User talk:CorporateM/Archive 14

Your GA nomination of History of public relations
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article History of public relations 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 Farrtj -- 14:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of History of public relations
The article History of public relations 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 needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:History of public relations for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Farrtj -- 14:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Yelp Inc.
If you have the time or the inclination...... helping to consolidate and standardize the citations as descried here would be a big help and would not create any COI issues in my opinion.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 17:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem. I am sick today and traveling tomorrow + my keyboard is broken until Apple gets a part. So it's possible I won't be able to finish until later this week, but I will take a look. CorporateM (Talk) 19:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Cvent
I do not work for Cvent and am not a marketing professional, and while I hope your comments were intended to be civil and assuming good faith your insinuations are unfounded. I started following Cvent after reading some news articles about their IPO. I noticed their Wikipedia page had been vandalized and was not being updated. I took the opportunity to start to contribute. And have kept up with it in my spare time. Early on I spent a lot of time trying to establish a neutral tone for this article as there were what appeared to be years of contributions that were not in line with Wikipedia standards.

Your recent edits have removed an incredible amount of independent work, both researching content and citing statements. Your recent edits are counter to the purpose of Wikipedia and are disruptive to providing a comprehensive collection of information. Butchering the page as you have seems counter intuitive especially considering the lack of attention to describing your edits or any justification and invoking the excuse that I am moving too fast or too busy further supports my assertions. My edits were in line with other corporate pages on Wikipedia, as I sought to standardize based on well known companies and their respective pages on Wikipedia and spent a considerable amount of time reviewing Wikipedia templates and recommendations for company pages.

If you do not have the time to document your edits properly then you should re-consider making them in the first place. I request that you restore the content you have removed and consider contributing to content versus just removing and re-arranging. At a minimum consider participating in the discussion for a page prior to making far reaching updates removing a considerable amount of content.

Anderson8267 (talk) 05:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Anderson8267. Most of the material I removed was sourced to press releases or press release reposts, which is why I removed it. To prevent future content from being deleted, it should be sourced to independent, secondary citations, such as bylined articles from established news organizations. In general we avoid listing trivial awards, especially those where the company is only listed as a finalist, included in a long list or those on execs rather than the company. External links/Perennial websites offers some guidance about how we should (in general) avoid links to social media websites under the External links section. Clients should be included if there is context that is informative to readers. I think this is how I found the article, is because I was cleaning up promotional articles I found that list clients, which is sometimes - but not always - promotional. The original article mentioned in several places how many clients it had, which clients and how fast it acquired clients in a given quarter - all cited to press releases.


 * Does this help? I also left edit-summaries with most of my edits. Relying on independent sources rather than those from the company will probably result in a much more neutral article. CorporateM (Talk) 06:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of WhitePages (company)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article WhitePages (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 Sportsguy17 -- 11:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of WhitePages (company)
The article WhitePages (company) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:WhitePages (company) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sportsguy17 -- 02:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk page stalkers
Per my usual broadcast openly inviting stalkers wishing to follow my COI contributions, I have declared a COI on the Talk page of ExactTarget and offered a draft for consideration. This is a pretty straightforward, small article about a marketing automation software company and the bulk of my contributions are to transform a currently promotional article into something more in-line with Wikipedia's standards.

If anyone cares to take the time, I noticed the current "Similar companies" section is filled with competitors' articles that are even more promotional than this one is now. Of course there's "that" whole thing of how frustrating it is to do the right thing, when all your competitors are doing it wrong and reaping the benefits. Not something I'll pursue personally or anything, but if anyone cares to, I noticed it, but won't clean up articles about their competition for obvious reasons. CorporateM (Talk) 21:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Matthew Bryden secondary sources
Hi CorporateM, you asked recently for some additional credible, independent, secondary sources relating to Bryden. Here are a few:
 * Times Observer, Warren, PA: 4 Kenyan attack suspects named as probe proceeds, which gives his views on the Westgate attack and describes him as "the former head of the United Nations Monitoring Group on Somalia and Eritrea and a top expert on al-Shabab".
 * Chicago Tribune: Nobody is Watching by Paul Salopek, page 2 of which describes him as "one of the world's leading scholars of the Somali insurgency", and page 3 of which outlines his view (shared by others) that Ethiopian and US action in Somalia was counterproductive, actually strengthening the hand of the Islamists instead of eliminating them as intended.

As well as these two, there are these pieces from other less mainstream outlets:


 * piracy-studies.org (an academic outlet focusing on piracy in Puntland, run by a team of researchers and edited by Dr. Christian Bueger of Cardiff University and Jan Stockbruegger of the University of Leiden): Gunmen, Fish and Puntland: the Professionalization of Piracy?, which describes him as "well-experienced specialist in Somalia culture and politics". Importantly, the article also says that Puntland's President Abdirahman Farole (sometimes spelled 'Faroole') "seems proven", along with a couple of other Puntland ministers, to "have been on the paylist of pirates." The current Wiki article for Bryden of course includes a passage on Farole's strong accusations against him. Explanation of Farole's hostile reaction to the March 2010 SEMG report, which was critical of the Puntland regime and pointed to evidence of links to the piracy trade, have hitherto relied solely on that report – a primary source. I have outlined to you previously the rigorous process of review to which SEMG reports are subject in order to satisfy the UN's stringent evidentiary standards, but the fact remains it's a primary source. Perhaps this article will provide an adequate secondary source to help shed some light on Farole's tirade against Bryden.
 * The ISN – International Relations and Security Network – at ETH Zürich: Eritrea Recalibrates Somalia Policy, which includes the passage: "The Somalia Monitoring Group reports became the most authoritative documents on Somalia since the US successfully lobbied for Matt Bryden, the renowned regional expert and former director of the International Crisis Group’s Horn of Africa project in Nairobi, to become the group’s new coordinator in 2008. Recent death threats against the five-member monitoring group investigating the links between Somali businessmen and armed opposition groups are an indicator of their in-depth work."
 * enoughproject.org: Somalia Paper: ‘Famine is Not Just a Catastrophe, It’s a Crime’, which is essentially a secondary source reporting on a primary one.

As you've said before, Bryden certainly has his share of online critics, but I think these sources warrant some attention.

Regarding an image, I'm working on that, and as I've said, I'm still waiting to hear back from Wikimedia regarding the documentation I sent.

Let me know what you make of these articles, many thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 12:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ I've made what I consider the appropriate edits. I added that he is considered a renown expert (we've seen plenty of sources on this before too) and provided context about Bryden's accusation that the president was on pirate payrolls. I also noticed the article needed a lot of copyediting.


 * There is other information in those sources that I would love to add. Like that the US lobbied for his appointment by the UN. But the sources just don't look strong enough at-a-glance. An advocacy organizations (enough.org) and a security vendor (International Relations and Security Network). CorporateM (Talk) 14:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure thing – understood. Thanks for making the edits you have. HOgilvy (talk) 10:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of NextWorth Solutions
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article NextWorth Solutions you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Edge3 -- 04:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Noodles & Company
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Noodles & 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 TonyTheTiger -- 17:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Monster (company)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Monster (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 Sportsguy17 -- 03:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Noodles & Company
The article Noodles & Company 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 needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Noodles & Company for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TonyTheTiger -- 06:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Monster (company)
The article Monster (company) 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 needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Monster (company) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sportsguy17 -- 02:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Construction article
Hi, CorporateM, got your message on my talk page. Happy to collaborate on your construction-related article. Just drop me a line when you're ready to share. Paul W (talk) 06:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Paul W. BTW - the article is Fluor Corporation. Being that they were founded in the late 1800s and are almost $30 billion in revenue, I expect it to take a while to get smart on the topic and have good draft material ready. But I will be getting a jump-start on my research tomorrow. CorporateM (Talk) 00:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of public relations, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Absolutism, Hype and Sedition Act (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) 09:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

SAS (software)
Hi CM. Are you affected by any COI on this article? (Usually you give disclaimers if so, and I didn't notice any). Your idea of trying to take the article to GA seems good. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is a COI disclosure on the Talk page and several Request Edits, but the disclosure tends to get buried in the strings and I had not added the connected contributor tag yet. I see the best practice in the community being to add a COI disclosure to ones signature, but I edit at least as much as a volunteer than I do as a COI. I wonder if there is some easier way to manage it, so that five tildies will produce a COI signature, while four will produce a regular one.


 * I think I am struggling with this article a bit, because I get the sense the press does not understand the topic. Even though it is notable, the media does not cover the software in any depth and the articles are vague and promotional with a lot of "According to" in order to prevent them from having to do actual reporting on a topic they don't understand. Meanwhile the technical sources that do understand it are beyond my comprehension and largely how-to focused. CorporateM (Talk) 18:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Reviews of SAS that compare it to other stat packages ought to exist. If and when I get time to look into this, I'd try searching through The American Statistician and another publication called [//magazine.amstat.news Amstat News]. EdJohnston (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll check them out. I think a Reception section is possible. While researching the Products section, I found some analyst reports that could be used, as well as press articles with snippets that identified how their pricing differed from competitors, etc. After noticing the source material existed, I sent them a ping to setup a meeting to discuss.


 * A neutral Reception section for JMP (statistical software) would have been overwhelmingly positive, but because they were not comfortable including the one criticism that was a sensitive topic internally, I advised they abstain completely. I will probably provide similar counsel to SAS, but I am now thinking whether it can meet GA without it. It is uncomfortable for companies to write their own reviews fairly. In many cases, it can be done well and in those cases I will write it, but in any case where I don't feel we can be neutral, my counsel is to abstain. CorporateM (Talk) 19:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * See [//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3205033/ this recent study] which tries to determine what statistical package was used by the authors of each paper in a certain medical field. The title is "Statistical software applications used in health services research: analysis of published studies in the U.S". This article turned up from [//www.google.com/search?q=SAS+review+article&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=SAS+review+article+statistical+software&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official a Google search for "SAS review article statistical software"] which gave a lot of helpful results. EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * EdJohnston. That is such an excellent and unexpected source. I would have never thought to look for something like that. I would put it under the Market Share section and rename it to "Adoption" (or something). Appreciate your help. Do you want me to author a sentence or two and use Request Edit or are you going to throw it in? CorporateM (Talk) 23:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Monster (company)
The article Monster (company) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Monster (company) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sportsguy17 -- 02:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of NextWorth
The article NextWorth you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:NextWorth for comments about the article. Well done! Edge3 (talk) 05:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your exceptionally thorough GA reviews as always Edge3!! CorporateM (Talk) 05:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! And thank you for your contributions to business articles that sorely needed improvement! Edge3 (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

GAN responses
Timestamp all your responses (even just checkmarks). It makes it easier to evaluate progress.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Noodles & Company
The article Noodles & Company you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Noodles & Company for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TonyTheTiger -- 01:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ethical assistance with publication
Hi Corporate - I'm searching for an established Wikipedia editor who can help to publish a neutral page about my company. I'm in the marcomms function at a technology company that fits the definition of "notable." Would like to explore this with you - could you let me know if you are willing/available to do this? Thank you. Melomania (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * HI Melomania. Are you asking about my services as a Wikipedia consultant or looking for helpful advice in my volunteer role? CorporateM (Talk) 19:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply - Yes, would be interested to hear about your consultant services. Please let me know what the best forum would be to discuss. Melomania (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Noodles
That sounds tasty. Wish we had something like that here. Holy moly, Pork adobo flatbread? One, to go, please. Drmies (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * They are ridiculously delicious. I would normally think of noodles as a bland dish, but their food is dam good. Unfortunately, it is a bit of a drive for me. I wish they were closer. CorporateM (Talk) 19:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks for such a thoughtful barnstar! CorporateM (Talk) 05:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of History of public relations
The article History of public relations you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:History of public relations for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Farrtj -- 16:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Cheers!


 — Keithbob • Talk  • is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

User:CorporateM/SAS
Hi there. I added two paragraphs to User:CorporateM/SAS if you have time to check it out. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Damon Way
You started it, but someone else did most of it. Could you take a look and tell me if you really think its supportable.  DGG ( talk ) 15:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ It did not actually warrant an article as I originally believed (at least not with the sources provided). I've setup a redirect to DC shoes. CorporateM (Talk) 16:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SAS (software)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SAS (software) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sssssss340 -- 13:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Quick question
I think I'm already supposed to know this but I can't remember. Do you follow the Bright Line Rule?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Jimbo Wales I do not. I do "leave important editorial decisions up to disinterested volunteers." So I directly edit a lot to fill in citation templates, correct spacing, fix grammar, update logos, after getting a, to correct my own mistakes, when a GA reviewer asks me to make copyedits, or in other clerical edits, such as culling through excessive citations when asked. OTOH, even when a GA reviewer or someone else tells me to make an edit I feel may be controversial like this - I am not going to make that edit even though I was told to. I do think it is a good edit, but not that it is clerical or appropriate for me to make and "see what sticks" as suggested by the well-meaning editor that responded.


 * I have also directly edited articles like Shift Communications, where my only COI is being an acquaintance of the CEO.


 * In general however, I find that even Bright Line supporters will tell me to make the types of edits I do make. My experience has been that the Bright Line does not prevent COI edits by proxy, so I've been focusing on making sure the articles are GA standard and being stern about an ethics policy with clients, though it is admittedly difficult to enforce.


 * I realize that is not necessarily Jimbo-approved, but I can't reasonably go around chasing down editors every time I need to add an accessdate parameter or fix a comma. CorporateM (Talk) 16:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you really restrict yourself to adding accessdate parameters or fixing commas? How do you personally draw the line between "important editorial decisions" and those kinds of obviously trivial edits?  Is there a reason why you don't make those edits in an easy to cut-and-paste way on the talk page of the article and ping a volunteer to add them?  Have you even tried that?  Have you considered the risk to your clients of a news story (fair or not) saying that "x% of the edits to their Wikipedia page were made by their PR consultant"?  Have you considered the risk to the reputation of Wikipedia, which is already being badly damaged by these kinds of activities?  Or do you view your own income as more important than Wikipedia's reputation?  All of these are serious questions, not rhetorical, because I'd like to better understand your views.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Jimbo Wales. Any organization that participates here is exposed to risk, especially if they are disclosed and even more so if they edit a large number of articles from a single account. I do not believe the Bright Line provides Wikipedia's or the client's reputation an impervious defense (insert BP). It is controversial for companies to write their own articles regardless of the process they follow and for good reason. A common and often effective Bright Line tactic is to create slanted content that an AGF-extremist will blindly copy into article-space.


 * That is not to say that the Bright Line is humbug, but that it is actually not high-enough of an ethical standard. If PR reps are to write their own articles in their entirety without a disclosure to readers, the ethical standard must be that their contributions mimic a volunteer so closely, that nobody can tell the difference. So few PR reps will remotely reach this standard, that they might as well be discouraged from even attempting it, but of course encouraged to pointing out errors and other problems to disinterested editors.


 * Is it possible I will be the subject of media scrutiny? Quite. How likely is it that following the Bright Line will make a difference? Not much. What is the best way to protect clients from scrutiny? High content standards, a stern ethical policy and being selective about only working for companies with objectives that are reasonably aligned with Wikipedia's (about 25% of cases).


 * I'm happy to discuss further and do my best to respond to any concerns. Ultimately I am victim to the ruling power of consensus, so my views are just a small wave in the ocean as it were. CorporateM (Talk) 17:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Having worked extensively with CorporateM, I can tell you that they are extremely careful in this area, and if there is even the slightest question/doubt, they do not do the edit themselves. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course the problem is that many COI editors do not show good judgement on what is a clerical edit and it is a minefield. A "copyedit" could be an exercise in positioning. Is it risky? Whether the edit is done by proxy or done directly, the mine-field is still there and any editor will fall on a mine now and then. I think the Bright Line is the right policy and while nobody will block editors for making GA pages with a COI, there's no reason to spell out exceptions that make everything murky either. CorporateM (Talk) 18:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As my questions weren't rhetorical but rather an exercise in gaining understanding, I hope you'll go back and answer them one-by-one. I'm sorry to be so tedious.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with, Jimbo. Corporate is the living example that paid editing can be done in accordance to Wikipedia's rules, and he's not the only one that is currently being paid for editing and writing articles that meet our standards. I have always believe that the bright-line rule is just a metaphorical excercise attempting to stop all kinds of paid editing, which is unbeneficial and wrong. I can see Wikipedia being edited by lots of paid people in the future, and by people like Corporate who can dedicate time to write cohesive, policy-compliant articles (they are paid for that) instead of the standard POV pushing, promotional accounts that we get so often, and that are the actual problem. — ΛΧΣ  21  Call me Hahc21 02:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I like the way you describe it user:Hahc21. Before I brought Waggener Edstrom up to GA, I noticed a PR rep with the company user:EmilyN-WE had removed well-sourced negative information about staff shifts and added excessive trivial awards. They disclosed and used the Talk page, so they can ride the AGF ticket to the bank. That is what the Bright Line should prevent - not GA reviews. However, there is no need to spell out exceptions and create loopholes, just the usual common sense tag is adequate. The bad-faith participants will not follow any rule we make anyway. CorporateM (Talk) 13:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You're wearing me out Jimbo ;-)

See below and bear in mind my responses are whatever flows off my keyboard and not intended as official declarations:

'''Do you really restrict yourself to adding accessdate parameters or fixing commas? ''' No. I make edits in all the circumstances originally mentioned.

Here's an example that is the most far afield from the Bright Line I can think of out of edits I have made recently. I asked numerous editors to consider merging my draft into article-space on a now-GA page on a client. Several editors all said that the content was terrific, but refused to make the edit by proxy. They insisted that I "take credit" for it. The article was promotional and contained no criticisms as it was previously edited by the company and my draft was correcting it, adding lawsuits, making it balanced and neutral, etc.

This went on for a month or two where I asked editors to consider merging it, and they insisted I make the edit. One editor at COIN was along the lines of "what the heck are you waiting for!" And I made the edit. One you would certainly disapprove of (and I would have preferred someone else make as well) but that everyone else insisted on).

How do you personally draw the line between "important editorial decisions" and those kinds of obviously trivial edits? I sometimes use the word "permission-based". The clearest and most effective way to verify that you have permission to add content is for another editor to actually make the edit. Request Edit G is another option for editors that philosophically oppose proxy editing. Periods or commas have permission by de-facto because they are trivial. If there's even a remote chance that a significant number of editors in the community would oppose the edit, best thing to do is err on the side of caution. Stuff like "looks good" is not permission. But what I communicate to clients is strict Bright Line because it is easier. Our contract forbids clients from ever requiring me to make an edit.

'''Is there a reason why you don't make those edits in an easy to cut-and-paste way on the talk page of the article and ping a volunteer to add them? Have you even tried that? ''' This is generally what I do. This question is misleading, because it describes my normal operating procedure then asks why I am not doing it. Generally I ask other editors to consider my work and only make clerical edits, edits that are explicitly asked of me, etc.

The reason not to do it in all cases is because it is just not practical. A typical GA review will probably require at least 30 edits. If each Request Edit takes 1 week (which would be a fast response), it would take almost 3 years to bring an article up to GA and it would by then be outdated. In the meanwhile, the GA reviewer would be scoffing, irritated and discouraged by the entire endeavor. IMO, it is actually safer for the client to get a GA review, which often weeds out subtle COI biases, then it is to follow the Bright Line in a manner that prevents the COI influence from being culled-out.

'''Have you considered the risk to your clients of a news story (fair or not) saying that "x% of the edits to their Wikipedia page were made by their PR consultant"? Have you considered the risk to the reputation of Wikipedia, which is already being badly damaged by these kinds of activities? Or do you view your own income as more important than Wikipedia's reputation?''' I decline about 75% of prospective clients, because I feel their intended objectives are not well-aligned-enough with Wikipedia and cannot be ethically obtained. Some prospects are practically graveling for me to take their money, insisting that the desired outcome is "priceless." Certainly if it was as you say, I would be taking their business.

On the contrary, many clients have edited dubiously without realizing it and I take pleasure in knowing that I can turn those situations around in a manner that helps everybody.

Do I worry about all the poor and misguided media coverage coming out with some sensational spin-job on me? Yah sure. I wonder now if this line of questioning will end in you proactively seeking it. But the Bright Line doesn't grant me immunity either. The best way to mitigate that risk is to make sure my contributions are impeccably neutral and my conduct appropriate for each circumstance.


 * Jimbo Imagine 20 bullets on the Talk page of an article pointing spacing, citation and copyediting issues out. No volunteer would want to cull through the wall of text filled with "In the _____ section, second sentence of the second paragraph between the words ______ and _____" and naturally any editor would tell me to just make the edit.


 * OTOH, if we had some kind of pending changes-type feature, I think that would be a way where I can be relatively productive while making sure all the edits are approved by a disinterested editor. It is much more practical for an editor to approve a diff than to try to explain it on Talk. Not sure if it's technically possible/easy, but I've village pumped it. Would you consider Pending Changes to be Bright Line compliant? What would be even better is if it worked like AfC where the approving editor made the edit.


 * I would consider it only appropriate for relatively minor edits, because large article overhauls should be discussed rather than just tossed up for approval.


 * CorporateM (Talk) 14:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
APerson (talk!) 20:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

How much do you charge?
Hello! I like your work. How much do you charge? Is it per hour, or per project? Can you accept non-US Dollar payment? Do you have references from past/current clients to help me decide if I should hire you? Thanks! Markusairy (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

SAS Good Article Review
Hello, i am finalizing my review of SAS (software), And should be done today or early tomorrow. sssssss340 18:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks sssssss340. WP:NORUSH. I was pleased to see the GA review get picked up so quickly! You probably saw on the Talk page that I have a WP:COI, so I'll have to use Request Edit for any non-trivial edits or changes to the "Comparison to other products" section which user:Crisco 1492 was kind enough to write. CorporateM (Talk) 18:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Viralheat
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Viralheat 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 Augbog -- 05:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HubSpot
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HubSpot 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 Cirt -- 05:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * ThanksUser:Hahc21! Did you know that's the second barnstar you've given me? I actually feel a bit bad doing so many GA nominations and no reviews. I have a volunteer To Do list a mile long, but I don't want to do any of it until I bring History of public relations up to GA, which is an impossibly large task it seems. I haven't done any huge COI contributions the last few weeks, but I have some good ones in the queue. I think it would be great to mirror the success of GLAM by producing a large volume of GAs for Wikipedia. CorporateM (Talk) 03:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Your price list for paid editing
Hello, thank you for your time. My coworker said their message to you before was removed without an answer. Could you help, and give an idea of your price list for paid editing work? If there is a better place to post this request, please do point it out. the WP:COIN list, or WP:ANI or I dunno? Thweeder (talk) 12:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you take a look at
User:Smallbones/Questions on FTC rules. Just some ideas on how to properly present this material. Any help appreciated. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 23:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Smallbones. I'm honored you asked for my input. In my opinion all such documents should be written in the same dis-passionate tone that we use to write articles. For example, the law is intended to prevent "covert advertising" where consumers are misled into thinking content comes from an independent source, but it actually originates from a non-disclosed commercial interest. I think this is more neutral language to use than "ripped off".


 * I would focus on a narrower number of examples and I would posture them more broadly. Like "PR rep writes an advert and discloses a financial connection on the Talk page" versus "PR rep edits the article directly, does not disclose, but makes similar edits to what a volunteer would make". In my opinion the disclosure to readers is unimportant of the article is genuinely similar to what the editor would produce without a financial connection, but still relevant if it is an advert regardless of any disclosures made to Wikipedians, but not to readers.


 * I would also lump WMF's terms of service into the same doc and I would cite examples rather than using personal guesses, such as the court ruling in Germany, quotes from the FTC policies, etc. - focusing on legality in general rather than the FTC specifically.


 * In my opinion, the problem with most such documents, projects, etc. on this particular topic is that they are written by people with strong opinions on the subject and they turn into a form of advocacy for that person's point-of-view. This leads to political factions of opposing editors, rather than a community of different perspectives collaborating on meaningful solutions. I would really take a hard look at it with that in mind, the same way you would look critically at the neutrality of an article on a topic you are passionate about. CorporateM (Talk) 00:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe I wasn't very clear. This is about what questions folks want to ask the FTC about their rules, so that we can understand them clearly.   I don't want to combine in the terms of service or other agencies or country's laws.  Disclosure is what the FTC's rules are all about, so we can't rule that out.  "Writing just like a volunteer would" seems pretty unclear to me, but writing, disclosing, referencing a specific item  are straightforward ideas.  So if you have a question about what the FTC rules mean, feel free to ask on that page (or ask them directly).  If we can figure out the key questions - that people don't agree on - then we can help them focus in.  Any help appreciated.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 01:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Awww, I didn't understand that. I haven't had any luck getting input from the FTC myself. I would still offer similar feedback (fewer questions, more neutral writing, and take out the guesses/responses entirely, since they are intended for the FTC to answer). I don't see a problem with it being confusing and ambiguous, rather it should be if it is to accurately reflect the situation. This is also along the lines of my understanding of how the FTC tends to handle things, not with precise answers, but with guidelines, because it is equally ethically ambiguous in many other areas. CorporateM (Talk) 01:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HubSpot
The article HubSpot you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:HubSpot for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cirt -- 02:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your review Cirt. I pinged Edge3 here for advice on where the article needs improvement to meet the GA standard. CorporateM (Talk) 02:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I wish you the best of luck with it! Please read over my final review notes for some advice I gave you there on how to proceed going forwards. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

GA Nom
It looks much improved at a quick glance. I can see you've put a lot of work into it. Have you enjoyed doing so? That's the main thing after all. I'd like to review it but I'm very busy at the moment, so I think it would be best if you list it for GA review. Best of luck, and I'm keeping an eye on the page out of interest. Farrtj (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Farrtj! It might still be a couple weeks or so before it's ready to re-list. I have one more book on my desk called "Corporate Public Relations: A New Historical Perspective" and I need to check the formatting of the sources, etc.


 * I do enjoy working on something where the quality and abundance of sources are so exceptional and there are so many different viewpoints - who knows what the truth is. Researching the article has made me more critical of the PR profession, however I think the historical perspective is a little disconnected from the day-to-day of PR, which is more along the lines of peddling product news, writing bylines and farming out Twitter handles to interns.


 * I was hoping to bring public relations up to GA similar to how SEO pro User:Jehochman brought search engine optimization up to FA, starting out with various sub-articles like this one, but I now realize that may take many years. I met User:Maky at a meetup about a year ago and he was pointing out how lazy people are about actually going to a library and reading physical books and historical archives and I think I can now finally say I am a genuine bonafied Wikipedian not in that category ;-)


 * CorporateM (Talk) 19:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It's funny that User:Maky said that because I think it's true. I don't know if you're aware of my History of KFC page, but its taken me almost two years to get to the stage where it *might* be at FA level (having originally stemmed from the KFC page. And the History of KFC is obviously much more finite than the vastly larger potential of a History of PR! In a way, I was lucky that there were relatively few book sources about KFC: it limited how deeply I would have to research the project. KFC is kind of my pet project.


 * As Wikipedia nears completion at the basic level, people will have to start to use physical books if they want to contribute anything. I hope they do actually do that, and aren't put off by the effort. I do, however, personally draw the line at scouring archives!


 * And all histories have an element of subjectivity: they reveal the author's blind-spots and idiosyncracies. That's part of what makes histories so fascinating, but it's an element where the collaborative nature of Wikipedia can come into its own.


 * Yes, it really is fascinating what interesting information you dig up from books. Take what you've added to History of public relations for example, "Academic Noel Turnball believes that PR was founded by British evangelicals and Victorian reformers in the 18th and 19th century". Obviously just one argument, but fascinating!


 * PR is essentially the art of persuasion, which is even older than human speech.


 * History of KFC was interesting for me because I'd never encountered a good history of KFC. The history of PR is interesting because a standard idea of it hasn't really established itself yet.

Farrtj (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I had forgotten that we met at a meetup, lol! Time sure does fly.  Anyway, I agree that combing archives is not always necessary—books on lemurs, for instance, are filled with outdated and incorrect information.  But they do give a history of primatology that usually gets glossed over in review.  After all, who wants to admit that their branch of science was (and still is, to some degree) tainted by scala naturae mentality as recently as the 1990s.  Instead, let's overlook the language they used and instead focus on how we've since clarified the phylogeny.  Because that's all it was, really. (*cough*)  Now, you can create borderline cases of OR here, or you can see it as a way to share history through the sources themselves by quoting them to show how perspectives have evolved.  Who knows, maybe someday I'll write my own book about the subject—kind of like how User:Ucucha a published a paper on the etymology of lemur names so that I could have a source from which to cite our OR.  (And some of our discoveries in those archives were quite fascinating.)


 * Grey areas aside, I suggest looking at the article Sublingua. At the time I wrote it, only one recent book (Ankel-Simons 2007) even spoke of it using the correct name.  The experts at the Duke Lemur Center told me personally that they called it the "frenulum" because they didn't know what else to call it.  Apparently even they didn't know it had been extensively researched back in 1918, discussed briefly by Osman Hill in 1953, and then mostly forgotten.  In this case, archive digging made that article what it is today.  Speaking of which, I should probably finish prepping it for FAC...  Anyway, sorry for butting in. –  Maky  « talk » 23:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Maky your butting in is welcome! Time does fly. I was not a very good editor back then and that was only, what, a year ago? Farrtj, I'm glad you nudged me to include more negative material on History of public relations. I often get the feedback that I write too positively, which is an ingrained bias that comes from a background in PR. I find Scott Cutlip's perspective most compelling personally - that the "founding" of PR in 1900 is an arbitrary date, because a profession develops dynamically over-time, with no clear, exact origination date. I would say something similar about the definition of PR. When I was first learning the trade, my boss had me read a book on sales. She said that we were salespeople, but what we were selling were stories to the media. But the scope of PR fluctuates from one company to the next and it's a mushy, ambiguous type of thing. At some point I'll have to look into this more thoroughly for public relations knowing that there are thousands of competing definitions.


 * Some craziness about digging up sources. I have a COI with Fluor Corporation - despite being a $30 billion company, there are very few sources available. I have not made any contributions to the current page, but I've been researching it, which included thumbing through a full year of Fortune Magazine looking for a 1979 profile story and posting a Craigslist ad attempting to bribe a Stanford student $30 if they can scan a copy some archive trade magazines that only Stanford had (they declined my inter-library loan request too). CorporateM (Talk) 00:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI
A proposal has been made to  create  a Live Feed to  enhance the processing  of Articles for Creation and Drafts. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to create a 'Special:NewDraftsFeed' system. Your comments are welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Smallbones/Questions on FTC rules
This is moving along quickly. Any comments welcome. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 15:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Smallbones/Questions on FTC rules 2
Thanks for the help, sorry if I'm sometimes stubborn. Any additional help appreciated. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Meh, Smallbones, I don't like the changes, but I won't argue over them. I would focus not on the grey areas like editing their own article, which not everyone is oppose to and could encompass fixing grammar, to intentional and obviously illegal bad-faith deceit, such as socking and pretending to be someone else. This would get more support from the community by focusing on areas where everybody agrees, rather than on areas you already know lack consensus, and would be much more compelling in convincing the FTC that there is an ethical problem that needs their attention.


 * Though it's also possible I have a skewed lens. I do wonder if even my own COI work creating GA articles would technically be illegal.


 * I don't think it's healthy for me to get too involved in that page especially in heavily disputed areas. But as it progresses you should keep in mind that editors have different perspectives on the issue and for it to be successful, it will have to appeal to all of them - even those with the opposite point-of-view as your own.


 * I'm reminded of a tag-line they say for sales staff, that it's all about overcoming objections. You have been involved in the topic long enough to predict the objections others will have and address them in-advance.


 * Hopefully my rants/pep talks are helpful ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 03:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Your request
Hey, CorporateM, looks like "Corporate" is already taken, and so is "Corporate1". Wanna try something else, like "Corporate 1" (not taken)? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 23:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hrm... Corporate3? Any which way is ok by me. CorporateM (Talk) 00:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Corporate3 is already taken, so I went ahead and renamed the account to Corporate4 instead. Let me know if this isn't OK. 28bytes (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That works... CorporateM (Talk) 20:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Diner's Club edit request
Please see Talk:Diners Club International/Archives/2014. I made a couple suggestions. Regarding User:CorporateM/Diners Club, please note that there are some problems in the reference list including a red error message, and one duplicated name of an author, 'David David Sparks Evans.' Could you merge your proposed changes into the full article, in a sandbox, so you can verify that the references work? If you will do so I might be able to copy the entire sandbox back to the article when you're done. This assumes that nobody else comes along to join in the discussion. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Act-on screenshot.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Act-on screenshot.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SAS (software)
The article SAS (software) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:SAS (software) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sssssss340 -- 17:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Belated thanks
I know this is terribly late but I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your participation at my RfA. I was very inspired by the many that supported me and it’s that feeling of friendship and camaraderie that keeps me coming back to the project. So, thank you for your support and for your continued sense of fairness and compassion in all areas of WP. I look forward to the opportunity to work together in the days to come. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 19:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)