User talk:CorporateM/Archive 17

Parenthetical disambiguation
Hello CorporateM. I noticed one of your recent edits and wanted to mention an aspect of the title which I believe is incorrect. What Wikipedia is Not (Organizations) capitalizes "organizations", which should only happen when the parenthetical is a proper noun. I was going to move the page, but thought I would mention it to you, and ensure there was no disagreement. Do you agree? I will leave the move to your discretion. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 09:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't actually realize that you had retired for the night. I am going to move the page. I am pretty sure you will agree. Best regards.—John Cline (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @John Cline Good catch. There was no need to seek my approval. On the contrary, I was very cautious about seeking community input before moving that page into essay space, seeing as I could conceivably have a COI. I cite this essay constantly though; it's extremely useful. Someday I hope it morphs into a guideline that will better empower neutral editors to delete poorly sourced promotion/criticism, like BLP does for those pages.  CorporateM (Talk) 14:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand your apprehension, though I am certain, having seen demonstrations of your intent, that you are entitled to a full collaborative share for the work you have done. I will never presume an edit from you is anything less than a reflection of your best, absolutely good faith, effort. If I see where I can improve anything further from there, I certainly will have a try. And if I learn a new thing, observing your manner, I won't be surprised in the least. I would be surprised however, rather derelict I suspect, if I observed your editing manner, and did not learn some new things on the way. I remember looking at this essay when it was in your user space; thinking that I wanted to help copyedit it. I am going to be bold in that regard and actually get some of it done; hoping to help you realize your stated goals. I need to look in on the noticeboard you were trying to implement as well, to help ensure it also sees fruition. I saw the initial "naysayerisims", but it looked to me that a groundswell of support was emerging, and that you were advocating its purpose well. That is another positive thing you are moving forward, such that I say bravo to you!—John Cline (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The various initiatives all work together as part of a dubious plot to create a competent system. COI editnotice can send PR editors to Submissions. However, right now many COI edits are accepted by proxy, while good edits are declined, and most submissions are garbage. Very few PR folks know our standards and many volunteers use their edits as an expression of their views on COI or their edit may depend on the level of sympathy they have for the PR's position. Though it's not the essay's primary purpose, it can act as a reasonable guide for when to accept/reject edits, while the Submissions process can put requests into a more structured process that attempts to strip away the social psychology and focus on the edits, RE whether they are compliant with our standards. Then the board can be reserved for escalation and/or attracting broader input on an issue (COI or not) that may benefit from editors with specific experience in org pages. CorporateM (Talk) 15:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Act-on screenshot.png
Hi.

What exactly is File:Act-on screenshot.png showing?

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Lol, good question. It's the main menu of the user interface. However, I'm not sure it's actually a very useful image. Showing the entire UI would be more useful, but not legible when shrunk to a thumbnail size. CorporateM (Talk) 20:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually it says in the caption "The "Quick Start" guide in Act-On's online user-interface" CorporateM (Talk) 20:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * User interface of what? A web site or an app? In case of the former, which web page (URL please) and in case of the latter, which app and on what platform? Actually, I even tried to read the article and still I don't get it.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 03:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's SaaS. CorporateM (Talk) 04:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "SaaS" is licensing and distribution model. My question still remains. I need to know whether this image must go into Category:Screenshots of web-based software, Category:Screenshots of web pages, Category:Screenshots of Windows software or elsewhere. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * web-based software would work. CorporateM (Talk) 21:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Proud to be associated with you and your efforts

 * Thanks @BusterD! CorporateM (Talk) 20:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Random comment
I thoroughly enjoy reading a 25-year old source, then a 5-year old source, that are both on the same subject. The 25 year-old source says the tech isn't even viable - the 5 year old source has the benefit of hindsight. CorporateM (Talk) 06:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I did this for years with MacGruder's American Government textbook. I purchased used editions from every year. At the larges point of my collection, I had copies from 1911, 1914, 1927, 1933, 1939, 1954, 1975, 1984, 1988, 1990, 1994, 2002, 2006, and 2010. The interesting part was to look back at what was talked about for the 1910s etc in newer editions. It was all discussed differently; even the language evolved significantly.
 * On an unrelated note, you've got an email just sent to your inbox from me. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Capitol Hill training - August 18
Hi! I don't know if you living in the DC area, but I noticed your post on Harej's wall about Wikipedia and Congress. We're doing a panel about Congressional editing of Wikipedia and transparency and legislation and Wikipedia awesomeness on August 18th. It's open to the public, if you wanted to come (or let others know about it!). RSVP here. Thanks! HistoricMN44 (talk) 13:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @HistoricMN44 Thanks for the invite. It's a few hours drive for me and I don't think I need the training. In my own paid editing, I have actively decided not to do any training; In my experience, COI editors that gain the skills just become more successful advocates and it works better for them to hire someone independent that can act as an advocate for ethics. So I've stuck with that model. I thought the training was something completely spontaneous from the community, but it looks like it's a GLAM-type effort with Cato? CorporateM (Talk) 14:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess that depends on who you count as a community member. ;) Cato has an on-going project about government transparency with an emphasis on Congressional legislation. The idea is to track what is in the legislation itself - agencies affected, laws amended, authorizations of appropriations, appropriations, and so forth. Remember the famous Nancy Pelosi quote about needing to pass the law so we could find out what's in it? We want to avoid scenarios like that by gathering the best data possible about a bill and publicizing it all over the place before it becomes law. One of those places is Wikipedia. We're not taking an ideological stance on any of the legislation, for or against, just trying to make sure that accurate information is available. We'd love to see more people involved in editing articles about legislation. This panel and discussion will address some of the complications and opportunities for Congressional staffers to be good community members (and not edit inappropriately). Does that make sense? HistoricMN44 (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit request
Hi CM. Would you please consider making the edit requested here, if you have the time?


 * ✅ One of you should add sources though, as a non-controversial edit, even if nobody else has for the others. CorporateM (Talk) 03:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks CM. Will do. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

RE: Autism Research Institute
Thank you for a fair and neutral post regarding this article on the Extant Orgs NB. I appreciate your contributions to the encyclopedia. Your ethics seem well developed and to my knowledge your behavior has been honorable. I apologize if in the past I lumped you in with some editors who worked on the article with a less forthright approach not to mention editing skills far below what a cursory looks shows have. I was wrong to make an assumption that because you made an honest COI disclosure that you were associated with some who seemed to clearly have a COI but did not acknowledge it. In looking at some of your contributions it is clear you would not have copy pasted from ARI's website and sourced from the organization itself. If I might add pinging me was courteous and showed respect and diligence and was commendable. I am somewhat fascinated by the idea of a straightforward approach to COI editing and appreciative of the volunteer work you contribute. Best wishes and happy editing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks MrBill3. I took no offense to your accusation of COI whitewashing after I saw from your contribs some of the tenuous editing you've been dealing with from astroturfing firms on other pages (and I could tell this article had been effected by COI editing as well). That line of work would leave any editor feeling irritable. CorporateM (Talk) 19:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your graciousness and repeat my apology. I jumped to conclusions, made assumptions and accusations which were inaccurate. Please note I have also made somewhat of an apology to . Allow me state, I was mistaken and neither you nor FRF acted in any way other than as valuable members of the community contributing to the improvement of the encyclopedia. I am glad you understand that I can become frustrated. I appreciate your clear stance against astroturfing. I also acknowledge I take a strong stance on the advocacy of "medical" practices that are unsupported by evidence and that can lead to some contention on WP. Best wishes. - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Just as a note on collaborating on a new version of this article. I shudder to think that my heroes Gorski, Novella, Hall, Sampson, Barrett etc. would find participating in anything other than an outright condemnation of ARI a betrayal of principle. I hasten to remember that what I do here is help develop an encyclopedia whereas their work has a different purpose. I think the guiding principles of WP as expressed in policy can lead to an article that provides the facts about the subject without being promotional and without presenting unproven/disproven and or dangerous treatments or approaches in any way that might cause harm to come to sick children (this is a professional ethical responsibility as a Registered Nurse). ARI certainly played a historical role in the developing phenomenon of the "autism epidemic" and continues to exist and function within that community. An encyclopedic article should provide the basic details of that. - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * MrBill3 You have me at a disadvantage, because I don't know anything about autism or about ARI for that matter. I do understand that they have been involved in advocating for fringe views about autism treatment and I intend to comply with WP:FRINGE.


 * However, since the article is about the organization and not exclusively about their views, I think it should also include things like an infobox, with a foundation date, number of employees, funding, a URL, and logo, etc. Basically every org article should have a "founded by ____ on ______ because _______", an explanation of how they get money to operate and the services/what it is they provide/do. The basic mundane stuff.


 * I don't feel advocating for fringe views necessarily means they are evil or corrupt. I think there are many views (like religion) that are popular among the masses, but less popular among those smarter than the general public and those beliefs tend to flourish based on their ability to fulfill a psychological need. Like with any organization, some organizations use their "faith" in something that is not supported by strong evidence to do good things, such as alleviate parents of guilt associated with being genetically liable for causing autism in their children, while others may prevent direly needed legitimate treatment, promote dangerous activities or take advantage of the gullible public.


 * Anyways, it is probably not helpful for me to spout about my personal views. I could also try to build the largest possible rift between us by saying how I feel about doctors and vets ;-) I noticed while writing this that you have invited me to start a draft, so I will do so, probably tomorrow. It is sort of outside the scope of what I agreed to do for them, but it will be a nice break from the dozens of hours I've been spending researching for Qualcomm. I think it will be good for us to discuss some of the more borderline sources on the Talk page while I put a first draft together. CorporateM (Talk) 01:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * CorporateM, I have no doubt that you will adhere to policy. I have respect for you as an editor and as an ethical professional. I also agree the focus of the article should be the subject of the article. I'm not a fan of infoboxes but I yield on that (that's an ugly WP infight I have no interest in participating in). I definitely agree that the article should provide the core facts about the org (that's what an encyclopedia should do at a minimum). The what they do/services they provide is where ARI becomes contentious. I think the coverage of ARI's views should be very basic, coming mostly from their activities and public actions.
 * While attempting to avoid presenting too much (yeah whoops that didn't work out) of my personal analysis of ARI, I will mention real harms are associated with children not being vaccinated, deaths have occurred in children "treated" with chelation (and there has been unscrupulous use of lab tests). There is also the tremendous burden on parents of the regimens and record keeping not to mention the immorality of making a living by (allegedly) knowingly providing false hope to desperate people facing tremendous psychological and financial burdens. To me this is tempered slightly by things like the founder discredited a cruel and false theory of the cause of autism and had to be to a significant degree sincere (his son has autism). Also the database they have while not rigorously scientific (with some questions about ethics and openness also) is a collection of information that may have value. ARI has also apparently provided some funding for some legitimate research. They have also facilitated the building of a support network for parents and have been a significant part of creating an advocacy community. Fortunately for us as encyclopedia editors this type of analysis is to be done by others and we summarize it and present it as due.
 * You won't create too much of rift with me based on a critical opinion of doctors, I am a nurse. Nurses are consistently rated as the profession with the highest honesty and ethics and for good reason. As a part of my professional ethics I must advocate for the health of all members of the community. This means insuring that health information is the best possible. As a nurse and a person I care for people particularly those coping with illness. This means the presentation of information likely to be encountered by people dealing with autism should be tempered with compassion. Ideally it would provide good education to facilitate informed choice. I've seen enough pain and confusion (and I'm professionally trained) to know that beating people with negative information is neither kind nor effective. I think NPOV and encyclopedic tone are useful tools.
 * I don't think we need to hash out the sources from the existing article. I think we can build the article from scratch using the best sources and discuss inclusion of borderline sources as needed. If you prefer to attempt to disqualify some sources in advance of course you can start that conversation on talk. I look forward to working with you and especially to learning about building an article in an organized manner from a logical framework/template. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

History of public relations
Hey CM, couple of comments. Not sure if I have the time for a full GA review, but you might find these useful
 * References
 * Wilson 1979 goes nowhere. Welch, 12 as well. Those should all be full cites.
 * ✅ I couldn't find the source, so I just removed it, since there were three cites there anyway CorporateM (Talk) 14:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The History of Public Relations, McGraw Hill needs a fuller cite
 * Unfortunately I don't have much information about this source. Any ideas on how to get more info? CorporateM (Talk) 14:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * How about this? Gives Dan Lattimore, Otis Baskin, Suzette Heiman, Elizabeth Toth, and James Van Leuven. Public Relations: The Profession and the Practice. Doesn't say what edition, but I'd say 4th. No clue what year (any year from 2010 through 2013, if it's the fourth edition). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC) edit: oops, wrong date15:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * How do you know that's the same book? CorporateM (Talk) 15:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Compare the outline of that chapter with the one you downloaded: outline. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Awww, nice investigation work! I'll add the info now. CorporateM (Talk) 15:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. It's a nice looking article, and if it's still in queue when my parents go back to Canada (they'll be in town for my graduation ceremony) I'll have a more in-depth look. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yah, I think really large articles like that in the GA queue tend to be intimidating, so they take longer to find a reviewer. Also, I need to pay my dues by reviewing others, but it seems I am the only editor making valid GANs on extant organizations, so I need to find a different subject-area that might interest me enough to do reviews. Maybe business-oriented BLPs. Qualcomm will be in a similar position eventually. The source material is overwhelmingly vast. CorporateM (Talk) 15:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, one thing that some people like is non-specialists taking on a review. Allows them to see what information may be obvious to them but needs to be better explained for others. If you don't mind doing reviews like that, shouldn't be much of a problem finding interesting topics. *joke* If everyone only reviewed what they knew, the subjects I write about would stay on the list for years. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Business and society: Stakeholders, ethics, public policy - has accessdate but no URL (this gives an error, putting the article in Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL)
 * ✅ It looks like you removed the URL and accessdate, which works because I don't see a preview available in Google Books anymore. CorporateM (Talk) 14:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Press Index – A Brief History of Public Relations has the same issue
 * ✅ Argh, it pains me because I do think that sentence belongs in the article, but I thought Kantar Media was a news organization and it turns out it is a vendor. I don't think that source is reliable-enough and I couldn't find any others in Google Books, the library's database, etc.. CorporateM (Talk) 14:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * If you're using the Cite family of templates, make sure all of the references use it.
 * Next time, you should ensure you use a standardized date format. I've cleaned that up. (Scripts are awesome!)
 * Yah sorry, I sometimes forget to fix it when using Google Books auto-cite tools, which use UK formatting. CorporateM (Talk) 14:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Couple more nitpicks
 * The Bernays link is dead
 * This link? It works for me. CorporateM (Talk) 16:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You should standardize your ISBNs: 13-digit or 10-digit, hyphenated or not (this converter helps greatly for both). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Text
 * Edward Clarke and New Freedom both link to disambiguation pages. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Turns out we don't have a page on the Clarke this page is referring to. CorporateM (Talk) 14:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yelp
The article Yelp you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Yelp for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Erachima -- Erachima (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of David Thomas Williams for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Thomas Williams 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/David Thomas Williams 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.  DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ I have made the sources that suggest notability available by uploading the PDFs to DropBox and providing links where they can be verified by other editors. CorporateM (Talk) 15:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of BabyFirst
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article BabyFirst 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 Bentvfan54321 -- Bentvfan54321 (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Reliance Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group
Lots of articles, lots of unverified and non-neutral information, tons of spammy links... Drmies (talk) 02:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * @user:Drmies Are you asking if I have some time to clean them up? CorporateM (Talk) 02:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, you know, yeah man. But it's like, you know, three dozen articles. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @user:Drmies I've gotten started on it. Trimmed a few and PROD'd a half-dozen. I think almost all of those could be consolidated to just one article on the Group. CorporateM (Talk) 13:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That's one of the reasons I asked you: I don't know of anyone better to judge the validity of all those separate articles. I appreciate it Corp--Drmies (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Asking for help and advice on corporate page initiative
Dear CorporateM, I am pleased to contact you because I noticed your User page that inspires trust. I am confident that you can help me a lot on how to proceed with the following initiative. I am trying to recreate the current "Adobe Systems" page that is clearly outdated. This page was first created and published on September 27, 2001‎ and edited numerous times for more almost 13 years. Its current content shows several outdated sections, ill-structured and incomplete information. Instead of engaging in a large scale updating of the current live article "Adobe Systems", I have opted for writing an entirely new article. My intention is to replace the current one with the new draft. Could you please give your opinion on this initiative and on how to proceed safely. Your ideas, suggestions and advice are very welcome.

The current live "Adobe Systems" article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Systems The new draft I have ready is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bostonscribe/sandbox

I am looking forward to hearing from you soon. Thank you for help. Bostonscribe (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * @Bostonscribe A few notes at-a-glance:
 * Avoid long lists of products, locations, divisions, etc. (this is also a problem in the current article). Please see WP:ORGLISTS
 * We prefer paragraph-style prose over bullets
 * Avoid words like "innovation" and "solutions"
 * Also avoid stuff like "successful" give specifics. They grew from $___ in revenue to $_____ in revenue and acquired a ____% market-share
 * A lot of the material in your draft is unsourced
 * The grid of logos in the Products section is silly - we need a paragraph-style summary
 * Any "Awards" section is inheritly promotional. Please see WP:ORGAWARDS. All that needs to be deleted.
 * The entire Logos section seems to rely on low-quality sources and needs to be removed
 * The See Also section is excessive
 * The Leadership section is also a typical COI thing - needs to be deleted entirely. The company website is the most appropriate place for that
 * We should not list office locations individually.
 * I would suggest acquisitions, revenue growth, going public, etc. be merged with Corporate history
 * This is a useless promotional sentence "Employees, partners, and stakeholders have appreciated the unique Adobe environment."
 * For the Corporate Culture section, please check it against WP:ORGAWARDS.
 * Dedicated controversies and criticisms sections are also seen as non-neutral. They should be integrated into the article. For example, the anti-trust issue should be under Corporate History. Some of those controversies probably belong on individual product pages. I would recommend you separate out the product ones and let a disinterested editor move those to the appropriate pages.
 * CorporateM (Talk) 15:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@Corporate : I really appreciate your prompt review, constructive remarks and wise suggestions. Do not hesitate to let me know if you have more. In particular, I am a little unsure on how to proceed with the replacement of the old article after all your editing suggestions. Should I entrust this to someone else? Thanks. Bostonscribe (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Generally you are expected to obtain consensus, then ask a disinterested editor to merge the draft into article-space; probably you will be better off vetting it section-by-section. "Corporate History" is suppose to be the first section and is usually the largest. The draft has a long ways to go before it is ready though. CorporateM (Talk) 15:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * @CorporateM : Sure. This is certainly the way to go. The idea of a "a disinterested editor" is definitively what I was looking for. I will keep on working on the draft in the light of your excellent remarks. Thanks again. Bostonscribe (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Despite the material being out of date you need to understand that WIkipedia can and will only accept material backed by references. We require references from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please, that reflect the changes you hope to make. See WP:42. If reliable sources say that black is white then that is what we must record. WP:TRUTH will interest you. Replacement of one article by another is not generally a way that will be acceptable to the community.
 * Put simply, your sources must be impeccable. Fiddle   Faddle  15:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * @Timtrent : Yes indeed. I am familiar with the importance of reliable and secondary references. You said: "Put simply, your sources must be impeccable" Thanks for the reminder. This is an ideal towards which I am doing my best. Your suggestions are always welcome. Thanks Bostonscribe (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree (sort of). You say Adobe must use impeccable sources, but the community has not. We have used blogs, forums and junk sources to create a pile-on article dominated by a Criticisms section. In a case where an article-subject is genuinely treated unfairly, it is irresponsible for us to provide barriers / double-standards that prevent the article-subject from correcting it. In the case of general improvements, it is the COI editor's responsibility to demonstrate value to Wikipedia/the community, but when an article-subject is treated unfairly in a substantial way, we need to accept responsibility and bend over backwards to fix it.


 * I have started by removing large amounts of poorly-sourced contentious material and putting the article into a more neutral article-structure.CorporateM (Talk) 16:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I have never let the deficiencies of the past or of less than good editing stand in the way of a vision of a substantially better future. As a member of the community it is up to me, up to you and up to others to hold ourselves to the highest standards we are able. We can't solve it all, but we can solve what we touch. Fiddle   Faddle  16:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of BabyFirst
The article BabyFirst you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:BabyFirst for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bentvfan54321 -- Bentvfan54321 (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Request edits
Sorry I'm not doing much on request edits. I do go in and handle one once in a while. I did change the Admin_dashboard so the item is in red if over 120 (my hope is to move the hurdle down over time)

For better or for worse, I have a lot of irons in the fire, and can't devote much time to it now.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  18:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Sphilbrick No need to apologize to me! I haven't done any in quite some time. Been busy with other stuff. CorporateM (Talk) 19:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:TAPAD png lg green.png
 Thanks for uploading File:TAPAD png lg green.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * @Stefan2 Someone replaced my PNG file with an SVG, leaving the old PNG file un-used. It can be safely deleted. CorporateM (Talk) 22:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Then let's simply wait for a week and it should go away. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Code42 CMYK.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Code42 CMYK.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Category inclusion -- inquiry
Hey, M, I see a few of your subpages listed at. I am trying to reduce the backlog. Well, I am wondering if your subpages should be listed in the category. Is there a way to remove the pages from the listing? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 06:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * @User:Srich32977 The subpages are for this Request Edit Wizard, which allows someone to fill out a form and generate a Request Edit, among other things. The subpages are preloaded pages that determine what is generated when someone fills out the form, hence the Request Edit template. I'm just not sure how to include the Request Edit code in them, but exempt them from the category.


 * Looks like you got it down to 56!! Great work! Some of those are months old. I also de-activated an old one of mine that was never closed out. The one at Yelp is still live. User:Sphilbrick and I have both gotten kinda worn out on them and it's great to see a fresh face working on the queue. CorporateM (Talk) 12:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Here. Can you post this on the subpages instead of the actual template link? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Say, CorporateM. How about if I put the image above into your subpages? They will have the same appearance. By taking the template out the subpages will be removed from Category:Requested edits. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The best place to bring it up might be here. The thing is, if you disable it from showing up in the Request Edit category, anyone that uses the wizard will also create Request Edits that do not show up in the category. That being said, though a handful of people have signed up as participants here nobody has taken the initiative to finish it up and move the wizard into project space, so it may not be a problem for it to be dysfunctional if no one has an interest in using it. CorporateM (Talk) 03:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess I don't know enough about Wizards or subpages to offer a solution. If it is your userspace subpage, then it seems that it should not spill out into categories. And if I read correctly, WP:UPNO & WP:USERNOCAT talk about templates that automatically cause categorization, which these seem to do. Perhaps you can you use the  or something else to  prevent this.  – S. Rich (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I've pinged User:Hasteur on their Talk page to see if they know how to fix it. Alternatively please feel free to remove them and/or wait to see if I can fix it so the wizard still works. CorporateM (Talk) 23:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * @S. Rich I haven't heard back, so I just removed the templates for now. Hopefully at some point someone will fix it. For now, the wizard is in draft space so it being broken shouldn't be a problem. CorporateM (Talk) 14:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yelp
The article Yelp you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Yelp for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Erachima -- Erachima (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I've added my comments to the review. I think most of the article is good but there are some sections which need a lot of close attention. Protonk (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SAS Institute
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SAS Institute 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 Protonk -- Protonk (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I've added the bulk of the review. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SAS Institute
The article SAS Institute you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SAS Institute for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Protonk -- Protonk (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello and Infront Sports & Media - can you help (again) please?
Dear CorporateM. Hope you are well. Wondered if you could help me out with this page again - or if you would rather I put up a 'request edit' let me know? I was in touch with Malpass93 as he/she had added a better looking logo but haven't had any further response to my note on their talk page. The info box on the Infront Sports & Media page is now out-of-date. Due to my Conflict of Interest, I'm inclined not to edit directly. The company now has 600 employees (not 500) and 25 offices (not 20). I have taken some time to look at the suggested reading on WP:LR which Malpass93 kindly informed me about - as some of the references / citations on the Infront page are also broken. Unfortunately most of those in mention were to a website that has now become 'subscription only'. I have a number of suggestions (new links) prepared already to update the references section - all notable and neutral of course, which I think are possibly more informative than some of the previous ones. Can you advise best where / how I should start. I would be most grateful for help. Kind Regards HablasESport!121 (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * @HablasESport!121 I would encourage you to keep the infobox data (employees/offices/etc.) up-to-date directly, as long as you don't add a long list of products or executives. Sources do not have to be accessible online to be used. If you have a new/better link for the same source, I would also encourage you do fix that as a "non-controversial" edit allowed by WP:COI. CorporateM (Talk) 14:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear CorporateM - thanks very much for the advice. I have updated the box information and have started on the reference list (now that I've figured out how to do it)... Hopefully I'm handling it ok. Have put a note on the Talk Page and I'm working my way through the article. Thanks for any further advice. HablasESport!121 (talk) 09:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks good. CorporateM (Talk) 14:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tapad
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tapad 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 Bentvfan54321 -- Bentvfan54321 (talk) 12:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tapad
The article Tapad you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tapad for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bentvfan54321 -- Bentvfan54321 (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Paxata
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Paxata 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 -- Cirt (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately not GA yet at this time. I couldn't pass it or put it on hold due to the extensive issues on multiple different points of WP:WIAGA. For example the uncited info on WP:BLPs in the infobox, etc. I hope you understand, and please don't get discouraged. I've seen the quality of your work improve over time. In particular I was impressed with the NPOV tone of the Reception sect, which could certainly stand to be expanded further with additional secondary sources -- but did have a neutral tone to it upon my reading of the article. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The issues raised seem relatively minor and easy to fix. I'll make sure they are all addressed to the best of my ability before re-nominating. CorporateM (Talk) 15:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay sounds good, that's a great attitude and I wish you the best of luck! :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Paxata
The article Paxata you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Paxata 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 -- Cirt (talk) 14:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding Talk:Paxata/GA1 -- could you please move all your comments to below the entire GA Review, instead of being interspersed throughout? Thank you, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 September newsletter
In one month's time, we will know our WikiCup 2014 champion. Newcomer has taken a strong lead with a featured list (historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876) and a raft of featured pictures. Reigning champion is in second place with a number of high-importance biology articles, including new FA Isopoda and new GA least weasel. , who is in his fifth WikiCup final, is in third, with featured articles Pictor and Epacris impressa.

Signups for the 2015 WikiCup are open. All Wikipedians, new and experienced, are warmly invited to sign up for the competition. Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may also like to sign up for the GA Cup, a new WikiCup-inspired competition which revolves around completing good article reviews. As ever, 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. and 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Trafigura
Hi CorporateM – hope you're well. I wonder if you could take a look at something for me. You may recall that I work for Bell Pottinger to address issues on various clients' pages. I've been working with SmartSE on the article for Trafigura, which is a tough one as traditionally there hasn't been a lot of media coverage although that has improved a little in recent years. We added a Company History section and are now working on a userspace draft of a Business Activities section. Our discussion is in small text under each para – as you'll see we're pretty much there but I haven't heard back in a while and thought you might be a good third pair of eyes. One thing you'll notice straightaway is the use of a primary source, namely a prospectus for a bond offering – it wasn't actually written by Trafigura but was compiled and reviewed by several third parties and published by the Singapore Stock Exchange. We've agreed that it's reliable but that it should be used carefully – see our discussion about that here. I've also posted on the article talk page about the intro, which I think could do with a bit of attention. If you could take a look sometime that'd be great. Many thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 10:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * One thing to keep in mind is how difficult it is for an editor to jump into a page they know nothing about. For example, I have no idea what you mean by "The connection to Marc Rich" and if an editor doesn't understand what you're asking for, they'll likely move on. So you have to be ultra specific, like, "In section _____, sub-section _____, 3rd paragraph, the article states "_______". As stated in [www.example.com this source], something more like _____ would be more correct." I'm taking a look at a few things now. Do you have access to This source? The best thing for an editor in my position to do is to find the most credible and comprehensive profile available so I can see how much weight the controversies deserve to evaluate if expansion of the more mundane aspects is (a) warranted or (b) an inappropriate strategy to push down the corrupt behavior the org is best known for. CorporateM (Talk) 13:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ for now. I'm off to pick up a building permit to build my own patio and patio cover, but feel free to ping me again in a couple days for anything I missed, etc. as I just gave things a quick lookover. I prefer not to review things for perfection, as all of our articles need such review, but merely for alignment with Wikipedia's objectives. CorporateM (Talk) 14:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for that Corporate – understand re putting you properly in the picture first. I was going to raise things like the separate article on the waste dump but was doing one thing at a time and there are a few different opinions on it on the talk page (naturally). I'll have a closer look as I'm sure other will too but thanks for giving this some attention and so promptly. Good luck with the patio (and the permit)! HOgilvy (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Triumph International
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Triumph International you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bobamnertiopsis -- Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Triumph International
The article Triumph International you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Triumph International for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bobamnertiopsis -- Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Errors to a Private Equity Reference
Hello CorporateM -

I am trying to lodge a COI edit request for the following page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_equity_firms

But the TALK page for this page doesn't seem to allow me to post a request? Could you possibly advise as to how best to proceed?

Incorrect Information - “Largest private equity firms by PE Capital” section i.e. The following is a ranking of the largest private equity firms published in 2014. The ranking was compiled by Private Equity International.[1]

The 2014 ranking used on the page claims to be published from Private Equity International (PEI) but it is not the true ranking which we have verified by contacting the publication directly to confirm.

The correct 2014 PEI ranking can be found here: https://www.privateequityinternational.com/uploadedFiles/Private_Equity_International/PEI/Non-Pagebuilder/Aliased/News_And_Analysis/2014/May/News/PEI%20300%202014.pdf

The top 20 firms from the 2014 PEI ranking are as follows:

Rank  Name of Firm                                     Headquarters                         Capital raised* 1.	The Carlyle Group                              Washington DC                       $30,650.33 2.	Kohlberg Kravis Roberts                    New York                                $27,182.33 3.	The Blackstone Group                       New York                                $24,639.84 4.	Apollo Global Management                New York                                $22,298.02 5.	TPG Fort Worth                                  Texas                                      $18,782.59 6.	CVC Capital Partners             London                                    $18,082.35 7.	General Atlantic                                 Greenwich CT                         $16,600.00 8.	Ares Management                              Los Angeles                            $14,113.58 9.	Clayton Dubilier & Rice                      New York                                $13,505.00 10.	Advent International                           Boston                                     $13,228.09 11.	EnCap Investments                            Houston                                   $12,400.20 12.	Goldman Sachs Principal Invt Area   New York                                $12,343.32 13.	EIG Global Energy Partners              Washington DC                       $11,345.18 14.	Warburg Pincus                                 New York                                $11,213.00 15.	Silver Lake                                         Menlo Park                              $10,986.40 16.	Riverstone Holdings                           New York                                $10,384.26 17.	Oaktree Capital Management            Los Angeles                            $10,147.28 18.	Onex                                                  Toronto                                    $10,097.21 19.	Ardian                                                 Paris                                        $9,805.25 20.	Lone Star Funds                                Dallas                                      $9,731.81


 * Private Equity International’s ranking, produced by the firm’s Research and Analytics team, is based on the amount of private equity direct investment capital each firm has raised in the five-year period from 1 January 2009 to 1 April 2014.

Thanks in advance for any guidance you can provide on how best to proceed. Kosterberg (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Let me see if I can straighten this out. The current article has a table of private equity firms ranked by funding raised based on data from Private Equity International, but when I look at the source it has a completely different ranking and data than what is actually in the article. CorporateM (Talk) 18:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Correct. No idea where the erroneous info came from and neither does PEI themselves. Kosterberg (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I started a discussion there. Please ping me again in a few days if I forget and nobody responds. CorporateM (Talk) 20:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Many thanks. Will do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosterberg (talk • contribs) 20:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yelp draft
Can you do me a favor and refactor that draft so I can copy it over into the article when we're done. Also do you mind if I directly edit the draft? I took another look late last night but I'd really like to be able to run over it and make edits as I go (since I'll probably be adding it to the article). Protonk (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * @user:Protonk Even though it's in my user space, please feel free to edit boldly and/or drastically as you see fit. What do you mean by refactor? CorporateM (Talk) 16:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. I mean right now you note in text that something has been moved or strike something where it is moved. That's helpful to compare and contrast (as I've said before, wikipedia needs a means to diff across pages, but that's not going to happen), but now that I've taken a look at it I'd like you to edit it so that when we're done I can just copy and paste the sections as they are in the draft into the article. If you want to copy the whole article over you can do that, if it makes it easier. Protonk (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 17:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, that looks good. I see that you've got different ref names for things, so I'm not going to copy that over myself. :) Go ahead and update the article from the draft (or change the refs so it won't break when I do it and ping me) and I think that's it for the review. Protonk (talk) 12:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just re-read your comment on my talk page. If the ref naming thing won't break anything then I guess I can move things over. Trying that now. Protonk (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. You should get a note from Legobot about the article passing. Good work and thanks for the help. Protonk (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * @user:Protonk Thanks so much! For your patience and high-quality GA reviews. I wasn't sure if you intentionally created the "Reviews" section by itself like that? It might be better under Features if not the way I suggested, rather than as it's own tiny little main-level section. CorporateM (Talk) 15:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I had it as a subsidiary section when I placed it there (though in the draft I think it had a level 2 heading). I'll subordinate it. Protonk (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * @user:Protonk Thanks so much!!! It looks like you have now knocked out my two toughest GA nominations. I just emailed Yelp Germany about getting it translated for the German Wiki now that it's GA. It's a rare find to meet an editor that can uphold professional-level standards and focus on content and sources despite a COI disclosure. I myself don't know if I have the character for it. Your work on Wikipedia is appreciated! CorporateM (Talk) 16:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. I don't normally review articles on companies or living people so I'm not sure how many times we'll cross paths at GAN in the near future, but I liked reviewing SAS and I felt that the experience working with you was rewarding enough to step in for Yelp as well. Also you can always feel free to tell me "the ball's in your court". :) Protonk (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@user:Protonk It's good to know that sometimes a COI can get the attention and help of editors by being enjoyable to work with, rather than by causing disruption ;-) We may still cross paths on articles like History of public relations (not all of my contributions are sponsored). In the meanwhile, happy editing.  CorporateM (Talk) 13:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually I was just looking at reviewing that. :) Protonk (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Any chance you can look at Gurubochon
I have taken the borderline decision to accept this draft. As I did so I hoped I might ask you to give it a hard stare and your usual scrupulous editing approach. I decided to accept it because the COi author was never going to achieve what was required. If you decide it is unacceptable I will not oppose a deletion process upon it. Fiddle  Faddle  21:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ I commented there. My suggestion is AfD as the only English-language sources provided do not appear to actually mention the subject of the article. Therefore, I can only reasonably assume the same is true with the non-english ones. This is a good thing to check with COI submissions, because often they use sources that are indeed reliable, but aren't actually about them, to create the appearance of the information being sourced, when it isn't actually. Most of the time if the entire article is from a single author, you can just check a few and the other sources will be representative of that. CorporateM (Talk) 00:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * What I suggest is that it be left a day or two to settle down, and then perhaps you would consider giving it its marching orders? Fiddle   Faddle  15:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk page stalkers
Please join me if you have time at The Cobra Group, which is littered with factual errors, significant NPOV issues and other problems. user: Callcott1 has been trying to get an editor's attention to the article for quite some time and the issues have remained unresolved. It will take quite a bit of editor attention to work out all the issues. CorporateM (Talk) 04:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello. I'm very new to this side of Wikipedia so forgive me if I use the wrong process/characters/citations in this response. Thank you very much for picking up on my continued efforts to correct the inconsistencies on The Cobra Group page. I am about to add a factually correct version of the text to that talk page. I appreciate you may not want to use it in its entirety but it does contain the accurate information about the organisation and I do appreciate any assistance to improve this entry. (Callcott1 (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC))


 * ✅ (ish) I'm not sure the article needed as much work as I anticipated. CorporateM (Talk) 15:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

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 MrWooHoo -- MrWooHoo (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of ExactTarget
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article ExactTarget 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 Crisco 1492 -- Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Just waiting on a response to the title question. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Institute for Learning (closure section)
In response to your comments on the IfL wiki page regarding closure, I'm happy with your amends and believe they give both sides succinctly (without any hysteria). Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mashton 75 (talk • contribs) 09:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Trafigura
Hi CorporateM – hope you're well. I have some concerns about the new structure of the Trafigura article. I see the reasoning behind it – breaking up the controversy section and expanding the history section roughly chronologically – but I’m not sure how good a job the article now does of telling a reader what Trafigura does and how it operates. Does that large history section now make sense? Most articles for a company of that size with some negative coverage about it (including Trafigura’s competitor Glencore) follow the format: History, Operations, Controversies. Granted controversies sections are discouraged, but when they are broken up and redistributed they can only really go in one place and that’s the history section, which in turn can make that section very long and unwieldy and leaves material about what the company actually does (i.e. Activities) buried way down the page. Regarding the source you mentioned (Trafigura: A Global Physical Commodity Trader) and the issue of weight and prominence, I’m afraid I don’t have it but I’m not sure you can justifiably call the investments and bond issuance subsections ‘mundane’. There have been tens of thousands of articles about Trafigura over the last ten years that are mundane – e.g. 100-word Reuters or Platts articles detailing specific trades etc. – but these two subsections here contain information that’s very important to anyone who wants to know where Trafigura has invested and how it’s financed, and they serve a completely different purpose to the other subsections. Is there not some argument for a shorter history section, perhaps expanding on the intro of the current section, and a division of the rest of the material into two consolidated subsections: one for the investments and financing sections, perhaps titled, ‘Recent investments and bond issuances’, and one for Oil-for-food, Cote d’Ivoire, Norway etc?

As you suggested might be appropriate, I can definitely use some of the content you lost from the Activities section to put together a more accurate Corporate Structure section, but I wanted to get your opinion on this first. I absolutely get that the ideal is for positive and negative content to sit side-by-side in balanced sections, but we are looking at two very different types of content here that can’t possibly knit together any further than simply sitting in successive subsections, and so overall I’m not sure the current structure makes much sense.

Would you mind having another look at it? Thanks very much. HOgilvy (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Controversy sections are common, but undesirable. A few other sections such issues are often found in include Business Practices, Marketing, Accidents, Environmental Record, Operations, etc. Typically not everything controversial should be lumped into a section, regardless of its title, rather each section should be balanced in a manner that is representative of the literature on that topic. A dedicated section is usually only warranted for a controversial topic that has persisted throughout most of the organization's history, whereas events that took place during a specific date/period need to be integrated into the narrative of a larger theme.


 * The Lede is suppose to summarize the entire article, including any major controversies. If your client is pressuring you to get the controversies pushed further down the page, I would caution that some of them may actually belong higher up in the Lede. However, if they feel it is unfair their competitor's controversies are in a dedicated section (Wikipedia actually sees this the opposite way; dedicated sections draw undue attention), I'd be happy to correct the problem on your competitors page, rather than introduce it here. CorporateM (Talk) 22:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, just can't help thinking this is one of those occasions when the guidelines don't quite work in an article's best interests just due to the differing nature of these sections. Pinging SmartSE who knows the page just to get another pair of eyes on it. Thanks though Corporate, I do get it, I'm just trying to work out if there's a way to organise it a bit better. HOgilvy (talk) 09:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Salesforce Marketing Cloud/GA1
CorporateM, the Talk:ExactTarget/GA1 page had gotten stranded when the ExactTarget article and talk pages were moved to Salesforce Marketing Cloud the other day, so I've just moved the GA review page to the new article name as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks much!! CorporateM (Talk) 22:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Article assessment
If u have some spare time WikiProject_Marketing_%26_Advertising, I really appreciate any help you can provide Lbertolotti (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Lbertolotti Definitely an important business article and it looks to be in decent shape, but I'm not sure the small section on marketing really belongs there. It appears to be a summary of marketing theories, but does not explain any relevance to the economic term of markets. CorporateM (Talk) 13:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@CorporateM The article has 4 main parts:


 * Types of markets: gives a descriptive classification to allow the reader to distinguish and define different types of markets. I think a part of the intro needs to be integrated in this section. On this see: Talk:Market_(economics)


 * Size parameters: allows the reader to distinguish different markets by size. Some charts would be nice here


 * Mechanism of markets: explains the different actors that can intervene in a market and the different rules for doing business (formal and informal), needs more stuff, notably something on how regulation works in real markets.


 * Study of markets: gives an overview of the different social science theories for the behavior of markets, how they differ and complement each other. On this point the marketing part is a bit small, but it needs to give some insight on how marketeers analyze real markets.

So what do you think? The article had some inconsistencies which I fixedLbertolotti (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, I kind of see how marketing is relevant, I'm just not sure the content currently on the article about marketing is. I think it's probably somewhere between a B or C class. Nice work! We need more editors working on these types of very important articles. CorporateM (Talk) 21:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@CorporateM Do you have some marketing reference material that could help?


 * Starting halfway down page 109 here. A lot of the material is about markets in general and not specific to the context of marketing, but I believe a decent summary of the history of theory in how marketing inter-relates with markets could be extracted from the 10-20 pages or so there. CorporateM (Talk) 22:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Two thumbs up!Lbertolotti (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Your query about a band
Hello CorporateM. I happened to see your question at User talk:DGG. Unless you can find an unusual angle to justify some coverage, this band still falls short of the usual ladder-of-success for bands that is presented by WP:BAND. For instance, their CDs all appear to be self-published. WP:BAND would like to see two albums published by a major label. In terms of awards, the only ones that matter for the guideline are the major ones like the Grammys. EdJohnston (talk) 03:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Aww, ok. Thanks! CorporateM (Talk) 04:57, 25 October 2014 (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 needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:History of public relations for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MrWooHoo -- MrWooHoo (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of History of public relations
The article History of public relations you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:History of public relations for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MrWooHoo -- MrWooHoo (talk) 01:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

COI Edit request
I made the move but there are some things we need to discuss.


 * The old title was simply "request edit". I thought we should be a bit more formal so I called it Request Edit Wizard. Open to alternatives.
 * Request_Edit_Wizard
 * I'm not happy with the main heading Submissions by article-subjects. I get what it means but I don't think it's obvious to all readers.
 * I try to test it didn't work well. I decided to submit correction for a sub page. I do believe this is an common but I can imagine that someone might have a draft in a user sub page so I think this should work. When I tried it the first time, I entered Sphilbrick/Pamela Kelly, which generated Talk:Sphilbrick/Pamela_Kelly, not what I wanted, but my error. However, when I tried again with User:Sphilbrick/Pamela Kelly it failed. I'll look into it, but something isn't quite right.
 * My first attempt occurred before the move so I'm not surprised it said it was generated by the article subjects wizard, however my second try was after moving so we have to look at the code identifying the source of the edit request.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * All very good points @user:Sphilbrick. I also got occasional errors when using it, where it directed me to a random page, as oppose to the one I inserted. No idea what causes this. I think Request Edit is sort of bordering on Wikipedia jargon and I would lean towards something more oriented towards "this is the place for you if you are the subject of an article". Maybe the right way to look at it is as a sort of Help page with tools associated with it. CorporateM (Talk) 21:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Bot for Portal:Business and Economics
Can you help me to get this bot approved?Lbertolotti (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)