Talk:RadiumOne

Conflict of interest / neutrality
This article has been -heavily- written by Pseudosound and Paige Montgomery who have only really edited this article. To both of you - stop. I will be back to remove ad-laden copy every time you try and add it again.


 * It's obviously a promo piece. Nearly all the editors only contributed to this article on Wikipedea. RadiumOne isn't a remarkable company in any way. I think this article should be deleted. Chisme (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, there's a PR agency monitoring it: same company and same agency: http://sfappeal.com/2014/04/as-a-sf-internet-tycoon-admits-to-domestic-violence-a-battle-continues-on-his-wikipedia-page/ Snebsnake (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay - they're clearly back again, this time as user "factsandtruthonly". I'll resume monitoring. Snebsnake (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Some proposed changes
Hi there. Full disclosure -- I work for a communications agency retained by RadiumOne, and we'd like to suggest some changes to the company's Wikipedia entry. We are not looking to change the top-line description, but would like to add details about the company's products, bringing it more in line with the page about Quantcast (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantcast), one of the company's main competitors.

The requested language describing the company's products is below. Please note that all language comes from third-party media sources, not from the company's own web-site or marketing collaterals, which hopefully helps it pass the objectivity bar. Please take a look and let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Also, please accept my apologies for earlier trying to edit the page directly -- it was my fault for failing to understand the process of using these "Talk" pages to recommend edits. Thank you for your support, and for the great work you are doing!

With that, here are the changes:

Products RadiumOne offers three main products for advertisers and digital publishers:

RadiumOne Connect RadiumOne Connect is a software-as-a-service (SaaS) solution launched in October 2015 to help app creators and brand marketers capture in-app user engagement data and use it to identify and target high-value consumers, in real time, both within and outside of apps. Connect fuses install tracking, user engagement analytics, geo-location, and push notification capabilities into a single offering. It offers a single, Web-based dashboard that unifies data from these functions to reveal insights culled from billions of database records within seconds.

RadiumOne Po.st Po.st is a social sharing platform that gives brands and web site publishers the ability to allow users to share content via Facebook, Twitter, StumbleUpon, LinkedIn, email, and other destinations. Po.st also include a link shortener that was built to allow brands to gain insights on users who click on shortened links from social channels and segment them for paid media targeting. Po.st gives marketers insight into which content is being copies and pasted into an email or on a social site, also known as “dark social” channels.

RadiumOne Activate Activate is an end-to-end programmatic platform for advertisers that incorporates a fully integrated data management platform (DMP) and demand-side platform (DSP), along with real-time bidding and the ability to automate media buying across digital display, video, social and mobile advertising. The DSP is available on either a self-serve or managed service basis.

FluidMatt (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Why are these "products" so compelling they need to be in an encyclopedia? For example, "Activate is an end-to-end programmatic platform for advertisers that incorporates a fully integrated data management platform (DMP) and demand-side platform (DSP)." To which I would say, "So what?" Remember: This place is not meant to be a forum for touting products. Chisme (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Marked this edit request as declined, per comments by Chisme. Altamel (talk) 06:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Chisme (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Redirect to Chahal article
If you wish to redirect this article to the Gurbaksh Chahal, you have to discuss it first. That's the way things are done in Wikipedia. Please discuss before redirecting this again. Chisme (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

UDP
In the edit summary of your recent edit which re-added the udp template to the article, you stated: "looks like the POV issues remain." Please identify these outstanding pov issues so that they can be fixed. Should you fail to identify any such outstanding issues within 7 days, I intend to remove the tag again as I do not believe there's any problematic content left in the article and I've now read through it twice. 78.28.55.108 (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * For starters, it looks like the lead section comes from a careers page for the company, although I'm not sure if that's a circular reference. I also think that the second paragraph of the history section is still kind of promotional. I re-added the tag to the page for those reasons and because it was removed by an IP editor whose very first edit was to remove a UPE tag. Aspening (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's irrelevant who removed the tag. If the lead section was copied from elsewhere, that's a potential copyright issue, not a POV issue, and it does not in any way justify keeping the UDP template on the article either. I don't know why you'd regard the second paragraph of the History section as promotional. Here's my analysis of the article as it currently stands. Please indicate the numbers of the sentences which you consider problematic (in the context of the article being tagged with UDP) and describe why you believe they're problematic, and I will be happy to action your feedback. Should you fail to do so within 7 days, I intend to remove the UDP tag as per my analysis.

78.28.55.108 (talk) 23:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 9-12 seem to be giving undue weight to the amount of money that the company has raised, which results in what I think is a promotional tone.
 * 13-15 should not be in the article whatsoever in my opinion, as per some comments made on this talk page a few years ago: "This place is not meant to be a forum for touting products." Promoting specific products in the way they are talked about here, unless the product itself is something that is notable independently of the company, is not acceptable.
 * And yes, it is relevant who removed the tag, because the page has a history of IP editors and new users coming onto the page for single-purpose and sometimes promotional editing. This behavior seems to have been going on for several years, and so I think it would be best for the tag to remain on the page until an uninvolved, experienced editor can have a look at it. I am going to nominate the article to be checked for its neutrality so that this can be done. Please do not remove the UPE tag until the check is complete. Aspening (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The "neutrality" check you've requested is already underway, and it is you and I that are performing it right here, right now. Your attempt to lock the udp template in place forever by placing the article in Category:Articles needing POV-check which has thirteen years' worth of backlog (over 2000 entries in total, going as far back as February 2008) is thus highly inappropriate, but I will let it slide. Based on your feedback, I will: 1) remove sentence 10; 2) remove sentence 11; 3) remove the entire Products section (sentences 13, 14, 15). This will immediately resolve all of the issues that you've pointed out thus removing the need for the udp template which I will then also remove as per WP:DETAG. Thank you for your assistance. 78.28.55.108 (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It was not appropriate for you to remove a neutrality check placed by someone else. I will be putting it back in place, as I would still like a third party to look at the article because the problems go back several years. If you were concerned about the neutrality check not being carried out, then it would have been better to make a request at the neutral point of view noticeboard if the tag was still there "within 7 days." Aspening (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Since I have no conflict of interest regarding the article, it is entirely appropriate for me to remove COI tags from it assuming COI issues are no longer present within the article, an assumption which I can safely make based on the fact that all of the content identified as potentially non-neutral has already been removed. It is not reasonable to add tags to an article that are meant to deal with issues that aren't present within that article. If you wish to request further review of the issue, posting to the NPOV noticeboard might be an option for you to explore but the COI tag no longer serves any useful purpose and I will thus be removing it. 78.28.55.108 (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, understand that there is no "disagreement." We're both on the same side. An issue with an article was identified and we've fixed it. It's time to move on. 78.28.55.108 (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As a disinterested third-party (I've never edited the article or participated in the AfDs), I don't see any neutrality issues in the current state of the article. I performed a WP:BEFORE and didn't find anything that should be included that has been hidden. (The incident with Smith's employment is a gray area, but RadiumOne is really just incidental to that tale, and they fired him as soon as his identity was discovered. More trivial gossip than WP:DUE.) I think talking about money raised is incredibly boring in articles, but sources like to discuss the financials of start-ups, so I don't think that had to be removed, but no harm done that it was., do you object to me removing the tag? Schazjmd   (talk)  00:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Because the article has been updated and an uninvolved editor sees no neutrality issues, yes, that's ok. Aspening (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)