User talk:CorporateM/Archive 12

Talkback
'''-- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Riley_Huntley/You_missed! Cheers, ] Ri l ey   ''' 18:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

A whisky for you
Glad to know my editing done while waiting for other players in World of Warcraft has drawn praise instead of ire. I'm from California and a libertarian, so I look at a site like that more like freedom from government oppression than scum of the earth - akin to a website that helps Chinese populace avoid government censorship.

My COI work is extremely slow. Not just waiting on the community, but spending months coaxing clients and their stakeholders into being as neutral as we can be, so being bold just gives me a huge release ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 01:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Greetings and request for help
Good morning! I was wondering whether you had time to take a look at the edit request at Talk:BETDAQ? The COI editor has been very patient and has followed the advice that I have offered at OTRS. Thanks!--ukexpat (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I skipped that one initially because he asked for an administrator, but he probably doesn't need one. I've emailed him. CorporateM (Talk) 15:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I suspect that he doesn't realise that it is not required for admins to review such requests. How's that for some unintended alliteration!--ukexpat (talk) 00:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk page stalkers
I'm planning on attending an event hosted by the Federal Trade Commission in Washington on May 30th, where the agenda says the FTC will cover "disclosures in social media and mobile marketing" among other things and consider the need for new guidance. If you're a stalker, you may be aware that I believe it is an illegal and covert form of advertising for those with a financial connection to the subject to edit Wikipedia anonymously.

At 11:15 a.m. is a panel hosted by Richard Cleland from the FTC's Division of Advertising Practices, which also covers online marketing. It may be a long shot, but I'd like to see if I can get Wikipedia on Cleland's radar. A lot of the work I do is helping PR agencies that are being asked by clients to do something unethical and need the right tools to help in their situation. That is exactly a major part of why the FTC publishes guidance and sets legal precedence to equip vendors to push back when tasked with it.

The event is free and open to the public and if you're local, I would love to see some fellow Wikipedians there. CorporateM (Talk) 01:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and  claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place and second place  both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 16:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Element Mobile Wiki Page
Hello,

A couple weeks ago you responded to my edit request on the Element Mobile talk page, stating that I needed to remove sources with restricted access and any promotionalism before this article could be edited. I have made these changes and posted them with the talk page, I am hoping that you are stilling willing to take a look at my changes to see if they can be included in the current Wiki article. Any assistance is greatly appreciated! Akbemis (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Re my last edit at Suburban Express
Hello,

I just wanted to tell you that my last edit to that article was based on the suggestion/discussion on the talk page, which seemed reasonable enough to me. Also, two news article are actually available at toeppen's site - Reference 4 and Not a reference. This is the source AlmostGrad was referring to when they paraphrased those two sections to that. Please look into it, and tell me if there was anything wrong with that paraphrasal.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The suggestion was made by an editor that has disclosed he was one of the students sued by the company. I believe it was motivated by a desire to seek revenge against the organization and its founder, who wrote the content he is now advocating be deleted.
 * That's not to say I mean it in a contentious way. All the editors have disclosed their COI. We have a semi-decent page by combining the positive aspects added by a COI editor from the company and the controversial aspects being added by legal antagonists, with a dash of impartial moderation.
 * I just didn't feel that particular suggestion was the best way to serve our readers. CorporateM (Talk) 01:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I recognize that. But I looked into simply the proposal stated, not into the COI itself. [I believe that the practise is that when people disclose their COI, their proposals are taken at face value, and we do exactly what would happen if a non-COI editor suggested the same. Or else, their statements are effectly weaker than an undisclosed COI editor] And I too agreed that the criticism to the puff ratio was way too skewed against the criticism. Given the number of sources, it does raise a question why both are nearly equal in quantity.
 * I agree that this current page is semi-decent, and better than what was (The Praise) and what would have been (Just the criticism), but the middle ground point does not make much sense to me. I suggest that you read through that source yourself, and check if the relative sizes of the two sections is actually justified. If not, I request you to balance it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I support in general that relying on a single source for such a large portion of the article is problematic, though often a source exists that is the most comprehensive available. But I don't think it's an improvement to wipe it out on that basis, nor is culling through that single source the best way forward. Rather I think what is needed is more sources in the general sense.
 * The legal antagonists have put together a comprehensive list of sources, which helped dispel the myth that the controversy didn't belong. I would like to ask the COI editor from the company if they would do the same, so we can add more sources on the more mundane aspects of their history and services. Just not right this moment though. CorporateM (Talk) 02:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * We have disclosed and non disclosed (I hope you agree) COIs of the company that have not suggested or added any other sources to this article, in which case I think it is more than fair if we work without the assumption that a source exists, but add those new sources if and when we come across them.
 * I think asking the COI company editor if they'd like to add sources will be the best way to go forward, provided we agree on removing/adding sufficient text to the article to make it balanced enough, and not just equal. And I don't think now is any worse a moment to add it than any other, since both our legal antagonists COI have agreed to stay away from making any significant changes to the article before discussion. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 03:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: GA review on YouSendIt
Sorry for taking so long to answer. As you might have sene, I've been out of enwiki for a while taking a wikibreak (sort of). I took a look at YouSendIt and it look pretty good. I will read it in depth tonight, although I believe I can safely say that you have learned a lot since I reviewed your good article submission months ago. Good work :) — ΛΧΣ  21  17:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. North already took a look and pointed out the obvious WP:LEAD issue. I just want to make sure any GA article I create with a COI is actually GA, to avoid any controversy later on. CorporateM (Talk) 19:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

MarkMonitor
Hi Corp, I've done what I can at MarkMonitor for the time being. It's on my watch list and if others join the project I'm happy to collaborate with them on the talk page etc. to further develop and improve the article. Thinking ahead I should tell you that I am very uncomfortable when presented with a request to add content to an article when that content has been developed by someone else. As you'll notice in the case with MarkMonitor I have pretty much rewritten all of the content that you prepared because the only content that I can stand by is my own. So I generally avoid those kinds of requests just for that reason. I prefer to work on one sentence or small section at a time on the talk page, developing it together and then adding it to the article and moving on to the next section. Its more time consuming but its the only way I can feel comfortable with what I am adding to the article. I just wanted you to know this for future collaborations.. Keep up the good work on WP. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 02:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem. The content would have been "an improvement" were it accepted as is, but it's even better now. You added content about Apple that I could not have done from my position and corrected several areas where I may have over-compensated for my COI.


 * Besides the editorial knit I mentioned, I think if you include the Techdirt item, it should say specifically what the criticisms are. However, if you believe it is an op-ed, than we should not include it at all.


 * I included it because I did not characterize it as such. The author writes multiple posts per day for the publication and is described as a regular editor. Albeit, it's a very opinionated piece that is more representative of the author's opinions than professional reporting.


 * However, if you would like to keep this section more concise, as suggested, than I think it is also an UNDUE issue as the Techdirt article is the only I've found on the subject, while much of their research we're leaving out for brevity obtained much wider coverage. CorporateM (Talk) 04:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Corporate, I'd like to discuss this with you but may be better to do it on the talk page. See you there! :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 15:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

CIPR update
I have added a note to the Chartered Institute of Public Relations talk page regarding its new Annual Report which gives an update on stats, etc. Hope you can update (I have COI). Thanks Paul W (talk) 05:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello and thanks!
Thanks so much for your cogent input on Talk: Ray Burggraf. I just wanted to let you know that I edited the page this morning with your suggestions in mind, and was wondering if you might take a look and offer a second opinion? I fully disclosed a personal bias on the talk page (and on my user page), but WP:BLP rules also dictate immediate deletion of controversial material. For me, this presents a rather uncomfortable catch 22, and your advice would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Global Microscope (talk • contribs) 18:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Edits to University of Texas Medical Branch
Hello, and thank you for responding to edits I requested on the UTMB talk page. I'm hoping to get your reconsideration on a couple of points. Please let me know if you can re-review, or if I should try another avenue. To propose changes throughout the entire article, would a userspace draft be the best means? I'll try to point out errors vs. asking editors to compare versions, but in "being bold" I'm not sure what else to do. Any suggestions are welcome. Thank you again. Myra McCollum (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm all pooped out from Request Edits and want to focus my donated volunteer time on the public relations article. Can you ask someone else? CorporateM (Talk) 19:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure, thanks! Myra McCollum (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk page stalkers
A while back I said I would try to remember to post my large COI projects here so if anyone is interested in following me around where I contribute in a PR role, I would make it easy to do so. (and some people have)

My latest project for Publishers Clearing House is posted here. The proposed draft actually cleans up a lot of prior promotional COI editing and introduces new content regarding layoffs, competition and the company's reputation as a producer of junk-mail, while also cleaning up what I would consider equally low-quality and POV materials regarding controversies.

As always, anyone who is interested in following me around, whether because you are critical of PR participation or want to provide support are welcome to follow me there. CorporateM (Talk) 16:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the revert
Sorry for the revert at Gibson Guitar Corporation. I thought the person deleted cited content. I just read it backwards. – Maky  « talk » 03:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem. I didn't look into it too deeply, but I wasn't surprised to see the content that was added by the IP. Most aggressive crackdowns by the government create some speculation that they were politically motivated. Normally we may not have room to cover every POV, but in this case it looks like the entire source is focused on it. CorporateM (Talk) 03:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd say the line needs to come back out. While the source site may be reputable, the actual "article" is just an opinion piece/editorial with no evidence to back up the claims.  You should also note that in spite of the wording of the editorial, Gibson did in fact please guilty. G051051 (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * A quick Google News search shows plenty of other sources with a similar angle. However, based on the Fox news piece I glanced at, it looks like the CEO of Gibson himself is the one raising the media hey and making these allegations, so the claims should be attributed to him, rather than "by some." CorporateM (Talk) 12:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with that. Just change the reference to the one you think is best and word it as needed. –  Maky  « talk » 14:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ Journalists consider it their professional responsibility to reach out to the subject of the article, obtain their point-of-view and include it as one of the perspectives they report on. Since most companies do not have adequate representation on Wikipedia and we do not have the same habits as professionals, we often dismiss and disregard the company's point-of-view, which is part of NPOV, to represent all viewpoints fairly. However, I think it is important we identify it as their POV, rather than "some" which suggests a more impartial spokesperson. CorporateM (Talk) 14:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

"Cleanup" in Melih Abdulhayoğlu
Hello, CorporateM

I hope I am not bothering you but I thought perhaps I should drop you note about Revision of 17:40, 2 June 2013, in which you deleted a lot of contents from the article without giving a reason. I felt perhaps you are doing it to make the article more neutral but as I am looking at your revision, I don't see it happening. Perhaps we should discuss your removals. (Both discussing here and in the article talk page is okay for me.)

Please note that Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, not from a neutralized point of view. A neutralized point of view is one that represent everything as not good or bad. A neutral point of view is one that represents "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources."

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * A few quick notes:
 * The "Interviews" section is really a list of links to every article where he is briefly mentioned or quoted. It has no value to our readers.
 * I delete "Awards and Recognitions" sections virtually on-site, especially where they include Info Security Products Guide, which is a pay for play award. Others just mention sources where he "appeared" and the first one in the list was very creatively concocted and has no substance at all. The Earnst & Young is the only one that is potentially salvageable.
 * We do not need dedicated sections and logos to every place where he has worked, especially because most of the content here has no value to our readers. Much of it is poorly sourced, quotes of things he said, or nifty little ways to promote the organizations he is affiliated with.
 * We have stuff like a "controversy" sourced to his blog and this obviously unreliable source


 * I agree with the comments I saw on the Talk page. The article has little genuine biographical material. Most of the sources are to blogs authored by him, the company website, websites of organizations he is affiliated with, or brief mentions or quotes where he is acting as a spokesperson for Comodo. It may be a good AfD candidate, but at the very least most of the article should be removed so that only properly sourced biographical material remains. CorporateM (Talk) 13:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have re-edited it with detailed notes. CorporateM (Talk) 13:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think Corporate's initial edit was bold and did remove a lot of content in one fell swoop. However, in general, his edits appear to be justified. But if others disagree, discussion and collaboration are always welcomed. At any rate I would suggest that any further discussion on this issue should take place on the article talk page and this thread could be copied there as well so other's could see the background behind the edit history. Best,. -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 15:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, Corporate. I think it is safe to say I almost agree with Keithbob. Perhaps I'll review the edit in the future. (Don't have time now.) But no one can deny that you have seen the light. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

RE: Nice work
Hi there – many thanks for getting in touch and for your positive comments. Our aim is to work with the community to improve the accuracy and quality of clients' articles and I think that was a good example of how we can do that. Thanks again. HOgilvy (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Advice needed
Thanks for joining the discussion on the CIDA City Campus talk page. Its helpful when the discussion is not just one-on-one. On another note, an IP posted this on my user talk page: I'm wondering if this IP has any relation to User: Stu Round who has been editing the CIDA City Campus topic exclusively and if you have any suggestions as to how to approach the situation. From my side I am happy to collaborate with any editor as long as they are attempting to edit neutrally with WP best interests in mind. Since you have first hand experience in this regard and have been active in discussions about relevant guidelines I thought you might be a good person to consult with. Any thoughts? -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 04:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no such entity as the Community and Individual Development Association City Campus. CIDA City Campus is no longer associated with the Community and Individual Development Association, and is now just called CIDA City Campus. The "CIDA" doesn't stand for anything any longer, it's just a name to continue brand recognition since the split which occurred back in 2007. Regards,  Stuart Round, Marketing Dept, CIDA City Campus..


 * Every editor has their own preferences on how to work with marketing professionals. I strongly prefer the BrightLine approach on both sides, as I have found it extremely effective as a volunteer and the most sensible as a PR person. It just makes sense. If I am allowed to edit the article, I am obligated to my employer to make COI edits that are in their best interest. If I follow the BrightLine, it is in their best interest for me to be as neutral as I can be. This is the only reason I have a legitimate and honest job helping companies follow the rules, rather than helping them undermine Wikipedia, like most paid editing operations.


 * As such, I explain clearly what I am willing to do and add clear, straightforward instructions on the article's Talk page and on their user page. I have found this approach very effective at turning disruptive editors into helpful participants.


 * Since you are engaged in an editorial dispute, I would be happy to to talk to him to avoid the appearance of making COI accusations to win an argument. I do think that when it comes to factual corrections and contesting unsourced material, we should accept the burden of fixing these problems. Stu should not have to learn our rules to ask for a correction and we should not ask him to propose alternate text or offer sources. CREWE is absolutely correct in this regard: We have a responsibility to be accurate. CorporateM (Talk) 14:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the content issues have been worked out for now so I'm going to step away. I'll let you handle the potential COI issue, if you think it needs further consideration. Best, -- — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 19:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Synechron
You're right there; my error.. And I see also Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Submissions/Synechron. Some sort of merge is needed. If you're not involved, could you do it? If so, I'll move the AfC to a temp page somewhere, probably under a variant title,  DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ This article came up in my patrol for articles with "industry-leading" and "turnkey" a while back which usually turns up some quick AfDs. The company repeatedly tried to insert promotional and copyrighted material, which is why it's protected, but I just cleaned it up to a stub since they were notable. Hopefully an impartial editor will someday take an interest. I added some salvageable material (not very much) from the AfC. CorporateM (Talk) 00:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
<div style=" border:solid 1px #57DB1E; background:#E6FFE6; padding:1em; padding-top:0.5em; padding-bottom:0.5em; width:20em; color:black; margin-bottom: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.5em; width: 90%; "> United Country Real Estate, 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. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Jamesx12345 (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.

Talkback
Pol430  talk to me  21:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

PLASA
You nominated Professional Lighting and Sound Association for deletion a while back but I've recreated the article. If you still consider any of the original reasons for deletion to be valid on the new article let me know. SheffGruff (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Nice work!! I made a few tweaks and performed the suggested merge. CorporateM (Talk) 00:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Help a newbie?
Hi CorporateM. I'm also a corporate communications professional and I found your profile through my research on how to handle page requests for my employer's page in a manner that avoids conflicts of interests. Any advice for a newbie who wants to do the right thing?

Gturpin (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I suppose advice in the general sense could run for pages. The community will tell you that you need to gain experience editing here, learn our rules and become a Wikipedian. While that is somewhat true, the more important skill is learning how to persuade your stakeholders to do what's right, even when there is tremendous incentive/temptation to hide information, misrepresent sources or see if things go unnoticed.


 * The community thinks my job is to write articles, as if a company just hires me and says "go post whatever you want," but it is more often that I am hired by individuals who are under pressure to make poor edits to Wikipedia that serve their employer/client and need an advocate for ethics to help them get out of a poor situation. If you want to do the right thing, you will need to be effective at persuading company stakeholders that it is in their best interest to do so.


 * If there is a specific article in question, I could provide more specific advice. CorporateM (Talk) 14:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, CorporateM, that's great advice. I have been doing that, so it's good to know that I'm on the right path. Gturpin (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I start off by explaining that we can only edit with permission, in order to comply with the Federal Trade Commission's astroturfing laws. Wikipedia is a crowd-sourced website and it is unlawful for us to act as though we are a member of the crowd. Most companies will comply with the law as default operating procedure.


 * At some point they will ask if Wikipedians will notice if negative content is missing. The answer is yes, if not now, at some point. And when they do, the hidden content will be added with a vengeance. It's better that we add it in a manner compliant with policy. The idea of regular consumers authoring controversies later on and being in a contentious situation over it is scary for most.


 * Also, I explain that, just like with the media, there is value in them building working relationships with the editors involved in the page. If they succeed in getting desired content outcomes, but build negative karma, it will have a negative net-result for them. Relationships are built by demonstrating trust-building behavior, such as being genuinely honest and fair.


 * Anyways, I saw you are looking for a mentor? I'd be happy to if you're interested. My mentor told me a while back that I should mentor someone else, in order to create a cascade effect of sorts among the marketing community. CorporateM (Talk) 15:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you. I appreciate the offer to become my mentor... and you're going to have to start by mentoring me on how to accept the offer properly. Gturpin (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Like most things on Wikipedia, I don't think there is a formal process. Just remove the template from your user page and ask my for questions/comments on new projects. Depending on your level of commitment, I would also encourage you to do volunteer work here, as it will give you a different perspective. You can also email me for things you want to discuss privately. CorporateM (Talk) 18:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk page stalkers
For anyone who watches my page to stalk my PR contributions, my latest project is at: Talk:Proactiv_Solution. This one was one of my more challenging projects, because there are some very strong opinions about the subject-matter by the company's stakeholders. Credit goes to SmartSE for really digging into my first draft and settling for nothing less than GA-quality material.

It also seems that my proactively adding criticisms and controversies had an effect on SmartSE's point of view about paid editing.

Everyone in the PR community seems to think that we need to lobby Wikipedia to be more accepting of our contributions, but I feel that no amount of propaganda will change what we experience here on the ground and our experiences with PR contributors breeds distrust and frustration.

Instead, we can earn a place here by demonstrating trust-building behavior and creating a value-based relationship like we have with all influencers. CorporateM (Talk) 21:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks! Ugh though. People keep saying we need a board for PR editors, and I keep asking, "what's wrong with WP:COIN?" But my thinking with Request Edit is more or less for mundane items that only need the attention of a single editor, rather than a board. And it should work equally well for BLPs as for companies. For example, here is a request I just submitted, which is for a BLP and should not require a BLP board post. But if this template is successful in reducing COI editing and instead increases Request Edits, we'll need something like the COI submissions page. CorporateM (Talk) 23:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The purpose of COIN is to establish whether there is any wrongdoing on the part of a "COI editor". That's reflected in its Welcome message, and that is how the board is widely perceived. It's basically adversarial. Andreas JN 466 23:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Synechron for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Synechron is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Synechron until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Some tools for the garden
Hi CM, just to let you know that I've added some extra user rights to your account (reviewer, rollbacker, autopatrolled and file mover), which I hope will help you in your work. All the best, SlimVirgin (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm... a couple questions. What are these rights for and how do I use them? I've seen them around, but never bothered to look into it. Also, should I really have them? It comes to mind that if I have any special rights, someone will raise the "paid editors have infiltrated us!" issue. Not that such an issue would be genuine, but I would want to avoid being in a situation to give rise to reasonable speculation. CorporateM (Talk) 00:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I can remove them again if you'd prefer. Sorry, I didn't think to check first. Rollbacker, you're familiar with: that will help you revert vandalism. Then there is File mover (lets you move images), Reviewer (lets you edit PC-protected pages), and Autopatrolled (means articles you write are automatically accepted as "patrolled" by new-page patrollers). But if you're not keen on them (or any one of them), just let me know. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Meh, should be fine. It would be difficult to "abuse" privileges that are so clerical. And it's not as if the hostile environment here could be avoided by tip-toeing through glass. If someone were to throw a fuss over it, it would be because they have a desire to throw a fuss, in which case they would find reason somewhere. Of course, you will never see me pursue an admin position for the obvious reasons.


 * Anyways, it's time for me to turn in. Being faced by the task of summarizing 400 pages of a book into a few paragraphs for the History of public relations article has slapped me with the feeling of instant defeat and sleepiness. I posted here and if it does make anyone uncomfortable I'll ping you. CorporateM (Talk) 05:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Can't see it being a problem myself. You play it straight and have more then enough sense so all seems good to me. But for the issue over paid editing you'd be an outstanding admin candidate with more time under your belt so this lot is clearly no problem. Spartaz Humbug! 07:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Not often a PR guy gets that around here. Not that I would actually abuse such privileges, but no I don't think adminship would ever be a good idea. It is probably awkward enough that I have a volunteer hat on half the time and a PR hat on the other half, which has led to routine accusations of non-disclosed COIs that don't exist. CorporateM (Talk) 18:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Chevron
Hi CM, just a note to say that the editing there can't continue until the plagiarism/copyvio situation is resolved, because that's a legal issue that takes priority. See Copyright violation. I notice you moved material to another article, Environmental record of Chevron Corporation, so that ought to be redirected back to the main article for now, because it may have moved the copyvios to another page. See my last note on the Chevron talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Alternative energy
I reverted your removal of the Alternative energy section as at least the Solar energy section was cleaned-up by me back in June. Beagel (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Cool, thanks. It's too bad to see all that content go, but alas, copyrights must be followed.  CorporateM (Talk) 19:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

A page you started (History of Chevron Corporation) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating History of Chevron Corporation, CorporateM!

Wikipedia editor SPat just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"thanks for creating the article! I'll try and dip in a bit to see what I can improve."

To reply, leave a comment on SPat's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Nomination for Deletion
Um, hello. You've recently nominated my company's wiki page for deletion (SourceMedical Solutions). Could you please withdraw your nomination? You mentioned lack of references, but if you take a moment and actually visit the page, you will see references have been added. KatoTalk (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

One PCH change may be already done
Hello CM. See Talk:Publishers Clearing House. From your comment in that section, it seems possible that you may already have done this change to the article. If so could you clarify, and possibly change the heading to make clear that it doesn't need further action? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk page stalkers
Per my usual broadcast for anyone who wants to stalk my PR contributions, I'm posting here that I've introduced myself on the Noodles & Company page here and will have a draft ready in a bit.

Perhaps I am doubly bias, because I am also a regular patron, but I think a neutral article will reflect quite positively on them. The company didn't find success until after almost going out of business in 1996 due to negative reviews and bad food. But after overhauling the concept, they were praised by local food critics across the country and grew from $330k to $13 million in four years, then $300 million by time they went IPO.

Editors often complain about the challenge of assessing whether a PR contributor's material is neutral. For example, in this case there are awards that are prominently featured in multiple profile stories, suggesting their significance for inclusion, but an impartial editor will assume (as I would) that I am exercising poor editorial judgement due to my COI, as is the case in most circumstances that involve COI editors adding awards. And most of the sources I've found so far are not available online, where editors can more easily cross-check the source material.

This is why doing effective content marketing on Wikipedia requires that one develops a reputation for being trustworthy, because if a PR rep is deceptive or misleading to the extent that they cannot be trusted not to intentionally hide sources, omit information, etc. there is no reasonable amount of "vetting" the material that will ever overcome that. PR contributors must demonstrate their trust-worthiness to be effective for their clients. CorporateM (Talk) 20:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "PR contributors must demonstrate their trust-worthiness to be effective for their clients."<<<-- So have you demonstrated yours? Just curious.  <b style="color:#F50">Az</b><b style="color:#600">x</b><b style="color:#000">2</b>  23:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Working on it ;-)


 * When I started doing this, I would tell editors they can't trust me. A PR rep is a "corporate representative" and can only do what a corporate bureaucracy tells them to do if they want to keep their jobs. Even if I knew the content was not neutral, I didn't feel like there was anything I could do about it. I would expect the content to be declined, so I could tell the client "see" but the content would be accepted anyway.


 * Since then, I've learned how to be choosy about the clients I accept. I've gotten better at doing up-front consulting. Clients sign our Statement of Ethics in the contract. I try to find the most negative thing about the company (in this case the troubles they had before overhauling the restaurant) and ask "this belongs in the article, are you ok with that?" And I consult clients that the best thing to do long-term is to just create a neutral article.


 * When PR reps get their desired content outcomes through spin, omissions, etc. it is detected later on and this leads to overcompensation. The lost trust will make it difficult for them to contribute in the future, etc. When we are not trustworthy, we make short-term gains, but create ticking time-bombs for ourselves. CorporateM (Talk) 00:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, good luck and wishing you great success ongoing. Getting out in front of potential scandal by simply disclosing the worst information and not trying to obfuscate seems like a reasonably healthy and sane strategy. Do you make a living exclusively from representing companies on Wikipedia by creating neutral articles for them?  <b style="color:#F50">Az</b><b style="color:#600">x</b><b style="color:#000">2</b>  20:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes and no. I have about 20 Wikipedia clients and my goal is 40-50. I have no plans to hire; instead I'll start telling people "we're full" when I've reached our cap. I've been busy over the last few days working on a whitepaper, but I've phased out traditional PR work over time. I have no value to offer in that arena that a thousand other PR guys couldn't do.


 * "Making a living" is subjective. I would earn more cash working a regular 9-5 in the marketing department of some corporation, but the idea of going into work, and getting bossed around by people who are more experienced than me but are no longer inspired by their job. Working for PR agencies that accept all the worst clients because they need the cash, offers health insurance that doesn't work, and either doubles or shrinks in half in size every few years. Small companies are volatile, work you to death and pay squat. Large companies have too much bureaucracy to get anything done and are no longer inspiring.


 * Maybe I just don't get along well with others. My boss told me once that the biggest thing I needed to do to advance professionally was to be less honest. Increasingly I'm learning that marketing pros openly endorse lying, spin and deceptive tactics, then take offense when this is pointed out. But Wikipedia is the one place where many companies seem to understand the value of honesty. And I think it's just the right place for my "job" to be. The salary has never been that important to me, as long as it's "enough". CorporateM (Talk) 20:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Publishers Clearing House
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Publishers Clearing House 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 GA bot, on behalf of Retrolord -- 03:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk page stalkers
Also for anyone who wants to stalk my PR contribs, I'm working on the Monster Cables Products article here. This is the opposite of Noodles & Company in that they do have a very mixed reputation. On one side they created the market for high-end cables and do have their fans. They also enjoy a very positive relationship with retailers. However they are involved in several controversies, most notably a complex debate on whether the expensive cables make a difference over cheap wire and whether salespeople are pushing the cable on people that don't need it for commissions.

The content I've offered is literally just my first draft from reading the source material and authoring it the regular way. However, I probably do have a subtle bias that is difficult to correct or identify. That being said, despite my bias, I can make the article much "more neutral" than it was/is. The article was previously flooded with unsourced/poorly sourced contentious material and is still bias/one-sided after cleaning that up due to being edited by the brand's detractors. And I'm sure it will get fine-tuned over time and through the GA process eventually. CorporateM (Talk) 14:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
<div style=" border:solid 1px #57DB1E; background:#E6FFE6; padding:1em; padding-top:0.5em; padding-bottom:0.5em; width:20em; color:black; margin-bottom: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.5em; width: 90%; "> Noel Lee (manufacturer), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.

Nice job, Mr M. A photo or two would be great, and can you think of any more-appropriate categories? If you'd like me to add or change anything, ping me on my talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

History of public relations
I see you've been working on for a year. I'll take a good long look at it, as you suggested. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I made some edits one year ago, but I've been spending a lot of time on it over the last three weeks as the first sub-article to tackle on Public relations. Unlike an article on a company though, which I usually write in a couple days, the source material spans thousands of pages and there is little two sources agree on. CorporateM (Talk) 01:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Prince of Persia Modding
Regarding Talk:Modding. I think maybe you wanted to make your related edit to Prince of Persia (1989 video game) instead of Prince of Persia? By the way, thanks for answering the edit request. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 15:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Grammar error
You seem to have made a grammar error while editing an article. I fixed it for you. Bearian (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. CorporateM (Talk) 00:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 July newsletter
We're halfway through this year's penultimate round, and the competition is moving along well. Pool A's currently leads overall, while Pool B's  is second. Both leaders are WikiCup veterans, and both have already scored over 600 points this month. If the round were to end today,, with 274 points, would be the lowest-scoring participant to make it through. This indicates that participants will need a score comparable to last year's (573, the highest ever) to qualify for the final. The high scores this year are a testament both to the quality of participants and to the increased focus on significant content (eligible for bonus points) in this year's competition. So far this round, both Sasata and have made up over half of their score through bonus points, with, for example, high importance FA koala earning Sasata a total of 440 points (from a multiplier of 4.4) and high-importance GA sea earning Cwmhiraeth a total of 216 points (from a multiplier of 7.2). Other articles on important topics submitted this round include a featured article on the Norman conquest of England by, and good articles on Nobel laureate in literature Henryk Sienkiewicz, Nobel laureate in physics Hans Bethe, and the noted Japanese aircraft carrier Hiryū. These articles are by, and Sturmvogel_66 respectively.

Other than that, there is not much to report! If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Publishers Clearing House‎
The article looks like a clear pass, it meets all the WP:GA criteria so I passed it anyways, the improvements retrolord told you to make are more suitable for the WP:FA criterion but its fine anyways, put it in and I think the article will look really good. Cheers! Prabash. Akmeemana   02:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Publishers Clearing House
The article Publishers Clearing House you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Publishers Clearing House for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Retrolord -- 02:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Dragged to the drama(h) boards.
There is a discussion at AN/I here regarding edits that you have made. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Spoken voices
You may be interested in Voice intro project - we invite individuals who are the subject of Wikipedia articles to contribute a short, open-licensed audio file of their spoken voice, so that our readers may know what they sound like and how they pronounce their names. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Publishers Clearing House
Hi CorporateM, Sorry, but as far as I can see this article is not yet at GA-level, but it could well be close to it. I've opened a new review, the article will remain listed as a GA whilst my review is under way, but in the worst case it could be delisted. However, I think that is unlikely, but clearly the Lead is non-complaint with WP:WIAGA and WP:LEAD; and with highly visible "errors" such as that, I was not willing to have the last review on record as a final statement of "fitness". Pyrotec (talk) 08:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Chevron article
Do you plan to finish returning the environmental sections or are you going to leave it as is? Gandydancer (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I've been working 'till 2 a.m. this week and haven't done much editing. It is on my loose to Do list to get back to this article, though I'm not sure what you mean about returning the environmental sections. I haven't really decided if I will do more substantial improvements, because an article on an oil company will naturally lend itself to a confrontational editing process and I would prefer to edit somewhere quietly. CorporateM (Talk) 01:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * What I mean by returning the environmental sections is, as I said on the talk page a few days ago, returning all of the sections. To refresh your memory, you moved the environmental section to a split page (including the contested photo which had just been discussed) and you left a summary on the article page that included no references.  Your splits, which were never discussed beforehand, left the article at only around 20,000 bytes.  In other words, the split was not at all necessary and could be seen as a way to hide negative information.  When you made the split, SlimVirgin, seemingly in approval, gave you a few WP "rights", however one was turned down related to the split that you did, so I assume that you were aware that your split needed more work.  The article sat for a month with only one ref in the environmental section, the one that I added.  Even now you say that you are busy and don't have time. IMO, if you have time to work on the Platex article, you should find time to clean up the work that you did on the Chevron article.  There are still about four controversies missing and they should be returned.  I doubt that I would ever have even noticed they were missing but for the fact that I had recently written one of them.  I also noted that when you returned the others you trimmed at least one of them.  That should have been discussed or at least noted.  If I knew how to do it I'd do it myself, but I don't.  Perhaps I could ask for a more experienced editor's help, but I don't see why your time is more important than mine. This whole episode has been very disagreeable for me. Gandydancer (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I had reverted to a version that was 6 or 9 months old or so to a pre-COI, pre-copyvio version based on the discussion. You're saying that several controversies were added since then that are now missing? Which ones are you referring to? The version it was reverted to was before myself or anyone from the company ever touched it. Then I copy/pasted the updated Ecuador section, knowing that editors had worked on that recently. CorporateM (Talk) 16:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Please direct me to the page you used. When I look back to around ten months ago, Bangladesh, for instance, is included. AFAIK, I am the only person that has added anything new in the last year. Gandydancer (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ I noticed I never setup a redirect from the environmental record page, so I think I must have left this half-finished. Sorry about that. My edit summary here says I was reverting to a version from May. I presume I was referring to the May 2011 version Slim linked to (link), so it turns out I was way off saying 6-9 months ;-) Most likely you added those sometime in the last couple years and I didn't catch it since I left the job half-finished. CorporateM (Talk) 17:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Code 42 Software
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Code 42 Software you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Dr. Kadzi -- 12:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! It's a small article on a less notable company, but when I asked on the GAN talk page, editors seemed to support GAs on smaller articles as long as their is enough information to cover "the major aspects." CorporateM (Talk) 12:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Code 42 Software
The article Code 42 Software you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Code 42 Software for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Dr. Kadzi -- 12:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi CorporateM, This editor seemed to be unfamiliar with the GA process, he just "passed" two nominations without any reviews. In both cases the "passes" were removed by other editors, however that user still seems to wish to review the two nominations. He has started the review processes again and appears to be seeking advice on reviewing. Pyrotec (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I noticed that just now. Thanks!! Sorry for being such a whiner ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 21:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi - can you review Trilantic for me?
Hi CorporateM, I hope you can help me. I've worked previously with SmartSE (talk) on a new lead for Trilantic Wikipedia article and the key investments section - please see the Talk section. This was actually quite a long time ago now. He's very busy and recommended you as the person who could help me with this. Do you think you would have a minute to have a look at it? It's just a minor thing really, already corrected by him but as an editor with COI I can't make the change myself. Let me know. Many thanks, Kat Kt1502 (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Although it's probably not the answer you were hoping for, I've responded. The current lead looks fine to me and I'm not sure what factual inaccuracies you're suggesting is in the current page. Because editors are unwilling to make the edits you desire, you may feel like we are picking on you as a PR rep or whatnot, but I like to think I am immune to such criticisms as a PR guy myself. When asked for feedback, my approach is to give the same advice I would give to any of my colleagues when asked for it, with the same dose of tough love that I feel has helped me grow as a PR contributor, even if I didn't like it at the time.


 * In any case, I don't think the proposed Lead is better than the current, but again, you say there are factual inaccuracies; if that's true, you should tell us what they are. It is your obligation to provide value if you want to improve the article in the general way, but it is the community's responsibility to make sure Wikipedia maintains a basic level of factual accuracy and fairness when our attention is drawn to these issues. CorporateM (Talk) 22:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for your feedback CorporateM I will look into it a bit further and draft the investment section for Trilantic - will let you know once this is done. Thanks Kt1502 (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gnosis Arts concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Gnosis Arts, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Greg Renker was accepted
<div style=" border:solid 1px #57DB1E; background:#E6FFE6; padding:1em; padding-top:0.5em; padding-bottom:0.5em; width:20em; color:black; margin-bottom: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.5em; width: 90%; "> Greg Renker, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Gaijin42 (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.

Your submission at AfC Jeremy Stoppelman was accepted
<div style=" border:solid 1px #57DB1E; background:#E6FFE6; padding:1em; padding-top:0.5em; padding-bottom:0.5em; width:20em; color:black; margin-bottom: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.5em; width: 90%; "> Jeremy Stoppelman, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Gaijin42 (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.

MfD nomination of User:CorporateM/McKinsey Healthcare
User:CorporateM/McKinsey Healthcare, 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/User:CorporateM/McKinsey Healthcare and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:CorporateM/McKinsey Healthcare 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. CorporateM (Talk) 19:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi for this sort of thing it can be speedy deleted as a page in your userspace, with, there is no need to go to the effort of a MFD. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I try to regularly clear out all my old user-space drafts. CorporateM (Talk) 21:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jeremy Stoppelman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yelp (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)