clear. But it's just not relevant to improving the article within the confines of Wikipedia policy, so there is no point in continuing to argue the point. You keep saying that the current article is in some urgently disastrous state, because it doesn't include this information, but it already adequately explains that his claims have been discredited, so I don't see the problem, except that it doesn't specifically explain additional technical arguments that haven't been included yet in published secondary sources. CorporateM (Talk) 16:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I made it clear, it would not be acceptable for Wikipedia. Some editors have been around Wikipedia a lot longer than others. And some actually have specialist knowledge and expertise. Others are, or have been, investigative journalists. The problem for Wikipedia is that it often considers the press release recycling activitives of churnalists (as they are known) as being reliable sources. They are not. The way that O'Brien's claims where shown up has illustrated this point. Fast Company had to run that second piece complete with an analysis of some claims and questions being put to O'Brien over some of the more extraordinary ones (like the $204 Billion venture capital fund and the $1.3 Billion turnover). Some of the sources being used in the article were press clippings/scans from newspapers which had no web presence at the time. As such, they were a bit iffy as the only places where they were accessible was the subject's own website. What bothers me about the article is that O'Brien has been shown to exaggerate (FC's coverage of the claim about presenting at the AI seminar claim turning out to have been merely an invitation to attend) and make unsubstantiated claims. These unsubstantiated claims are recycled without analysis or question by churnalists. When people who actually have the capabilities to investigate these claims (Techdirt and other sites) do investigate them, they tend to show the supposed "reliable" sources had run press releases and unsubstantiated and unverified claims as news. It also shows up the split between Liberal Arts and STEM. In STEM, one cannot get away with making unsubstantiated claims. In the Liberal Arts, subjective opinion dominates. This is why Wikipedia editors without any STEM background often don't understand why people in the IT or Computer Security industries have such a reaction to people like O'Brien and their claims. People with STEM backgrounds see journalists with no specialist knowledge repeating or making unsubstantiated claims about software and technology and it irritates them. Other people, also without any such backgrounds defend these clueless journalists because they think that they are defending what Wikipedia refers to as "reliable" sources. The reality is that they are not. This kind of thing is a major flaw with Wikipedia's unquestioning reliance on "reliable" sources. To people with a STEM background, it generally appears as Wikipedia editors luxuriating in their own ignorance. Perhaps it really is a clash of cultures. Jmccormac (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmccormac: The lack of investigative journalism and the mediocrity of reliability of the press is a big problem, but it's a problem with the sources, more than it is with Wikipedia and for the most part is beyond the scope of this project to correct. Editors tend to claim that any policy preventing them from making the edits they would like are problematic, but the policies and norms are a certain way for definitive reasons. In any case, since we both agree these analyses are not relevant to improving the article, we're just using Wikipedia as a forum, which is against the rules. I think we need to focus on specific article improvements based on Wikipedia policy.

I do think that you and Winkelvi need to observe WP:NORUSH, among other things like Civility and Assume Good Faith. The fact that both of you refuse to sit on your hands for even one day and give other editors' a chance to chime in only slows, not hastens, article development and does not improve your odds of winning an argument. CorporateM (Talk) 20:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the best way of dealing with these issues, within Wikipedia policies, would be to use technological sources for technical claims and factually use the other sources for other claims while not drawing any conclusions from those sources. (Similar to the "According to (source), article subject claimed (or said) that...".) It is the kind of approach that is more encylopedia-like in nature. WP:NORUSH is just one of those essays. Some people create and some just want to edit. There has to be some kind of balance but that doesn't mean that people should wait around to see if someone else will fix problems or create articles. This is more consistent with WP:BB. I think that the WP:RUSH idea is wrong because it gives editors the idea that nobody really cares enough about their contributions or comments. In journalistic terms, it is the difference between the old print "Letters To The Editor" page and the continual 24 hour news cycle with reader feedback. Jmccormac (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, CorporateM, I had thought you were an okay guy. Now I see you're no different than the other two at the Walter O'Brien article: deleting or hiding that which doesn't fit your own agenda. Fine - I finally get that I'm not wanted (which is totally against the 5 pillars and the basis of open editing in Wikipedia), as you three have now made that abundantly clear. Do what you will - let the article become either a total hit piece on O'Brien or dwindle it to nothing as everything reliably sourced on the article subject gets deleted because it doesn't fit the agenda of the anti-O'Brienists. You and the other two have successfully chased away another good editor who only wanted the article to be the best it can according to guidelines. But - fuck it. I no longer care what happens with it -- off my watchlist. You three win. Enjoy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A favor[edit]

Could you do me a solid by watching the edits of this new user? I created a sandbox for the person here. The person has made a lot of effort to contribute, but is having traditional rookie issues. Discussion is here and here. They have expressed a willingness, so we want to retain them. Might take you a few minutes a day for a week or so. Thanks, brother. BusterD (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not much of one for military history BusterD, but I'll take a look now and then. CorporateM (Talk) 21:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Not so much asking about content, but looking to see if the person needs help or guidance. I'll be around all day tomorrow, but Sunday and Monday I'll be out. Just eyes. That's all I'm asking. Thanks again. BusterD (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger[edit]

I've done the merger for the inventory control article.Lbertolotti (talk) 04:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Me again![edit]

How do you feel about looking at the work of a new professional editor, publicist to the minor stars? Draft:Faith Picozzi is, to me, puff and fluff. Your mileage may vary, of course. The talk page has the CC template on it with a diff showing the declaration. As you know, I approve of paid editing, provided it is of the highest quality. Fiddle Faddle 17:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DoneCorporateM (Talk) 20:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Your advice was ignored, of course

, so I have declined it again. Fiddle Faddle 21:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Extant Organizations/Noticeboard[edit]

Wikipedia:Extant Organizations/Noticeboard, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Extant Organizations/Noticeboard and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Extant Organizations/Noticeboard during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Kharkiv07 ^Talk 18:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification; I'll be interested in seeing how it goes, but I'll just sit out on this one. CorporateM (Talk) 18:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Community Tech team[edit]

Here Lila announces the formation of a new technical team, the Community Tech team.

"... The creation of this team is a direct response to community requests for more technical support. Their mission is to understand and support the technical needs of core contributors, including improved support for expert-focused curation and moderation tools, bots, and other features. Their mandate is to work closely with you, and the Community Engagement department, to define their roadmap and deliverables. We are hiring for a leader for this team, as well as additional engineers. We will be looking within our communities to help. Until then, it will be incubated under Toby Negrin, with support from Community Engagement. ..."

This addresses a point you raised on Jimmy's talk page a couple of weeks ago. I've mentioned it here on Iridescent's talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COI declarations and ToU[edit]

I was wondering whether you think your COI declarations have been sufficiently close to the requirements of wmf:Terms of Use. For example at Nestlé Purina PetCare you say "I have a COI/financial connection/affiliation with Nestle Purina Petcare", which I understand to be saying you have a financial connection (rather than that your COI may either be financial or non-financial). Maybe you are not being paid in which case it is for you to decide the nature of the declaration. However when you are being paid you should be explicit in stating your "employer, client, and affiliation". meta:Terms of use/FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure is possibly a bit more helpful: "If you are editing an article on Wikipedia on behalf of your employer, for example, you must disclose your employer's details. If you have been hired by a public relations firm to edit Wikipedia, you must disclose both the firm and the firm’s client". If Hill's Pet Nutrition started paying someone else to edit Nestlé Purina PetCare we'd really want to know that! Please understand that I am commenting here because I think you may well be willing to help towards improving our standards of transparency in this area and I do think your recent editing concerning Juniper Networks has been closer to the ToU requirements. Thincat (talk) 09:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thincat: The "/" is intended to mean both disclosures are relevant. Naturally anyone with a financial connection with the article-subject also has a conflict of interest. However, you may find some articles where I have only disclosed a COI, because of the pro-bono work I do or for other circumstances.

I avoid the words "on behalf of", because while the article-subject does have input into my work, I exercise independent editorial control over the content. I am not their proxy and often make edits that do not support their interests.[1] IMO "on behalf of" a corporation is a Group Account intended to advocate for the article-subject's best interest.

I explicitly and knowingly do not comply with the requirement to disclose any marketing agencies involved, when there is one. Many of the agency partners I have worked with are small firms, where I would be disclosing a specific individual and violating our principles of privacy. Even larger firms often have confidentiality agreements with their clients. I also can't possibly fathom why Wikipedians would need this information. It's disclosure carpet-bombing. I think I comply with the principles of the Terms of Use[2] to avoid "deception" and "misrepresentation of affiliation" and when I asked a WMF staffer if this kind of thing was a problem, they said not to worry about it.

I would encourage you to temper the idea that more transparency is necessarily better. Transparency often comes at the sacrifice of privacy. We are not transparent in that most of us hide behind anonymous usernames, with good reason. Excessive disclosures often lead editors to be overly sympathetic to the article-subject when face-to-face with their representative on a personal level, or lead the disclosing party to take it personally when their proposed edits are rejected. What I think we should advocate against unconditionally is deception, which often goes hand-in-hand with an extreme lack of transparency.

CorporateM (Talk) 16:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I first came across you, Corporate, a few months back, you were the first editor I'd discovered that had disclosed a COI and continued to edit but I'd like to weigh in here just for @Thincat:'s benefit and say that I've always seen you working within the bounds on Wikipedia policy and I've now reviewed two of your major edits associated with Juniper Networks and there's never been evidence of anything other than actually improving Wikipedia's content on the company. I agree with your statement that we should work on preventing deception, and not go as far as "disclosure carpet-bombing". SamWilson989 (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a great topic of discussion; my arguments are intended to be presented with the same respect and civility as Thincat has offered in his original post and are just a drop in the bucket of a site-wide spirited discussion on the issue. I'm certainly open to making modifications to my COI disclosures if there is a compelling case for it as well. In my opinion the bigger issue is the lack of disclosure to readers. CorporateM (Talk) 18:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, and thank you both. I was well aware of CorporateM's ethical approach and that is why I came here. There is no suggestion from me that any of the editing has been deceptive, etc. Biassed editing of WP is often done by people who are obsessed, ignorant and so on, and COI declarations do nothing in these areas. I agree that declared paid editing is far better than undeclared paid editing (and, I regret to say, may be better than a lot of run-of-the-mill editing). However, I am also aware of the requirements of the WMF ToU which are rather categorical and, so far as I know, enwp has not adopted any alternative policy. I would be interested in seeing whether CorporateM could help us towards a "better practice" than perhaps we have at the moment. For example, for paid editing, {{Connected contributor|declared=yes}} seems utterly useless if used by itself. Thincat (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the Connected Contributor template is useful. My userpage says "Articles where I have a COI should have a Connected Contributor tag"; editors that are not certain about whether I have a volunteer or COI role on a particular article can check for a disclosure tag to verify, without having to dig through the Talk page archives to find my initial disclosure.

I have not seen as-of-yet any compelling argument for why we would need to distinguish between a paid editor and other forms of COI. For example, I don't see for what purpose we would need to know if a BLP was requesting corrections on the Talk page, or whether it was actually their PR agency or a paid editor. Would we respond differently in each case? And if so, why? Any information we insist someone discloses, should be because we have a specific use of that information and/or because it is necessary to avoid deception.

Excessive disclosure actually corrupts the principles of focusing on the content, not the editor, because other editors will most likely support or oppose their edits based on their personal POV about that category of motivations for editing. This is followed by a debate about whether we are being too accommodating or too hostile to a disclosed COI and pretty soon nobody is actually talking about content and sources.

Regarding the Terms of Use, I think they were intended primarily to avoid any possible loophole to prevent WMF from suing Wiki-PR, which they never did anyway. Compared to WP:COI, which is a hot mess, they are much better, but could use refinement through a community-accepted alternative. Whether that refinement is possible though.... most editors have given up on any attempt to reach consensus on these kinds of issues. CorporateM (Talk) 19:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to think about all this and that may take a while partly because I'll need to do some (re-)reading. Most of the enwp COI discussions predated the change in the WMF ToU and the notorious very recent discussions with ArbCom had a background of accusations of undisclosed (and deceptive) paid editing. None of that is directly applicable but some aspects might be relevant. Meanwhile, best wishes! Thincat (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thincat: I interact from time to time with CM. I have no need to know more about them, and would consider it difficult if rules meant they had to identify themselves more than they have. I have no idea what part of the world they are in, nor their sex, hobbies, likes, dislikes, and so much more. I have no need to know the names of the people or organisations who pay them to edit, I just need to be sure I can rely on their declaring that they have a COI in an article, and to watch them manage it well. I use them as an example of best practice.

I support well executed paid editing and I despise bad editing from whatever source. Fiddle Faddle 22:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that the Signpost could use an op-ed[3] to balance-out all the coverage of covert practices. Writing is a good way to get your thoughts together. CorporateM (Talk) 22:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem appropriate to post a notice to the article readers advising them that the article contributors are paid promoters or otherwise affiliated with the company. This would be clear and transparent to the average Wikipedia reader who may not be familiar with Wikipedia policies and does not want to rely solely on the good faith of editors who are paid to contribute. This is the standard in non-Wikipedia advertising, so should be adopted to put the reader on notice.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Juniper Networks[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Juniper Networks 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 Curly Turkey -- Curly Turkey (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Bob Muglia[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bob Muglia 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 Esquivalience -- Esquivalience (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Juniper Networks[edit]

The article Juniper Networks you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Juniper Networks 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 Curly Turkey -- Curly Turkey (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Juniper Networks early stock price chart.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Juniper Networks early stock price chart.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. --B-bot (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of McKinsey & Company[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article McKinsey & Company 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 Ugog Nizdast -- Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at Valentine Richmond History Center in light of WP:CORP and WP:GNG[edit]

CorporateM, given your skill and creativity in suppressing content from entities subject to WP:CORP, I'd like you to take a look a Valentine Richmond History Center. Here's an article that clearly hasn't demonstrated that it meets WP:GNG, has been subject to COI editing in the past (evident from the article's history) and the only source used for all the promotional content is the organization's website. Since 100% of the article's content is attributable to the organization's website, it clearly doesn't meet WP:CORP guidelines. Shouldn't that promotional content be severely cutback until notability can be established through independent, reliable sources? Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Sent to AfD, but I believe this article falls into one of those categories like Linux, open-source, academics, etc. where it is very difficult to get the article deleted, because it appeals to the interests of our editor demographics. CorporateM (Talk) 09:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

alt-med[edit]

I am so disappointed by this. Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: If it was any other topic, it would be obvious that a source that claims to have information that is "difficult or impossible to get elswhere" and shows "[concern] about...."[4] is obviously not an NPOV source. NPOV sources do not show concern and they do not claim to have some secret information not available elsewhere, which ironically is what quackery-type companies claim themselves.

Does it even have full-time staff? I don't think it's any different than stuff like Corpwatch, which has a clear editorial agenda to "expose corruption". Certainly we have legitimate sources available for any topic of significance and the only excuse to use a source like this is where absolutely no others exist for something that is clearly quackery and should be identified as such.

We should insist on strong sources, especially for exceptional claims, everywhere, not just where it suits our POV. If a similar source was used to add promotion about a company, it would be removed in a heart-beat. CorporateM (Talk) 15:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

before going on... i know you have been around a pretty long time, but i don't know how much you have worked in articles related to health or how familiar you are with the day-to-day grind of dealing with the relentless advocacy that goes on in Wikipedia about health stuff - everything from people freaking out about GMOs to people believing that boatloads of vitamin C can stave off cancer, and all of them insisting that WP is censoring content that is vital to public health. how much have you dealt with that? Jytdog (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of POV pushing is not a good justification for us to legitimize their complaints, or return the favor with our own poorly-sourced content.

No, I primarily edit on business topics. With 1 small exception, I have not done any paid work in alternative medicine either (my website states that I do not accept them as clients). But every topic has similar problems with advocacy; our response is to aggressively delete poorly-sourced exceptional claims, whether they be BLP issues, promotion or something else. I don't see any reason to treat medicine differently, whereby we codify the use of low-quality sources in response to advocates, adopting similar NPOV problems ourselves.

Personally I dislike both doctors and alternative medicine and don't necessarily see one as less corrupt than the other. CorporateM (Talk) 16:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for answering the question and more. two responses. the level of self-righteousness that comes with advocacy in health (This Is Really Important for The Public To Know) is perhaps different than other fields, as are the actual public health implications of WP articles (see the intro to WP:MEDRS). Quackwatch and SBM are both authoritative, reliable, and solidly science-based. They do speak directly to things that the biomedical literature doesn't otherwise do. (see for example SBM on the "food babe") Like it or not, the line you are pursuing is aligned with the advocates who would turn WP into a woo-filled wonderland, mislead the public, and frustrate our mission. Jytdog (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you would characterize my position as supporting quackery, whereas all I said is we should use better sources where they exist and insist on high-quality sources for exceptional claims everywhere. If something is indeed quackery, we should have peer-reviewed journals and other MEDRS sources to support the statement. In cases where those higher-quality sources do not exist, the proposal allows the use Quackwatch in those cases. This kind of comment that I'm pursuing a woo-filled wonderland is the kind of baseless ad-hominem attacks that are used to bully anyone that doesn't support the majority agenda to attack alternative medicine. I have no agenda to support or attack it - only to use strong sources. Whether an editor has an agenda to attack or promote alternative medicine, weak sources are the tools of POV pushers and the method of weeding out POV pushing is by insisting on high-quality sources, not the opposite. CorporateM (Talk) 16:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i didn't say you support quackery. i was afraid you would miss the point, and you did. really - i was not saying you support quackery. your response perhaps also demonstrates the strong feelings around this. i really am trying to talk with you. Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: I don't mind continuing the discussion, but I'd probably rather spend time actually editing the article in question. I don't even know if Quackwatch is used on this page. Neither of us are likely swing votes. CorporateM (Talk) 23:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never really encountered Quackwatch before. Researching their site reveals that they are recruiting plaintiffs for lawsuits. That's pretty much of a red flag, IMHO. Lou Sander (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

as you will then; i don't want to take you away from what you want to do. Jytdog (talk) 03:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ramsay Health Care UK[edit]

Hi, is there any chance of you taking a look at Ramsay Health Care UK ? It is pretty close paraphrasing of the company's website, lacks other sources and seems very promotional to me ... but then I think most articles about businesses are and thus I am not best placed to edit neutrally. - Sitush (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: I've stubbed it as unsourced original research and promotion. Including awards is a common WEIGHT issue that is promotional, unless the awards meet the criteria at WP:ORGAWARDS. A comprehensive list of individual products and services is also promotional; guidance on that is available at Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not_(organizations)#Products. They provide medical services; we do not need to list them all out individually like a product brochure, unless we want to wikilink to sub-articles, or for other reasons called out at the guideline. CorporateM (Talk) 18:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are very useful links. Thanks for pointing me to them and for doing the necessary with the article. - Sitush (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I've just looked at the creator's contributions. Aside from a possible COI, from a random sample of the other articles they have edited it seems that the problems are widespread. - Sitush (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of McKinsey & Company[edit]

The article McKinsey & Company you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:McKinsey & Company 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 Ugog Nizdast -- Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ugog Nizdast: Thanks so much for your time reviewing my work and providing feedback! That one had been in the queue for quite a while; probably because it is quite a bit longer and more complex than most of my noms. Here's to GA number 36! CorporateM (Talk) 06:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New discussions on Portal:Capitalism[edit]

Here, your input is appreciated Lbertolotti (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lbertolotti: Is there a specific discussion string you wanted me to respond to? CorporateM (Talk) 22:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, the most pressing matter is discussing the selected portal picture box, but it's an invitation to discuss all portal issuesLbertolotti (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About this[edit]

Closing discussion - only outcome of this string is more drama

this, that is. I emailed you to keep this private, but since you twisted what I wrote, I will just write it here: "I thought you were a pretty clueful editor. I am really blown away by this and this. How can you let yourself get involved in a health-related article, much less a controversial one, when you are this clueless (and I mean that) about how we source health content in Wikipedia? You are destroying your credibility, in my eyes at least. I can only imagine that other Project Med editors are thinking the same thing. I am at least telling you."

That email had nothing to do with any position you have taken, but rather with your (to me, very surprising) lack of understanding of MEDRS. I really thought you were more competent than that. I also that you had more class than to misrepresent a private communication in public, in that way.

In the past I had actually referred new editors to you for guidance. I won't be doing that anymore, that's for sure. Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about other editors' competence, credibility are really unnecessary. We could certainly take every single editor on WP and find areas of incompetence. An editor's lack of knowledge in a certain area is no reason to question credibility either. For all of us, people in glass houses.... and that is all of us. Think a minute everyone. Who here is perfect. Who here understands every nuance of the policies and guidelines. The Acupuncture talk page was criticized by an editor not even involved for its vitriolic tone. Is that something to be proud of? And no we can't pin that on Dr Chrissy. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

CorporateM and I formerly had a pretty good relationship, and I really did think he was more clueful (and decent) than his behavior here. This is a private matter that CorporateM chose to make public in an ugly way. Shit happens. I won't be replying to more comments from the peanut gallery. Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The peanut gallery is sick to death of the viciousness on WP articles. WP is public all of it. If you start airing your "stuff" and it affects other people, expect feed back. And I could care less about responses. I do care about the environment I and others can work in or can't work in because its too bloody awful. There is no policy or guideline that says we can make nasty comments because that's what we think. On the contrary. I understand a person can feel disappointment in someone else but the environment is poisonous already; please consider whether its necessary to add to that and what doing so accomplishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

You're not making any statements about a specific position I have taken, just expressing "disappointment" in my taking it and you think I'm incompetent for taking it. Oh but you're not bullying me, you're just expressing "disappointment" and "competence concerns" if I take a position that differs from yours. I will AGF the case that maybe you just didn't realize how inappropriate your conduct is. This type of thing can often happen when someone is too invested in the subject and in obtaining a specific outcome. This is especially threatening given all the block threats going around allegedly for "competence".

It would be useful if you would disclose if you have sent similar emails to other participants, but I suppose such information will not be forthcoming, which makes it impossible for us to evaluate the integrity of the discussion and how many editors were canvassed or bullied by you or other editors. This type of conduct is in-fact what is destructive to Wikipedia.

How any discussion about acupuncture is a "private matter" I have no idea. CorporateM (Talk) 16:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not emailed anybody else, CorporateM. I was involved in the acupuncture article a lot in the past, but the advocacy there drove me away. It is impossible to do good editing there. I do pop in from time to time. You can see that in the article and Talk history.

My email to you was personal. Like I wrote above, I had a lot of respect for you in the past. I thought that you understood our policies and guidelines very, very well and followed them carefully in all the work you do here. I really thought that. It has been disappointing to see that this is not true. That is my own deal (my own perception changing) and has nothing to do with you.

Everything in WP starts with sources, and the extent to which you had no clue what MEDRS actually says, really surprised me. It already seemed to me that the stances you were taking at the acupuncture article were based on your personal beliefs rather than what MEDRS sources say... and the comments i linked to, showed that you didn't understand the very heart of MEDRS - what it says that gold standards are. That is what my email was about - your lack of understanding of this essential guideline. I didn't mention the stances you have taken in that email (I didn't - read it is again if you think i did) because those stances themselves were not what had upset me.

But I shouldn't have expressed my disappointment. Sorry about that.

btw, my personal views on acupuncture are that it seems to work for some people, for some things. one of my best friends is an acupuncturist. but what i personally believe, and what MEDRS sources say, are two different things. the acu article I would have exist (which would describe mainstream uses of acu - pretty much as described in clinical guidelines - and would stay away from all the woo and the huge pile of content about things that acu cannot do (e.g. treat infertility) and that no science-based person would claim it could do) -- will never exist in Wikipedia, because, as i said at the start of this, there is too much advocacy. Jytdog (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

correction - I have now had an email exchange with Jayaguru-Shishya in response to his request to send him a source. What i wrote to him was consistent with what I said to him in this exchange:

BullRangifer, I don't doubt at all that there might be serious problems with the Chinese studies. And that's the very reason we are implementing statistical methods instead of mere speculation. Statistics, BullRangifer, statistics. Unfortunately I don't have access to the full text, but so far the conclusions state: "Publication bias is a possible explanation.". Note: possible, so that would indicate that it hasn't been studied in that particular report. Anyway, that's not WP:OR, BullRangifer, that's a direct quote. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
please don't comment on papers you haven't read. Jytdog (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Why not? I have requested numerous times for the studies on the publication bias. Whether it is there, or then it's not. If it is, please bring it to the attention of all of us. Thank you a lot in advance, Jytdog! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Facepalm Jytdog (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, have you seen your Talk Page[5] even: "Do you have an access to this article[6]? If so, could you please send me that one? I'd like to see if and how they might have possibly studied the subject." No need for facepalms, just try to keep cool, will you? So far, the conclusion doesn't sound really confident about it's own findings. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
yes. you should not discuss sources you haven't read. that is scholarship 101. if your scholarship is so abysmal that you actually need to be taught that, please read Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Choosing_sources. Jytdog (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Sure, Jytdog. Waiting for you to send the one I've asked. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
JS check your email, as i mentioned on my talk page. it is your responsibility to get your hands on sources; continually asking if there is evidence about X when you have been provided sources goes beyond bad scholarship to bad faith discussion. i won't be responding to you further. Jytdog (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Jayaguru-Shishya i emailed you through the WP system at 11 AM and have nothing back from you. I guess you are getting the Vickers reference some other way. Jytdog (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
You did? A big thanks, Jytdog! I'll have a look tomorrow, it's getting rather late here right now ... although I have a day off tomorrow! :-D Thanks! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Systemic_bias_1, with intervening comments by others removed

Microsoft[edit]

Do you why June 25 mentions that "Microsoft is restructured to become an incorporated business in its home state of Washington" in 1981? If this is true, shouldn't it be mentioned in the Microsoft article? Lbertolotti (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lbertolotti: There is similar content on History of Microsoft and while the source on that page does not actually directly support the content, a quick Google search reveals plenty of sources that verify it.[6][7][8] Because the Microsoft page is using WP:Summary style for History of Microsoft, it should have a four paragraph summary of the History page, rather than it's own sub-sections and in-depth description. The 1981 re-organization is probably not significant enough to be mentioned in the summary, but should be cited on the sub-page. I would also question the GA-status of the History of Microsoft page. At a quick glance, at least one entire paragraph is completely unsourced. CorporateM (Talk) 17:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, go ahead and implement the necessary changes.Lbertolotti (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Hi there. I note that you have been doing some editing at the acupuncture article. I used to edit at some of the alt-med articles but quit a few years ago when it became pretty plain to me that it was a waste of my time. It has been my impression that you have been extremely careful to avoid bias in your editing in general - after all, as a paid editor your reputation here is everything. Since you are now pretty familiar with the acupuncture article and its talk page, I'm wondering if you have any comments on why the World Health Organization and Wikipedia offer such a different view on the subject. Here is what the WHO has to say about it: [9] Gandydancer (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gandydancer: I've primarily edited in the History, adoption and regulation sections that are mostly non-medical in nature, so I cannot provide a very informed commentary on the medical aspects that are central to the arguments between editors. I do notice however that the WHO report is included in the Wikipedia article currently and our article positions it as an outlier among a medical consensus that the report's outcomes are bogus. Whether that is NPOV and representative of the sources, and not just doctors using Wikipedia to attack alternative medicine, I have no idea.

As a matter of OR, I do notice that the Acknowledgements in the WHO report are exclusively to Chinese names and what I have seen in the sources is that there is a conflict between US and Chinese sources, with US sources finding it to be a placebo and Chinese sources finding it to be effective. US sources say China has lower scientific standards, their studies lack control groups, their populace has a preference for acupuncture that creates a stronger placebo and so on. I haven't as of yet seen what their counter-point is to these allegations if there is one, but I'm getting the initial impression that this is the nature of it: Medical journals in China insist it's effective, whereas those in the US insist it is not. The WHO report was probably influenced by those in the China group of supporters.

Of course this is only natural, for Chinese doctors to defend their heritage and for US doctors to criticize medical practices with a history rooted in mysticism. However, even if my initial impressions are correct, I don't think we should insult, deride or omit minority viewpoints, rather than neutrally document the debate. And we should document both its reception among the medical profession, and among the public. It's a complex topic that requires thoughtful discussion and extensive hammering-out. CorporateM (Talk) 16:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Just curious about what page you were on and it's obviously not the same page as the one that I'm on. I am not satisfied to see the WHO report filed under "Publication bias" in the article, based solely on what Ernst had to say. I'm surprised that you find that he can trump even the WHO. But like I said, I have given up on editing any of our alt-med articles since I find it a waste of my time. Gandydancer (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gandydancer: I don't think you should give up and I don't think it's a waste of time. On the contrary, this is a very important article and it's worth our time to discuss it at substantial length. Also, I think we're fast approaching a place where editors are actually discussing things thoughtfully, instead of attacking each other and going on rants. However, it is one of those types of articles, like many articles in politics, that will attract mostly people with strong opinions that will lead to a very heated editing environment. If you wish to avoid that, I would encourage you to focus on less controversial articles, but it is at least a bit calmer now.

Regarding WHO, that section title is pretty outrageous and obviously POV loaded. I do not necessarily support the article's current positioning of the WHO report; I'd have to read a lot of sources before I could state what is "representative of the total body of literature". But there are many reasons for our articles not to be reflective of what an individual source says, if others strong sources contradict it. CorporateM (Talk) 18:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No disrespect, but I didn't advise you on where to edit and where not to edit, and the fact that I've been here for ten years without yet throwing in the towel suggests that I know how to make those decisions. As for the WHO, sure if we have a lot of good RS that refutes their position, but other than Ernst, where is it? Gandydancer (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't know without doing a copious amount of research, so I'm afraid I can't intelligently discuss it at this time. I may get to it later on. Right now I'm working up to the History section (waiting to see if I can get my grubby hands on that book). I meant no dis-respect either. CorporateM (Talk) 20:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gandydancer: Ugh, fuck it (pardon my french) I'll go take a look at it now. CorporateM (Talk) 20:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wish that you would have not brought my name to the article saying that I had "expressed concern". I'm sorry that I asked for your opinion as well because I had no intention of creating controversy. My question about the WHO had more to do with other matters rather than just acupuncture. Please, let's just drop it, it was a mistake on my part. Gandydancer (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello![edit]

Dear CorporateM,

I just wanted to say hello and let you know that I took a lot of inspiration from your profile.

I have recently created a COI profile and have been trying to mirror some of the great work you’ve been doing. While I have in the past contributed to Wikipedia on a voluntary basis, the past few weeks have been a massive learning curve – not just about the Wikipedia guidelines, but also about diplomacy, argumentation, negotiation, etc.

I’m currently working on the University Canada West article and, as you can imagine, it hasn’t been an easy ride – but I’m confident we’ll get there eventually (feel free to share any feedback, by the way).

I’d just like to keep in touch, really. If you have any recommendations for beginner COI users, it will be greatly appreciated.

All the best, BrandDude (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BrandDude:It would be helpful if I could give the article a once-over if you're comfortable with that. One piece of advice I always give new paid editors is to reject 75% of your potential clientele. This is the approximate ratio at which I have found the client's objectives cannot be achieved while following the spirit and letter of Wikipedia's policies. So you have to get really good at being able to evaluate which clients can be served ethically, as well as good at doing the consulting, remaining neutral, dealing with political pressure and the other skill-sets.

This is after-all aligned with Wikipedia's own guidance, that contributing with a conflict of interest is very strongly discouraged, because your client's objectives most likely conflict with ours, but is not forbidden, because there are exceptions. Any ethical practice is focused on the exceptions and gets good knowing which ones are the exceptions. CorporateM (Talk) 20:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CorporateM, absolutely. You’re more than welcome to take a look and make any recommendations (and even edits) to the article. I had drafted some additional content for feedback, but unfortunately my draft was speedy-deleted while still under discussion. The general feeling in the talk page is that it’s going to be difficult to make a progress without having someone more experienced in editing university-related articles – and that’s exactly what I’m trying to find at the moment.

I agree with you. Some companies out there see the Wikipedia almost as an additional company website, rather than an encyclopedia. However, I don’t think most companies are intentionally disruptive; it’s just a widespread misunderstanding of how an online encyclopedia works. This is probably where people like you and me can help. Ensuring companies understand this difference is the only way we can manage and meet expectations while abiding by ethical standards and Wikipedia guidelines.

Thanks a lot and keep up the good work! BrandDude (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your help and feedback. Much appreciated. -- BrandDude (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GreenFacts[edit]

CorporateM, why did you revert my edits regarding GreenFacts? They are all about improving the article in good faith: correcting several obsolete links, updating quotes, and restoring (with corrections) a sentence (about EU) that had been removed because a link became obsolete. I don't want to enter an edit war, but I really feel obliged to restore these edits for the quality of this article. Of course, if you feel that some improvements are needed on my modifications, please feel free to do so. But again, I really don't think that the reversion is justified. --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Deselliers:. Some of those edits may be ok, but the reason I reverted was because Wikipedia requires credible, independent sources to be the primary basis of the article, whereas you used several primary sources that should not be used. Because you are affiliated with Greenfacts, you may also have a conflict of interest. Generally you are expected to rely heavily on the Talk page in these cases, rather than editing boldly and reverting others. CorporateM (Talk) 19:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CorporateM:. I think you should carefully review my editions before reverting them stating "this edit introduces several primary sources inappropriately". It doesn't:

Indeed, my first revision (→‎Funding: Re-added work for the European Commission (with correct references)) re-added not only a (corrected) independent source (the UE website), but also it re-installed an link to the GreenFacts website that provides evidence that the EU summaries and leaflet are indeed those produced by GreenFacts. If you feel like removing these GreenFacts links, feel free to do so - but I fear it may confuse the reader.

All my other edits just corrected obsolete references and, at one place, a quote on the GreenFacts website that had changed. There are strictly no reason to revert them.

I have left GreenFacts 7 years ago and have no other interest than ensuring that it's Wikipedia page is accurate and up-to date.

I agree that "Generally you are expected to rely heavily on the Talk page in these cases, rather than editing boldly and reverting others". I looked at the GreenFacts talk page and didn't see anything about your reversions of my edits. That's why I reverted your reversion - and started this section on your talk page :) --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Deselliers: If you no longer have an affiliation with the article-subject, than this is not considered a conflict of interest, and Wikipedia would allow (even encourage) you to go ahead and make bold edits. Regarding "independent" sources, we require secondary sources that are independent of "the event" not just of the article-subject. The content you added read "GreenFacts also works under contract for the European Commission" and the website was to the European Commission. This is not an independent source. The sources should have no affiliation with the events being described, such as a journalist or academic. Hope this helps. CorporateM (Talk) 21:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am continuing this conversation on the GreenFacts talk page with the hope of reactions from other wikipedians --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 07:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Libraries rock[edit]

Just found a physical copy of a trade publication from 1953 with a 2-page profile on Emeco (where I have a COI). Might be the best source I have found yet. Anyways, I am at the library every week or two, if anyone wants me to fetch them something and save the trip. CorporateM (Talk) 20:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

World Journal of Gastroenterology[edit]

Hey Corporate M! I was perusing the ol' edit history on the Acupuncture page and I wanted to ask you if this source ever was restored after we had realized on the talk page here that it wasn't sponsored by an alt-med organization after some further investigation. I was going to restore it myself, but I hadn't been active as much and didn't know if it was back on there but in a new section. The article used to have a section called "other conditions" I think, and I think we now have a newly created section for individual conditions so I wasn't sure if it was on the page somewhere else or not. Anywho, on a side note, thank you very much for your contributions to the page. It is nice to have more neutral editors who know what they are doing editing articles like acupuncture. LesVegas (talk) 23:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LesVegas: I did put it back in at some point, however I literally just threw it into article-space in that section, so it was there somewhere and not deleted. It probably needs re-writing and more research anyway, but it looked like a good idea to wait for a consensus to emerge on prose versus a long list. CorporateM (Talk) 00:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see now. It's in the IBS section and added into the US versus Chinese sources part. That looks very good. Come to think of it, in the past, I have seen numerous high quality Chinese sources that editors exclude in favor of US only literature so perhaps the IBS section could be a model for the entire article? If I find it interesting that the Chinese model uses different controls, readers probably will as well, plus it makes for a better (and non-systemically biased) encyclopedia to use as wide of sources as possible, just as long as they meet high quality MEDRS standards (and not all Chinese ones would, for sure.) Anywho, I like what you did there. LesVegas (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whistle Sports Network Page[edit]

Good morning!

I looked through edits for the Whistle Sports Network page, and I was wondering why you had removed so much of the information that had been written there? One edit claimed that you couldn't find some of the info on the company's website, but it's clearly there, as I looked myself. Hoping to add some info from articles and the website.

Thank you!

Morgan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.209.60.146 (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to get more specific. For awards please see WP:ORGAWARDS. We also don't need an indiscriminate list of partners. If you have a financial connection to the organization, please note you are required to disclose it, to avoid astroturfing. CorporateM (Talk) 15:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed specific to me. There are plenty of pages that have been written by companies themselves and their organizations. If I'm using articles as a source, it's not opinion, it's fact. That's the basis of journalism, which is what this is. And maybe your opinion is that the list of partners does not need to be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.209.60.146 (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Specific meaning asking why I removed a specific sentence; then I could explain why that sentence was removed (or restore it if appropriate). Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF and review the "Paid contributions without disclosure" section of Wikipedia's Terms of Use here. CorporateM (Talk) 19:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosh[edit]

Please copy edit the Ghosh material that you said poorly conveyed the idea. Thx. PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @PraeceptorIP:, but I'm afraid as a non-lawyer, it's a bit beyond my comprehension. I realize it's somewhat unhelpful for someone to identify a problem, but be unable to fix it themselves. CorporateM (Talk) 21:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Popcorn draft[edit]

Thanks for your offer. So long as you review it with the same standards as a volunteer editor, it would be welcome.

The draft is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BC1278/sandbox

Many thanks.BC1278 (talk) 02:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

Thanks for your work! I'm caught up now doing my real job and will take a careful look later. But I see you did a lot of work and wanted to thank you right away.Edsussman (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

I took a careful look. I corrected one spelling error "faction" was meant to be "fiction", which was my own. BTW, I put in that long list of publications where she'd been featured because editors in the past had said they had trouble finding references to her. I don't think they looked very hard. I wanted whomever did the review to see she was quite well known (before they deleted the sentence.) Thanks so much for your time and efforts.Edsussman (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

AfD Liz Prince[edit]

Hi CorporateM. I noticed that you cited WP:42 in the deletion discussion found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liz Prince. Please note that generally the golden rule should not be cited at an AfD, as per WP:NOT42. Instead of citing the general golden rule, which is mainly used as a crash course for new editors, cite specific policy such as WP:N, WP:V, or WP:NPOV. This helps ensure that people reading your rationale understand what you're nominating the article for. Thanks for your contributions! ~ Rob^Talk 03:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

help desk[edit]

hi, I answered your question at Wikipedia:Help desk#question about possible sockpuppet .thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CEO Pages[edit]

Hi CorporateM -

Would you be interested to reviewing some of the suggested edits to this page? Cathy is the first female US CEO of any of the Big Four accounting firms. I've also submitted a request to create a page for Punit, who is the new CEO of Deloitte Global. Have more info to share if that's something up your alley! Ariel924 (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of CSG International[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article CSG International 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 Wugapodes -- Wugapodes (talk) 00:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review Draft article?[edit]

Hi CorporateM.

You were nice enough to review the Faith Popcorn update. I've written a new draft for a company called LRN Draft: LRN and I wonder if you might like to review it? I also have a WP:COI here. The CEO of the company, Dov Seidman, has a moderately high profile.

Many thanks for considering the request.

Best, Ed BC1278 (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

Knowing how much you detest poor paid editing...[edit]

I wonder if it would amuse you to examine Acorn Mobility and the deletion discussion. Your opinion, formal or informal, would be appreciated, whether it differs from or agrees with my own. If the article survives AFD I suspect your scalpel would be of great value to Wikipedia there. Fiddle Faddle 20:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent:

Done I cut out all the award and philanthropy PR stuff. A lot of the article is cited to short blurbs, but they do appear to have an actual byline, so they may be fine. I don't know if I "detest" poor paid editing - if you looked back into my editing history about 5-8 years ago, you'd see plenty of it by yours truly. CorporateM (Talk) 22:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5-8 years ago the WP world was very different, too. Fiddle Faddle 22:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Emeco has been accepted[edit]

Emeco, 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Sulfurboy (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Sulfurboy:! I noticed you added a COI tag to the page that says the article "may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view". If you believe this to be the case, I'd be interested in knowing where you feel the problems are. Otherwise, I might suggest using something like the below, if you wanted to add a disclosure, without necessarily indicating that the article has problems. CorporateM (Talk) 00:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A major contributor to this page was sponsored by Emeco.

Feel free to place that instead.

Done CorporateM (Talk) 00:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Emeco logo.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Emeco logo.gif. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on how to handle a corporate spin-off and renaming?[edit]

I thought you might have an idea on how to handle Intelius/inome, founded by Naveen Jain. A new editor, Ksylvester (talk · contribs), is a disclosed employee of Intelius and has been updating the article. Now that we have an employee to help, I've asked for clarification on the reorganization and renaming that I'd previously brought up on the article's talk page. The corporate entity now called Intelius is a spin-off from inome, inome being the company founded by Jain that was originally called Intelius. I expect that the new corporation will have little notability beyond it's history, certainly overshadowed by its history, but of course the new owners of the corporation will want the article to focus on the new company. If you can at least suggest a venue for getting help on this situation, I'd appreciate it.

Basically, inome is the notable company, so we must have an article about it. What's now called Intelius may or may not be notable on its own, but a stub article for it seems to be a good solution. --Ronz (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronz: That sounds like a complex situation and one that can benefit from having multiple editors involved to hammer it out, so I'm glad you reached out to me. I'll need to do some real digging and editing on the subject before I'm informed enough to provide an intelligent suggestion. I do have some time today to put my book down and take a look. CorporateM (Talk) 19:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of CSG International[edit]

The article CSG International you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:CSG International 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 Wugapodes -- Wugapodes (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Meany GA review[edit]

I am very grateful for your thorough review and input. I agree with most of your points and have made changes accordingly. In those few cases where I disagreed, I have done my best to explain why. I have continued copy editing and refining the article, attempting to better explain obscure points. Please let me know what else needs to be done at this point, and thank you very much. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Thanks! I saw that you responded to a few things, but I was doing a couple other GA reviews and trying to finish a chapter in a book (I've committed to reading a chapter a day). I should be able to get back to it tomorrow afternoon. CorporateM (Talk) 07:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I have addressed all your concerns. Please let me know if there are any other issues. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits[edit]

Please, let's discuss on the talk page of Aethlon before proceeding with your controversial notion that Retraction Watch is not a reliable source. It is not a fly by night blog. How's your portfolio, friend? Lights N (talk) 03:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also confused about your idea that the CFO and CRD of a small company that manufactures medical devices would be "minor." Any insight on this? Lights N (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lights N: Generally speaking on any company article, the CEO is included in the infobox and every CEO transition is included in the article-body. This is done even if we need to rely on mediocre sources. On the other hand, we do not cover the hiring/firing/etc. of the entire C-suite. There are unique cases where the actions of a single employee led to a series of significant events for the company.

Please note the Wordpress blog you are using as a source does not meet the high standards at WP:BLP for contentious material about living people. That policy requires that poorly-sourced contentious information about living people be removed immediately, without discussion and even if removing the content requires edit-warring.

Not only do we need a much stronger source for contentious material about a living person, but in this case we need the source to actually be about Aethlon Medical. We do not use company articles to air dirty laundry from random employees.

CorporateM (Talk) 04:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 14 July[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Acupuncture page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Nomination[edit]

Hi CorporateM. Thanks for your comments on my GA review. I've made the necessary changes and responded here.

Signpost editorial.[edit]

[ Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-07-15/Op-ed ]. Note my comment in the comment section. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: Yup, looks reasonable. There are many problems/shortcomings to this approach, but it is the most reasonable thing we can do, which is why there is so much consensus for it. Request Edits that are answered by random editors in the queue only get a reasonably on-target response in about 60-70% of cases, but then our competence level in other areas of the site is not much higher and paid editors themselves demonstrate a much lower competence level than those answering their Request Edits and a much higher level of bias than the bias editors have for/against paid editing.

Naturally the authors only concerned themselves with Request Edits that are unfairly rejected against them, but many are also accepted when they shouldn't be for the same reason. The author himself is more guilty than most in focusing on COI and the motivations of editors to make his arguments.

Once a paid editor discloses, often editors will disagree/agree with them based on their opinion on paid editing, their relationship with the editor and their perspective on the paid editor's conduct. It also makes us targets for harassment, trolling, and inappropriate real-world consequences. Some have even submitted Request Edits due to a very remote COI and been treated poorly under the presumption that they were a paid editor.

In my opinion, this is why such extensive disclosures as are common now are against our founding principles of anonymous editing and focusing on the content. It derails content based discussions into a thinly veiled discussion on whether we should do what the paid editor wants. I would prefer we encourage the minimum disclosure necessary to avoid deception/impropriety. For a long time @Drmies: didn't know I was a paid editor; he just thought I had a COI with a lot of companies. I'm not sure this level of ambiguity is actually a problem, as there shouldn't be a difference in how we treat different forms of COI and less information means more focus on content.

CorporateM (Talk) 20:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree, but right now the policy is what it is and I try to work with it. The reason I focus on paid COI editors is, quite frankly, because in my experience I encounter a higher level of professionalism.

I would be very interested in any cases of paid COI editors being harassed so I can take it to ANI and get the harassers blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon:The most persistent stalker I have encountered was harassing numerous disclosed paid editors, but was not blocked until there was a dispute with a volunteer. It wasn't until after someone was harassing me on Twitter for being a paid editor that I chose to edit anonymously, like everyone else.

This kind of ABFing and speculation of conspiracy is more common, but not an issue for admins and should basically be protected under free-speech principles. Still, compare it to a conversation on a similar topic here. On the other side, I've seen a Request Edit where one of the bulleted requests was to add blatant promotion about how innovative they are, and an editor told them to go ahead and make all their edits. This kind of inconsistency is ubiquitous everywhere though.

My experience with the Request Edit queue is not that of professionalism. Very few of the requested edits are acceptable and paid editors often freak out when their edits are rejected, because they have such a vested interest in their acceptance. I also don't think professionalism is necessary or preferable. People often use this term to identify me, and I do not know why. I do not exhibit professionalism. Much of my editing is done during commercial breaks or while playing World of Warcraft. I am often sloppy and dis-organized or say something that is incorrect, when I should have looked up the policy first.

CorporateM (Talk) 21:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thank you very much for your diligent work on the GA review of George Meany. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Sorry if I'm a bit frustrated. You caught me in a bit of a bitter mood. Although I really enjoyed learning about the history of acupuncture a lot of my experiences on Wikipedia as of late has been a bit frustrating. Thanks for sticking it out. I think the page is much improved and worthy of the GA mark. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 08:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amal Women's Training Center and Moroccan Restaurant/GA1#Third Opinion[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Amal Women's Training Center and Moroccan Restaurant/GA1#Third Opinion. Thanks! Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger[edit]

Link to discussion. If you want to invite more people to the discussion, feel free to do so. Lbertolotti (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming this does not conflict with your client list[edit]

I have a challenge for you, if you are up for it, and it becomes necessary

SHINE Medical Technologies is to have the deletion discussion on it closed in the short term future. I have no idea which way it will go and am unconcerned either way, even though I nominated it. I have taken the contributing editor under my wing somewhat, and have promised to work with her if she needs to create a new draft, substantially different from the old article, if the old is deleted.

I'm not inviting you to contribute to the deletion discussion, though you are welcome to. What I am hoping is that you may be interested in the challenge of creating a draft that shows that SHINE has genuine inherent notability. It may be that it does not, yet. It may be that nothing happens with its applications for a licence and it is never notable. It may be retained at AFD. I just thought this might be right up your street. Fiddle Faddle 14:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent:

Done CorporateM (Talk) 20:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw. To me the end result looks good. Thank you. Your work was sufficient for me to withdraw my deletion nomination. Fiddle Faddle 21:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 26 July[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Flocabulary page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you![edit]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thank you for your contributions toward the GA nomination review for the Amal Women's Training Center and Moroccan Restaurant. We may have disagreed on some things, but Wikipedia needs editors like you who are dedicated to ensuring that the encyclopedia is well referenced and doesn't become a haven for marketers. Ry's the Guy ^{(talk\|contribs)} 15:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rystheguy: Thanks, though I'm not sure about the reference to marketers. Marketers that make promotional edits are actually easier to deal with, because the community is usually supportive of trimming their promotion. However, there are a great number of topics like open source, historical societies and academics where there are so many fans within the editing community that their promotion is impossible to correct. Though I don't recall exactly, I don't remember there being anything terribly promotional about your article. CorporateM (Talk) 03:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National Heritage Foundation[edit]

Hey Corp, I know for a fact that you or one of your many followers can bring this article up to snuff. I did some basic cleanup and added a factoid or two, but all these numbers, this business stuff, maaaaan it's boring. It will not surprise you to learn that there's two COI editors in the history, one from each side. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:

Done I cleaned up all the primary sources, blogs, etc. and replaced it with an in-depth article in the Chronicle of Philanthropy. The organization appears to be mostly defunct and best known for corrupt fund-raising/spending practices that led to their bankruptcy, so I'm not concerned about the article being unreasonably negative. We do sometimes have very negative articles if that is what the sources focus on. CorporateM (Talk) 18:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep but, as I'm sure you understand, I thought it best to tread carefully since that businessese is not my first, or even my second language. Thank you so much for helping out. Drmies (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have concerns about that article. It seems to me that you need a source to state "It promotes projects in the area of charitable, educational, scientific or religious activities." A quick check shows that they [10] changed their name to this [file:///C:/Users/Mary/Downloads/Annual_Report07.pdf] and [11] after this [12] happened. Gandydancer (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gandydancer: Thanks for chiming in! I actually removed this Forbes piece since it was written by a "contributor", but I do see that the author has a long history as a professional reporter for many reliable publications[13]. I think how I would like to handle it is to use the source very cautiously, avoiding bold claims like "largest charity bankruptcies in recent times" or opinionated content like "likely to raise questions", but we can do something to incorporate the update you're referring to. I removed the thing about what they actually do. Anything that is contested by anyone that is unsourced should be removed immediately and you contested it. Making the tweak now. CorporateM (Talk) 20:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is what frustrates me with scammy businesses. They are like wackamole. As soon as someone pays enough attention to identify an organization as a scam, they dissolve and start some new foundation over again with a fresh reputation. CorporateM (Talk) 20:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best if I let you do the editing because this sort of crap really makes my blood boil and it would be hard for me to edit considering my feelings. Here's what happened to some real people. [14] Gandydancer (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gandydancer:You know what makes my blood boil, is that there is actually opposition to the proposed sexual harassment policy. There is nothing to lose and so much to gain from adopting a practice that is widely proven in the real-world to reduce sexual harassment. But half the editors participating just want to drag-out some drama about a specific case that didn't go their way. Most are probably men who have never experienced sexual harassment themselves and don't really understand what the big deal is. It's a depressing epitome of many of Wikipedia's problems - excessive drama, highly skewed editor demographics and editors narrowly focused on their own arguments. It's that kind of thing that makes me wish I didn't have to collaborate with other editors. Many editors just quietly contribute to articles and do good work totally un-noticed. CorporateM (Talk) 22:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CM, if you have ever read my user page about my beloved Aunt Rose you can guess that my feelings about what women have had to put up with should be obvious. Granted, women have made tremendous strides since the sixties, but I knew better than to advertise that I was a woman when I joined WP - it's hard enough to suffer through being a newbie and being a woman as well just adds to it and makes being seen as having a good intellect even harder. But those are deeply held beliefs (held by men and women alike, BTW) that WP is not going to change.

I have been following the discussion but every time I attempt to add something, I don't know what to say...or at least I know what I might say, but it would be very negative about the entire issue. I've been here since 2006 and I've almost never seen sexual harassment. Some of the damn meanist things I've heard about editors came right from Carol (I forget her last name) when she complained about being harassed. I think we have an unusually great bunch of men here. I really (almost) can't remember ever reading some of the stupid sexually motivated ideas and language that one would likely find at a mostly-male group. In fact, CM, maybe you read my mind because I seriously considered asking you what sort of harassing you had seen that I have somehow been missing... Well, so that's why I haven't contributed to the discussion. Gandydancer (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gandydancer: I think pointing out that it's rare is like saying a car only blows up in 1% of cases. Even though the chances of it occurring are unlikely, when it does happen it is deeply troubling and will discourage others from buying the car. Unlike the car, we don't need to spend money to replace a part under warranty; it literally costs us nothing to reduce the number of incidences. That being said, I'm glad to hear that you haven't had any experiences like that on Wikipedia yet. My gender is not disclosed (and I happen to be a man), so it's much less likely for me to have experiences like that. I don't really hang out at the ANI/AN drama boards much either, so I can't accurately assess how often it occurs. CorporateM (Talk) 08:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's some data on this here actually that I noticed being discussed at the RFC. CorporateM (Talk) 09:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OM, my concern is that a very small number of editors have blown a very small problem into an accusation that sexual harassment is a big problem here and is, in fact, a major reason that WP has been unable to attract more women as editors. If you, and they, see it as a problem that needs to be addressed I think you should go ahead and do that if you see it as an issue. But considering that I've made thousands of edits with a very large number of them connected to women and have not seen sexual harassment, I see no reason that the WP:Harassment and WP:Civility guidelines aren't perfectly able to address anything that may come up. To some extent I see the issue as sexist in that it suggests that women are so easily upset by what they perceive as "sexual harassment" that they need special treatment. Buster made this banner and I keep it posted on my talk page:

This editor has joined the opposition to the targeting of editors by the politically-correct and ideology-driven so that we can keep this the encyclopedia anyone can edit, not just the one that only those who haven't yet done something unacceptable to the easily-offended can edit. Don't let the octopus of the easily-offended bring down the entire project!

On the other hand, since most of my editing is done in areas that receive a lot of controversy, I do run into frequent uncivil comments. Mostly by men, but then most of the editors here are men. It's my best guess that women are just as likely to be snarky and sarcastic. But since we do know that as a matter of fact out in the real world women's suggestions, etc., are more likely to be ignored or seen as less astute than those of men, women can expect to see some of that here as well. I'd guess that (sad to say) women need to work harder (than men) for acceptance here. As that changes in the real world it will change here as well.

You know, Slim had an idea for an outside group to conduct (I'll call it) Sensitivity Training that I think would work. Considering that the use of Consensus problem solving never was really meant to work without trained facilitators, it's actually more surprising that we've been able to make it work at all than that we are running into problems. I can imagine a day when "offenders" would be required to take "Sensitivity Training" classes if they wanted to continue to edit here. IMO most of the problems are caused by a lack of understanding where..."where people are coming from" (to use an old phrase from the sixties). We all base our perceptions on our past experiences, which are all different, and women do think and work differently than men, etc. Gandydancer (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Gandydancer:. You're actually changing my perspective quite a bit through sound argumentation, which is a rare, but direly needed quality around here. I had taken it for granted that the perception that sexual/racial/sexual orientation-based harassment was an issue was justified, but the data does seems to suggest it is pretty rare and your experiences anecdotally support that. However, I see that WP:HARASS covers stalking, legal threats, and doxing - I don't think it has anything that would cover sexual harassment or other discriminatory behavior. Civility has something here, but even that doesn't say anything that would cover unwanted sexual advances. I don't think the current policies actually adequately address it, except for in an abstract, in-spirit kind of way and there's zero cost in adopting the policy. But thanks to you I now understand the counter-arguments better and a little perspective is always a good and welcome thing. CorporateM (Talk) 20:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for butting in but @Gandydancer: asked if I had an opinion. I think she mostly gets to the heart of the matter but I'm not sure Wikipedia should train anybody in anything except perhaps in how to edit. When I started editing I felt my way in, I didn't disclose my gender either although I didn't consider it an issue, I just wanted to put in some information. My efforts were recognised by some fantastically helpful people and with their encouragement I got on with it. Nobody can make women (or indeed men) edit, editors have to want to add something, if they don't have something to add then I don't know why they would even register. I looked something up, saw a gap and I filled it. I wouldn't have been drawn to a women's editathon or anything like that. And after six years I still don't understand how the damn thing works, but it's easy enough to figure out how to do things by copying what works for other people.

I've seen no sexual harrasment on Wikipedia but I have seen editors conflate criticism or disagreement with harrassment. I've seen and been involved in disagreements but the only harrassment I've suffered has been from women from that very small group mentioned by Gandydancer. Harrassment is harrassment, it doesn't need an adjective to describe it and when it happens it should be dealt with quickly. Women with something to add don't need special treatment, they get on and do it. Special treatment is only demanded by those with other motives. People saying there aren't enough articles about women's this, women's that and women's the other should get stuck in and stop expecting somebody else to write it for them. Since this political nonsense reared its ugly head I have wound back my time here considerably, so much for attracting and keeping women. J3Mrs (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA help at Neepaulakating Creek[edit]

Hey CorporateM,

Would you be willing to do me a favor and review Neepaulakating Creek? I gave a second opinion over at Talk:Neepaulakating Creek/GA1 and, long story short, there was a minor kerfuffle between the reviewer and nom, and the consensus seems to be to get a new reviewer. I was asked but said I didn't feel uninvolved enough to take it on. Through my run ins with you in GA noms and reviews, I think you have a pretty good grasp of the GA criteria, and I think you'd be able to do a good job. If you can or can't, just let me know. Happy editing! Wugapodes (talk) 03:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wugapodes: I don't know how much I can help, because I don't have any experience with articles about geographic locations. I've done more GA company articles than anyone and some BLPs, products, business topics, etc. But I can at least take a look.

I started reading the strings, but it was just all drama. Do you know if there is anything specific about the content itself that the nominator and reviewer disagree on? CorporateM (Talk) 06:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving it a look. It's not so much an opinion on this current review, rather, this review will be closed, and, rather than let the article sit for another 3+ months, I'm trying to find someone willing to review it now. If you don't think you can do a good job with the review, I can ask some other editors; it's no big deal. and I agree, it is a lot of drama Wugapodes (talk) 07:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that you probably knew all that and were just reading it to figure out how to review this one. The gist of the dispute is whether the article meets the criteria of being "broad" in its coverage. The reviewer (with a rather extensive knowledge of rivers) says no, nom says yes, drama ensues. Wugapodes (talk) 07:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another Merger[edit]

I will go ahead and do the merger, since nobody opposed it. Lbertolotti (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC) Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Business#Talk:Inventory_control_problem.23Merger_proposal[reply]

Your GA nomination of Public Storage[edit]

The article Public Storage 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:Public Storage for things which need to be addressed. LavaBaron (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Emeco 1006[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Emeco 1006 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. LavaBaron (talk) 05:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Emeco 1006[edit]

The article Emeco 1006 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:Emeco 1006 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of LavaBaron -- LavaBaron (talk) 06:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Heather Bresch[edit]

The article Heather Bresch 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:Heather Bresch for things which need to be addressed. LavaBaron (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

barnstar[edit]

		The Business and Economics Barnstar
		For consistently excellent company-related articles. LavaBaron (talk) 02:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work[edit]

@CorporateM:, hope you’re well. We were really impressed with the work you did on the University Canada West. How can I get in touch with you to discuss the possibility of working on a long-term basis? BrandDude (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although there have been a couple exceptions, I generally don't do Wikipedia work for organizations whose page I have already heavily edited on a volunteer basis. This could create the perception of abusing my volunteer editing to get clients. Also, as I stated on Talk, I don't feel a neutral article greatly benefits this organization, since they are primarily known for struggling to attract students. CorporateM (Talk) 14:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The university did have its fair share of bad press, which, I agree, can give a wrong impression. But in fact there is actually a very good bunch of people working there and trying to do the right thing - hopefully we'll get to a stage where the Wikipedia article reflects what happens in the real world. Thanks for letting me know, anyway. And feel free to drop me a line if you change your mind. BrandDude (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much CorpM for this statement: "abusing my volunteer editing to get clients" because it sure did have me wondering... As an editor to several corporate articles, I am well aware of the importance of representing the information in an unbiased manner. While I am fully aware of the difficulties corporations face in getting their information included in their articles, we need to be very careful to see that we are not producing promotional articles. Gandydancer (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gandydancer: You are not the only one wondering. Just about anytime an editor disagrees with me, often a POV pusher, they start accusing me of having a covert COI. Most editors are smart enough not to take the bait. Though on articles where I actually do have a COI, ABFing, conspiracy theories and COI-based arguments seem to not only be well-tolerated, but effective. CorporateM (Talk) 16:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be sure you understand, I meant that as a compliment to you. I have never doubted your integrity here - after all your reputation is everything since you must do your work with the help of other editors. I have also always found your work here to be fair and unbiased. But it was also good to see that you would refuse to take on an article that you had previously worked on. Gandydancer (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gandydancer: Thanks! Sorry if I'm in a complaining mood ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 22:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Thank you very much for alluding to me as a POV pusher. I take that as a badge of honor, ten times sweeter than every barnstar I have received, combined. Thank you so much.~~Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what he's talking about - wasn't making any references to him... I don't even remember any time where Cullen and I have disagreed on an article where I had no COI, which is the only reference I made to POV pushers. CorporateM (Talk) 14:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for striking that @Cullen328:. If you want to see an example of what I was referring to, you can dig into the Sageworks page. However, while I will clearly identify that editor as a POV pusher, I will also say that I still AGF the case. Most editors want Wikipedia to reflect their personal views; someone is only identified as a POV pusher when sources conflict with their views and when their views are not popular among our editing demographic. And most editors are POV pushers on at least some things. I think what concerns myself the most are topics like open-source, where fanboys and POV pushers are not identified as such, because we have so many open-source advocates within the community. When I try to cleanup blatant promotion on an open-source page, I'm left feeling as if I was the POV pusher. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 22:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Bob Muglia[edit]

The article Bob Muglia 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:Bob Muglia for things which need to be addressed. LavaBaron (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You Got GAed![edit]

Thanks @LavaBaron:! I'm glad to see that you were persuaded by the sources that the article-subject's embarrassment in court was not an "obligatory scandal" added to over-compensate for my COI, but was just the same routine editing as any editor would do. Sometimes it's really hard for editors (myself included) to focus on content once a COI is disclosed. I'm about to leave a comment on the company article you started as well. If you have an interest in business topics, and you're comfortable collaborating with COI editors, I might ping you from time to time if that's ok. WP:COI requires that I suggest content on the Talk page of articles, rather than edit directly, which means I am always on the prowl for drama-free editors that will focus on content and are interested in getting involved in random company pages. CorporateM (Talk) 19:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, ping me whenever, CorporateM. My preference is to work on business and company articles because they're usually pretty straightforward. LavaBaron (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @LavaBaron:! Yah, but the complicated ones are so much funner ;-)

If you have an interest in company pages, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (organizations) is good reading. In particular I cite WP:ORGAWARDS constantly when cleaning up promotional articles.

IMO, business topics are a really under-served area of Wikipedia. This is a hobby site, so people tend to want to spend time writing about their personal hobbies or interests, as oppose to what they do for work. CorporateM (Talk) 19:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for the Help![edit]

Thank you for helping out with the COI edits on the Sarah Morris article! Your approach to editing is fair and well considered and I hope to work with you again if another edit ever comes up. Keep up the good work! Parallaxstudio (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem @Parallaxstudio:. I appreciate you bringing to our attention that neutral, well-sourced information was removed, leaving only one side of the debate to be included. Going through the Request Edit queue is an exercise in wading through crap, so I'm always pleased when something useful pops up. CorporateM (Talk) 21:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image assistance[edit]

Hi. You've been assigned to me as a mentor, and you offered to assist with adding images to the infobox for the City Reliquary page. Could you take me through the steps to get this done? Thanks! Scelentano81 (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Scelentano81:. Images and copyrights on Wikipedia are complicated enough such that none of us have truly mastered it in its entirety, so lets take it one step at-a-time. A logo image in the infobox is the easiest and a de-facto part of any page about an organization. To upload it you need to go here and follow the wizard. When prompted about copyrights, you're gonna need to click on "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use" then "This is a logo of an organization, company, brand, etc."

In most cases besides logos, you can only use the image if it is under a free copyright. This includes most images you take yourself, Flickr images with certain options clicked, and most anything in Wikimedia Commons. CorporateM (Talk) 21:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I just successfully uploaded the infobox image.

Scelentano81 (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work @Scelentano81:! Now the image you uploaded is on a white background, whereas the infobox is a slightly off-white grey and that creates this ugly white box around the logo. You can fix this by finding a PNG file on a transparent background, or you can use something like this to convert the image. CorporateM (Talk) 21:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Academy of Achievement article[edit]

Hi - I've seen your name a few times before on various articles, and you appear to be someone that the admins like. I'm trying to improve the Academy of Achievement article and it has a long and contentious history. Admin User:JzG (Guy) has been fighting to remove content that he deems promotional, and I'm trying to garner consensus. I'm apparently being lumped in with prior editors and my work isn't being allowed to stand on its own merits. There's also a sort of Pretzel logic claiming the group isn't notable, while removing valid media mentions of the group and its history. He also appears to be getting sloppy - or at least I hope that's the excuse for what he's done - trying to keep adding a nonsense motto in the infobox which I've removed twice now. I've flagged his talk page twice and it doesn't seem to do anything. Would you be kind enough to visit the article and share your perspective? Perhaps enough reasonable third parties can help settle this peacefully and without drama.TechnoTalk (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page stalkers[edit]

Super excited to be doing a sponsored project to improve the Wikipedia page on Gail Godwin, a notable female writer known for exploring feminist themes. Her page is shockingly derelict, most likely due to the Gender Gap. The local university library is chalked filled with extensive, high-quality source material, but much of it is pre-internet era newspapers (she's in her late 70s) that are only accessible in the Special Collections department and unlikely to ever be tapped by regular volunteers. One of my goals as a paid editor is to do more work for famous women, feminine products, fashion, and other topics that are most greatly under-served by the volunteer model. What a great example of how (in some cases) paid editors can do so much good for Wikipedia. I'm pumped! CorporateM (Talk) 18:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You say "most likely due to the Gender Gap" and then immediately mention most of the source material on her is "pre-internet era newspapers". Seems like the "most likely" belongs to the latter explanation by Occam's Razor. There's an entire world of topics out there that our collective consciousness has forgotten and are difficult to source with URLs. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Quinn: The problem with the Occam's Razor argument is that you're presuming the hypotheses "compete", whereas both are probably factors and they were intended to be presented in duality, as oppose to a false dichotomy. They do not contradict each other. However, there is no way to prove one way or another exactly why a specific article has or hasn't been improved, so it's kind of a rabbit hole as far as debating intellectually or testing a hypothesis. I just meant I was happy to be one small part in improving our coverage of feminist topics and of topics that are historical enough not to be covered on the internet; it wasn't intended as a statement that could withstand scientific scrutiny. CorporateM (Talk) 19:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get sidetracked, CM. Good on ya. This is important work that needs to be done. On newspapers.com I'm seeing she wrote a wry little column for The Daily Tar Heel called "Carolina Carrousel" while a student. Here's one where she bemoans her father unable to get the latest Playboy Magazine because local sheriffs have seen fit to choose what periodical literature should be available to read. BusterD (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @BusterD:! Trust me, I have my arms filled with source material; perhaps too much to handle. I just finished reading this bio which single-handedly got me to a decent framework. This one is next after I rest my eyes a bit. In one case, I literally just grabbed a random book from a shelf that was focused on famous Southern writers and found a bio on her in it. The crazy thing is when I first talked to her handler, I did a quick Google News search and thought "meh, is she even notable?" I mean actually notable, as oppose to Wikipedia covers every author in existence notable. It wasn't until I actually went to the library that I found entire books about her work; students did thesis projects analyzing her books and the library kept archived press clippings on her dating back to the 70s. I suddenly flipped to a "wow this is important" mode, because in 100 years Wikipedia may be the last remaining, accessible documentation of her life. CorporateM (Talk) 20:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to inundate you, but I found this Iowa City Press-Citizen interview about her second novel while she was teaching at IU. Seems a fascinating subject, fully worthy of a complete scholarly biography. Good luck. BusterD (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BusterD: nice work! If you're interested in chipping in, without our work being redundant, a lot of her books qualify for Wikipedia pages, but I don't think I'll be writing them. That article for example would probably be better suited for Glass people (novel) for example. CorporateM (Talk) 21:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New page is at Glass People. No reason for disambiguator. Also, new category, Category:Novels by Gail Godwin. TTFN. BusterD (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BusterD:I might just do it eventually, even though I'm not commissioned for it. But if you start at page 119 of the Dictionary of literary biographies, on the right-hand side starting at "While in Iowa, Godwin published her first book", the following several pages summarize each book's narrative and the reception it got from critics. It looks like a great source for a short, well-rounded stub on each of her older books. CorporateM (Talk) 16:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CorporateM. My point in originally commenting is that you present the "gender gap" as the "most likely" reason for "shockingly derelict" condition of her article. That statement is highly likely to be wrong; the pre-internet explanation seems much more convincing for the condition of her article as many if not most articles whose topic's relevance had faded before the 90's Internet have the same problem. In my experience, gender gap arguments are often misused on Wikipedia and I'd like to see that improved. I've had multiple non-Wikipedians disparage the site over this issue (no thanks to Sue Garner and her well-intentioned but misguided high-profile statements in years past) and therefore I believe the public perception of a gender gap has been harmful to the project as a whole. I'd like to see people invoke gender gap arguments with far more care and consideration.

As for you critique of my comment, it's seriously flawed. I never said there are the only two possibilities and I never said the two explanations were contradictory, nor do I assume it's all one or the other. You may have "intended [them] to be presented in duality" but the phrase "more likely" attached to the gender gap explanation works against this intention. I stand by my use of Occam's Razor here and believe I've used it properly. If you'd like me to elaborate on this and debate it for fun we can but I agree that it's not worth spending too much time on it and your time is better spent on writing the article.

My main purpose commenting here is to counter the gender gap scenario for any other future readers of this thread. This was a case were invoking gender gap is extremely tenuous and I didn't want "most likely" to go unchallenged. I also hope you'll be more reserved with it as well. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Qualcomm Snapdragon[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Qualcomm Snapdragon 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 Sovereign Sentinel -- Sovereign Sentinel (talk) 09:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Qualcomm Snapdragon[edit]

The article Qualcomm Snapdragon 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:Qualcomm Snapdragon for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sovereign Sentinel -- Sovereign Sentinel (talk) 10:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]