Talk:Joseph Phua

Edit Request
I am requesting an edit to this article in accordance with the terms and conditions of having a conflict of interest. I have disclosed the conflict on my user page and with Administrator Bilby. I am requesting that the current article be replaced with the version I have edited in my sandbox. I have removed the unnecessary details about his companies and shortened everything to basic facts. If this is acceptable please replace the current version and allow the flag to be removed. If there are issues with the version I edited in my sandbox please let me know so I can address them. GrantFortyNine (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * imo, the proposed sandbox is an improvement and I would support replacing the current article with it. I'm going to leave this open for another day in case anyone else wants to chime in, but if not, I'll implement the change in a day or so. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 23:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 22:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

COI tag (February 2024)
Given that the latest author has acknowledged a COI and the history of undiclosed paid editors on this, I feel that it still needs the tag until it is fully verified. Bilby (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

How do we verify and what do I need to do for this? I thought the editor reviewing and replacing the sandbox was verification but if there is an additional step needed I will do it. Just please let me know as I did disclose my affiliation and believe what I wrote is not a promotionally worded piece. Still learning. Thanks. --GrantFortyNine (talk) 03:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)


 * It is fine. It can't be you, but once csomeone has onfirmed that they feel the content is NPOV the tag can be removed. I'm sure that an editor will do so. - Bilby (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I haven't been here for a while so I hope there isn't a time frame that excludes requests based on the original. I believe I understand that I need to make a separate request to have the content reviewed even though they updated it based on my request? I apologize as I am still learning. I am making a request below. I also reached out to ARandomName123 who updated the article originally based on my request in case I misunderstand the process.--GrantFortyNine (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit Reqeust
I requested an updated to this article which was made and the warning label removed by an editor (see above). The label was returned and the article needs a second independent review in addition to the one made by the original editor who responded to my request. Can this be reviewed and the warning removed by another editor? GrantFortyNine (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @GrantFortyNine: I have reviewed pretty much everything in the article, and have tagged it with a few failed verification tags. An explanation is attached to each tag. Once the issues are resolved, please ping me, and I'll remove the connected contributor label. Thanks! ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 16:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Marking this as not done for now, pending the failed verification tags being removed. House Blaster  (talk · he/him) 18:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

New Edit Request
There are four "failed verification" marks that I see so I will number them below to correspond to where they are in the article.
 * 1. This is actually a "citation needed" mark for year of birth. I am not sure if there is a reference for this so I would request to just remove the birth year until a reference can be found. Much easier this way.
 * 2. The CNBC reference does not state year. I found a reference from Tatler Asia which supports the year, the university, and idea for the app. The reference starts with, "n 2012, tech entrepreneur Joseph Phua was studying for his MBA at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business when ......." I believe this should suffice. If not, I recommend to remove anything from the sentence that it does not support.
 * 3. For the name change, there are two references to consider. The first is for Tech in Asia which says, "Founded in 2017, 17Live – previously known as M17 Entertainment – was a merger between app developer Paktor Group and streaming company 17 Media." This confirms the former and current names. There is also a reference from 17Live which details the name change. If neither of these references work, I would propose removing the wording "and the group was renamed 17LIVE Group" and the current reference will support what is left.
 * 4.The reference says, "His Paktor experience is a testament to the success of online dating in the region. Shortly after launching the app, he met his now-wife, and they welcomed their first “Paktor” baby last year." You are correct that it does not support where he is living or the year. It only supports that he met her on the app. Other references say that he moved back to Taiwan to start the app but it obviously does not say he is there as of today so not sure how to reference that. If we change it to match the reference, I would propose replacing that text with "Phua has one child with his wife whom he meth through the Paktor app."

@ARandomName123, I am sorry I have not been here to respond to your questions. I provided responses to everything above which should clear up any issues remaining. Thank you so much for your time in reviewing these. I am not sure if I needed to put the "edit request" template back so I did it just in case. --GrantFortyNine (talk) 04:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * and template removed. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 22:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)