User talk:CorporateM/Archive 8

Request edit, revisited
It's been a little while, but I made some changes to the request edit template. On VP/T, I came across a script (User:קיפודנחש/TemplateParamWizard.js) that helps users use templates. It gives easy explanations to the template options, but works best with a "parameters" page and logical options. I have added full-text versions of all the flags and created a parameters page. The new options are not in the documentation. I figured anyone looking at the documentation was probably putting the template in by hand and would want the short codes. For testing purposes (if you don't want to install the script to try it), the new options for the first flag are:Request

Significant Edit

Answered

Go Ahead

Partially Complete

Declined Ideally this won't break anything, and it should make it easier for people to use the template. Let me know if it does anything odd. -- No unique  names  02:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Noun, you are the best. There is no way I could have done all that template magic on my own. I like using because the regular request edit asks someone to implement it exactly as-is, while the R asks for feedback and review. It implies a more collaborative process, which is appropriate for major re-writes.


 * It doesn't get that much use yet and the queue is not well-supported, but hopefully at some point more COIs will use it and more editors will support it. In almost every case I have seen where a PR professional is editing Wikipedia with a COI, using the request edit process would have created a reasonable process for feedback and coaching, instead of edit wars and me having to clean up their promotional editing.


 * Anyways, if anything comes up, I'll be sure to complain about it on your Talk page ;-) Corporate 03:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks!! I was getting closer to the finish line (see my hangup on the 1900s here), but I just learned today that I will be doing some work with a COI for a competitor in some sectors, so I'll need to put it on hold for obvious COI reasons. I'll get back to it though. I asked their PR contact if they are willing to donate some of their historical photos. Corporate 15:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're unstoppable! Cheers, -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 17:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Tahir Shah page
Hi there...what was the reasoning behind the malicious editing that just went on over at that page? The previous version of his page included the same sections as many other authors. This feels like a personal attack on his page, instigated by Jayen466, who clearly has issues with Tahir.  Blue Lupine  13:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about the context of this page. If there are personal attacks or malicious editing, I would prefer not to get involved in that kind of drama. If there are other author pages that violate our content policies with unsourced content, primary YouTube sources, external links in the body, advert/promotionalism and other problems, I could take a quick pass at trimming those as well if you point them out. Corporate 15:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I for one appreciate what you did there. I have restored the list of works, though, as it seems quite standard to have one of those. (They still need publication details; I might add them if I get round to it.) The individual articles on these works probably need checking for primary/self-published sourcing. The thing I find odd about the editing of this article by various similarly-minded accounts over the past few years is that there are perfectly good, high-quality secondary sources out there that are complimentary about Shah and his writing. It's not as though you would need to quote primary or self-published sources to say something nice about the man. A neutral article based on high-quality secondary sources might contain a bit of criticism here and there, but it would be broadly and effortlessly positive IMO if simply the secondary sources were reflected, without resorting to this strange puffery. Cheers,  J N  466  23:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It will always be the corporate bureaucracy's aim to have Wikipedia articles reflect their official materials, because this is what is safe and easy for any one individual to do. An individual within a company that deviates from the official branding/messaging/materials puts themselves at internal political risk and creates strife where none is required.


 * That's probably not the case here, but it just comes to mind. As we see more collaboration with PR professionals, it's something I hope editors that choose to invest their time in areas like request edit will know how to look for, so we can equip PR pros with the feedback they need to educate their respective corporate bureaucracy on Wikipedia's expectations. Corporate 01:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an insightful comment; thanks. Now that you say it, I can imagine that it must require quite a leap of faith to move from one's own materials to those written by other people.
 * While I am here, note the discussion at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales. While this isn't the sort of work you do, I would value your ideas and perspective. Regards.  J N  466  18:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I saw. I have opinions, but wouldn't be comfortable commenting directly. I know Pete and Max only distantly (met each one once) but that's enough for me not to want to comment directly. Corporate 18:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand and appreciate that. I have exchanged a few friendly messages with Pete on mailing lists, and on Quora, and that was enough to make me think hard about whether I wanted to raise the matter at all. Of course, this sort of reaction is precisely the danger in cases like the two situations discussed there, because any objectivity goes out the window, and is seen to go out the window by uninvolved bystanders. Regards.  J N  466  19:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I find the problems with relationships plays into the issues with COI as well. Since the Request edit process is not an effective way to get quality and actionable feedback, COIs that follow WP:BRIGHTLINE are motivated to make friends with Wikipedians who are more willing to help. In traditional PR, relationships are our currency and the chief distinguishing factor between a person that can get results and someone who can't. Relationships have a corrupting influence both in negative media articles that often reflect a sour relationship and in promotional articles that may be the opposite.


 * If done right, we can do it better with a process that prioritizes merit over relationships. I am not happy with the idea of it being part of the role of a paid advocate to make friends in order to get help nor with being in the constant position of begging and graveling for help. We need process. Corporate 20:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Paid editor review
Hi Corporate! Sorry for the delay getting back to you - things got a tad hectic again, as they always seem to do. Anyway, I'd love to help, but what I've been doing doesn't relate to evaluating the practises of individual editors. My interest was in following the impact of freelance paid editors to get a broader picture than the anecdotal accounts we normally use. So I tracked advertisements placed on the major freelance websites, and then followed the edits made to the articles that were the focus of the contracts. This allowed me to collect data about the nature and extent of the edits, and I am trying to draw out patterns in terms of the impact to WP. To some extent I looked at individual editors, but as that would bias the study towards particular identified people, I kept that on the periphery. So what I ended up with were general patterns of editing - the percentage of paid editors who disclosed a COI, the number of articles created by paid editors that were deleted, the number of articles edited using sock accounts, how many paid editors were identified as such by the community, quality of the references, what the jobs involved, and so on.

So I don't have any data that can be used to evaluate individuals beyond what we all have. :) What I guess I can do is to be able to say, in terms of their peers, whether or not a particular person's behaviour is more or less problematic than the norm. And on that score, based on what I was collecting there is no question that your editing is easily better than the average. I had hoped to find more people willing to approach things as you have been doing, with a degree of openness and willingness to work within Wikipedia's framework, but that just didn't turn up. Perhaps a larger data set would be more rewarding on that score. - Bilby (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This is fascinating. Have you published the data somewhere? I would be very eager to know the results.


 * My instinct is that the sample size probably isn't the issue. Good data would accurately reflect the sorry state of affairs. But there are other things worth pointing out. For example, using public solicitations for a Wikipedian-for-hire will substantially screw the results towards non-notable companies, low-budgets and scrappy efforts.


 * This doesn't mean the data isn't useful. We should think critically about how to interpret it. It is too easy to say "see paid editing is bad" and blame the editors directly or the act of paid editing in principle. We need to take responsibility for encouraging these market dynamics.


 * We make unethical paid editing very easy and enticing. We have no firm rules against it, we set low expectations and we're excessively tolerant when even those low standards are trampled. Meanwhile we have made ethical participation very burdensome. It takes at least four-fold the resources to create an ethically-produced Wikipedia article for a company as an astroturfed one.


 * I am told my approach is like buying organic, locally grown eggs - a tiny niche market for companies that care about how their Wikipedia article is sourced. In my opinion, my approach should be a professional standard (a minimum) and I have not yet reached the bar we should expect from a professional Wikipedian.


 * It is within our power to direct the currents. Make ethics the path of least resistance and it will be the one most chosen. Corporate 03:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll be doing a report on-wiki soon, so I hope to make it available. :) Yes, though, I agree that the reliance on publicly posted advertisements will tend to skew the results towards some bad practices - I made a note to that effect in the report, but what I was looking at was specifically freelance paid editing contracted through online advertisments, and I hope people understand that any findings can't be generalised beyond that. That group was chosen on purpose, because I see them as raising a different set of concerns than those posed by other types of paid editing, and because it is more accessible (both in terms of research and in terms of getting involved in paid editing) than other groups would be. Ideally this would provide a baseline for one group, allowing for a point of comparison if there are studies into other categories of paid editors, although that may not be possible until we start moving towards an agreed language for discussions.
 * I'm not sure if I'll be making recommendations as such, as mostly all I wanted to do was inform the debate a bit more. But in regard to our processes, it was interesting that there is a tendency for people to turn to paid editors in the sample after being unsuccessful at getting the article accepted by other means - over a third of the jobs that I could identify were for previously deleted articles, or articles which had failed at AfC. Our processes are difficult and at times our explanations are less than ideal, and in many cases people may see their lack of understanding as the problem, leading them to want to hire more experienced people to get the articles through. The very complexity of WP may be creating some of the demand for paid editors, and that's before we look at other aspects of how things are managed here.
 * Your comment about ethics is a good one. But to take a slightly different tack, I think part of the problem is that Wikipedia doesn't have a clear set of ethics as such. Instead it has a set of policies and guidelines which are mostly focused on outcomes. Paid editing thus becomes a particular problem, because the focus on outcomes would have us ignore how those results were reached. So we don't have firm rules against paid editing, as it isn't in keeping with how we've approached policy in the past. Or at least that's my current thinking. To put it a bit simpler, journalism is guided by a code of ethics, as are most PR professionals, but Wikipedia editors are not. :) - Bilby (talk) 04:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * As for the ethics, there's also astroturfing regulations by the Federal Trade Commission that expect commercial interests to disclose their financial connection in all online communications. Non-disclosure is against the recommendations by the FTC, however few companies seem to think about how it translates to Wikipedia. It seems to me our rules should at least reflect legal expectations.
 * I would hesitate on this actually "To put it a bit simpler, journalism is guided by a code of ethics, as are most PR professionals, but Wikipedia editors are not."
 * Journalists routinely twist the facts or misrepresent things to make the story sexier, because they are under pressure to attract clicks that pay the bills. Same with PR, who are under pressure to get results in the form of more coverage, so are motivated to exaggerate or misrepresent the facts in order to bring a sexier story to the media. The fact that Wikipedia is non-commercial and just wants boring neutrality in my opinion makes it the best place for companies to get fair representation on controversial issues.
 * The PRSA publishes a code of ethics, but often an entire PR agency has just 1 person who is their PRSA liason (it is expensive) and most of us know the code of ethics exist, but may not even know what's in it. You know I was once told by my boss that my biggest weakness as a PR professional is my unwillingness to lie? But that also doesn't mean we're all hacks. PR people don't think about ethics in our day-to-day, just about how to please our boss and get our jobs done like everyone else. Ethics is enforced by the legal department by risk-adverse organizations as a matter of business risk.
 * Corporate 12:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Bilby, could you drop me a note when you post your results? I'd be interested. Cheers,  J N  466  18:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Shall do. :) - Bilby (talk) 01:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't take my complaints/discussion too seriously, I am very eager to see the results as well! If you're interested, I would be happy to see if we can host a guest blog analyzing the results on SocialFresh. Corporate 19:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I want to take any complaints and discussion very seriously, and I would like as much of both as possible. If I didn't want to face criticism, I should never have moved back into academia. :)
 * When approaching this project I decided to tackle it within the framework of an ethnography, although not in a strict sense. That meant that I couldn't incorporate advice from people on-Wiki, as seeking advice would risk damaging the data collection. Plus you never know who will fall under the scope - there are a couple of names there that surprise me every time I look at the list. Accordingly, I missed out on getting criticism of the methodology from those it is intended for, so getting it now will help a lot. I think you'll find that I've addressed most of what you raised, but at the same time, your raising it makes sure that I address it properly, and anything you identified that I missed will be added in with much thanks.
 * In regard to a code of ethics, it doesn't really worry me whether or not people follow it, so much as it allows for a framework in which to conduct discussions. At the moment our paid editing debate is poorly directed. The obvious problem is the lack of understanding about what paid editing constitutes, which is something you raised above - paid editing by PR professionals is different to paid editing by freelancers hired as lowest bidder on online sites, which is different again from paid editing by employees, and so on. But the second is that when policy fails, we don't have a framework to fall back on. So the debate seems to run in different directions at once - some basing it on the five pillars, so their only interest is whether or not the edits are verifiable and NPOV; some making general ethical claims of "paid editing is always wrong"; some focusing on how best to provide equal representation of interests; some trying to distinguish between groups of editors without adequate definitions; and some trying to protect their own interests. My thought in regard to a code of ethics is not that people would always follow one, but that it would provide a framework for debate when policy fails, without needing to create a more complex bureaucracy. I say that, of course, as someone who thinks that most codes of ethics have nothing to do with ethics at all. :)
 * But this is probably all moot. We're not going to get such a code, so it is just an academic pursuit to imagine what one would do. From practical terms, I think we need to, as you said, look at what practices on WP create the demand for paid editors, what constitutes a paid editor, and how to distinguish between different types of paid editing. Hopefully someone will come along later and do better work than me to try and head in that direction. - Bilby (talk) 01:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It would be interesting to mix the data with stories from COIN, randomly selected articles that are obviously COI involved, prior request edits, AfC, PR agency articles where the PR agency edited, and disclosed COIs like myself, Eclipsed, WWBToo, etc. and combine that data with a deep analysis of the content itself (qualitatively). Then compare COIs to your average newbie. We could learn a lot. For example, it may debunk the myth that promotional, unsourced content is removed anyway (an argument for direct editing to let the content stand on its own merits) and show that COIs really have impaired judgement, not just corrupt motivations.


 * The articles on Waggener Edstrom, the PRSA and Weber Shandwick are good examples where PR editors were involved (see Talk pages). It may be hard to believe that Waggener genuinely thought it was a good idea to remove less flattering information and add a huge awards blurb, because there were "no objections." But there it is clear as day - they clearly had good intentions, were trying to do the right thing and genuinely thought they were good edits.


 * OTOH, articles with no involvement by the subject often have problems equally as severe. When I see an agency article like Hill & Knowlton or the old Edelman page, this kind of emphasis on controversies is problematic and prolific among volunteer-written pages and the only way to address it is an editor willing to fill out the rest of the boring stuff.


 * In my opinion, involvement by the subject is not just a problem to be dealt with, but something that must be done and done well as part of how Wikipedia covers a subject, just as any professional journalist would talk to the subject of an article and incorporate their POV (among others) into an article using their own editorial judgement. But as it is with journalists, the relationship should be slightly rocky and not sympathetic.
 * Corporate 03:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Smallbones/Paid
Feel free to drop by, add or subtract anything and invite one or two folks (provided that they are not adamantly against any regulation of paid editing) to join in. My idea is just to have the simplest, least intrusive policy (i.e. with blocking force) possible. It will need some discussion on the main page on how we explain it to the community at large. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 19:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Woot! Do you want to work on it over Skype? I'll be over there in 20 mins. Corporate 20:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No Skype for now. I do think it has to be a policy - there is already a guideline WP:COI.  The difference between a guideline and a policy is blocking power - a policy can be enforced - a guideline can be ignored by admins and the arb committee.  The only blocking that gets done regarding guidelines comes down to distruption when other editors object.
 * Less will be more on this - the more we say, the more that people can object to - please keep it simple. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 22:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, got distracted by dinner. I'll be back in an hour or two. Corporate 22:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's the thing. If the goal is to create a document that attempts to overcome any opposition (I think it should be) so that we can put something in place, a policy is far from the least objectionable path and opposition is virtually guaranteed.


 * I see the original has language like "must," to which I respond "or what?" Any bad-faith COI will inevitably ignore any rule that is put into place and we will never ban/block editors based exclusively on their COI.


 * WP:COI is meant to cover a broad swath of circumstances. We can create something with clear(er) boundaries and expectations for this form of COI, but it will never be quite that clear cut.


 * We may have different point-of-views, but our objective should be to reach a compromise between the most popular POVs among the community, as oppose to our own opinions individually. Just my two cents though. Corporate 23:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, I just took a very rough run at it. I used the word "expect" often, rather than "must." I think this general direction roughly reflects current community norms and expectations, but as you say there are many differing opinions. OTOH, I don't think many blatantly object to COIs using AfC to propose new articles, using Request edit to ask for a factual correction, or asking for discussion on a controversial issue on the Talk page. There may be areas where we disagree, but there is general agreement on areas most editors think is ok. Corporate 00:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we're too far apart. I think the policy is absolutely needed - no enforcement otherwise, and that has been the problem. It's just too difficult for admins to decide what's outright advocacy (vs. the usual on Wikipedia) and investigate whether it's paid editing at the same time. Admins can't do 2 things at once. Other than that all I want is mandated disclosure, reasonable definitions and disclosed editing of policy pages. Let everybody write their own rules (ethics statement) - bright line is fine - and almost everybody will declare this because it is easiest and doesn't make them stick out - but any reasonable problem with it - just rewrite your own rules. Everything you've included is something they can write themselves. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 01:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "Enforcement" really entails block/ban criteria, because that is all we really have here and we rarely know for sure if there is a COI unless one is declared. I have taken a crack at this under the "Consequences" section. I have personal knowledge of PR people who just edit as if they were volunteers, but they are reasonable, provide good edits and are good participants. Should we ban them? I think they have the right idea, because disclosure exposes you to excessive criticism. I am the one that is in the wrong by trying to do it more ethically, when such behavior is punished by Wikipedia.


 * We should not AGF that a paid advocate supports Wikipedia's alturistic goals, but we should - as the COI guideline suggests - assume they are "trying to do the right thing." If they are trying to it properly, instructions is all they need. If they have bad intentions, no amount of instructions will matter. Corporate 03:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Coty Inc.
From my understanding of WP:NOT, a long list of brand is not too encyclopedic. You said "this is common". What do you mean by this? Rather than say "other articles do this" I would like to see Wikipedia guideline asserting this as worthy inclusion. If someone wants to see a mile long list of brands, they can go to the business' website themselves.

Also, are you a hired gun for this company like you're for many other? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Considering I just cut the article in half and the COI participant is an IP address clear as day, that is an odd accusation...


 * Sharing can be a frustrating part of the experience on Wikipedia, in particular if someone disagrees with you. Just take a deep breath and you're welcome back to my Talk page whenever you're ready with a less combative attitude. Corporate 20:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a question, not an accusation. I'm trying to get your stance on this specific company. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I also routinely make modest civility violations, but I do my best to improve how I collaborate with other editors in order to become a better participant myself. We all make mistakes, but if we can have open and intelligent discussions, we improve Wikipedia collaboratively.


 * It is not your comment exclusively that makes you come off as combative, but it would have been better etiquette to use the Talk page first, rather than potentially starting an edit-war with rapid reverts. Lists of this nature are usually a grey area where editors frequently disagree.


 * Your criticisms of my COI works are not unfounded, but your aggressive deletionist behavior is probably motivated by your dislike of a "hired gun." I also noticed that your contributions show many instances of aggressive deletionism, in particular on important marketing topics, the type of articles I tend to contribute to.


 * All of your created articles seem to follow certain format. I would like to ask you. Are your clients asking you what they want, asking you put whatever you can put get away with and paying you commission or rating you based on outcome? Your liberal inclusionist behavior is likely motivated by your clients request and perhaps financial interest.


 * I have taken the liberty of restoring some of the content you have deleted previously on articles on marketing topics. Some of these restorations may be erroneous as well and I'm happy to talk about them.


 * That HubSpot article was littered with references in well excess of 100. I think it can be reasonably said that its an example of WP:Bombardment, attempting to increase perceived notability as well as locating references to go around promotional contents you want to add. Much of the contents I removed was highly promotional and often based on self-published contents or dubious sources like personal blogs.


 * You'll also notice that I do change facts as to reflect more up-to-date information and references as I locate those of more reliable sources.


 * Per WP:RS personal websites and blogs are not reliable sources. Specifically, contents that are published are usually expected to be supported by reliable secondary sources. HubSpot article was mostly filled with its own pompous "our reports shows..." promotional statements as well as press releases.


 * It's no biggy, just part of the process is learning how to work with others, in particular where you may disagree. Corporate 23:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't delete it based on "oh I don't like this", but I do go through and check sources. If there's no reliable source verifying the claim or they're simply syndication of the company's own press release quoted in verbatim, it is still primary source and in that case, removal is a fair game in my opinion.

Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It's no biggy, just part of the process is learning how to work with others, in particular where you may disagree. Corporate 23:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Your trims to SMS Audio are more thoughtful and in my opinion an improvement, though it is no longer compliant with WP:LEAD. Do you have any feedback on how we might improve the Products section? I did feel the description of the features may be overly detailed, but SrGangsta also mentioned it is missing some newer products and could use a table like the one found on Beats Electronics. Corporate 00:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't assume other articles are done properly. The idea behind Wikipedia is free-for-all to edit, but editing around Wiki guidelines. From my understanding of WP:NOTDIR listing out product-by-product is not justified.  Perhaps someone can make a RfC requesting to itemize each single product is proper or not?  If you were to look Texas Instruments you'll see divisions of products but not a list of each product. Since this small company, which according to LinkedIn has only 10 employees with only a small product line doesn't necessarily mean its appropriate to populate product section by simply filling up with a list of each product.

Concerning this [photo]. I see the same exact one on here. On the SMS's official site, it says page is copyrighted. Before I raise objection, I wanted to check with you. I have seen that same exact picture in one of the sources while I was researching contents of the article on SMS. Did the copyright owner issue a written authorization to the public to use, copy, modify and sell that picture as outlined [here] ? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Cantaloupe, I have no desire to argue with you or defend myself against a barrage of accusatory questions. Please consider our discussion over and leave my Talk page. Corporate 03:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, Corporate Minion. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is |WP:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard]]. Thank you. -- notice provided to you as mandated by Wikipedia policies. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

GenArts
FYI, I'm lost as to what went on that makes it look like I removed something from Infobox. I added num_employee & revenue. Maybe I didn't splice it in right.

In this edit it looks like I removed those two parameters, but when you look at the infobox in actual view, it isn't.

Cantaloupe2 (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Cantaloupe. I think I sorted it out. They obviously do not have 8 employees as Hoovers has suggested (probably why you removed it). If you are willing to adjust your conduct as I have requested, you are welcome back to my Talk page as long as you are WP:Civil, assume good faith and avoid speculative questions, assumptions and accusation, etc. Corporate 13:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't remove it. Number of employee wasn't even in the infobox. I'm the one who added it. I'm not sure why its appearing the way it does in diff view. I'm guessing I messed up the coding somewhere. Anyways, whether they have 8 employee or not, I'm going by whats shown on Hoovers, which I have included a citation. If you can find an up to date and credibility of same caliber as Hoovers, you should replace it.   Cantaloupe2 (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This will lead to an edit-war, which will escalate to dispute resolution when we have reverted each other 3 times. They obviously do not have 8 employees and I do not believe Hoovers is a reliable source. Corporate 14:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I like your other trims here so far. There is some puff there that needed to be removed. Good work. Corporate 15:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

User Conduct
In reply to message you left, I do try to focus on contents. When I delete something, I do so for a reason and I try to explain it on article talk page, but I feel that you're not doing the same which I think is contributing to conflict. When I delete something, I look in the eyes of someone coming upon. They're not looking for detailed list, which if they wanted to know they can go to the company's page. Also, I have a fairly good grasp of whats considered acceptable sources. When sales pitch sounding contents are only supported by personal websites and blogs that do not meet WP:RS I think removal is justified. Your accusation of "aggressive deletinoist" is not cool. My edit "counts" may not be high, as I tend to edit in big chunks, rather than edit and save in snippets but I have a good understanding of what I'm doing contents wise. When an editor makes a noticeboard post about another editor, the editor is required to provide a notice, as I have for you. When you didn't reciprocate and try to discuss it behind my back, not only was it contentious, it was going against WP rules, as you did here Cantaloupe2 (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Cantaloupe. I didn't mean to "accuse" you of being an aggressive deletionist, so I'm sorry if it came off that way. Rather just as you have reasonable criticisms of my work, which you may raise and I will attempt to improve on their basis, your conduct and deletionism behavior is an area you should try to improve. Since I am in your cross-hairs as it may be (or at least it feels that way) I am not the right person to coach you on that basis.


 * We have no ranks here. Edit counts matter for nothing and mine are not high, nor am I a particularly experienced editor in the scope of things. I also apologize if I belittled you by suggesting you were a newbie.


 * Saying that I "went behind your back" is a good example of assuming bad faith. I didn't mean for the discussion to be about you at all, but was just asking if they felt it was ok to revert your edits, however I see how I may not have positioned things as well as I could have. I have very little experience dealing with editors that come across as hostile and make me feel like I am under attack.


 * This is not an opportunity for argument or debate, rather I have let you know that you are making me uncomfortable and it feels like hostility is directed at me. I request that you be considerate and do your best to make me feel welcome and work in good faith. Will you do that? Corporate 14:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Cantaloupe2 (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Cantaloupe2 (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Right back at you. Glad we could work things out. Corporate 14:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Make sure you look at the comment I posted for your question you posted for nouniquenames too, in which we discussed what you and I clash on. Many people, start ups and small companies want to be on Wikipedia. Some try to "build" notability themselves or through an agent but sometimes they just don't have the notability. I've sent many of those for deletion. Which are deleted only after consensus with other editors is reached. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

SMS Audio
The establish date was described as "late 2011" which I found to be unacceptably vague. I located that it was incorporated in Florida as a Delaware corporation in August 2011 and found that it was filed for incorporation in March 2011 as per respective Secretary of State filings. They don't produce persistent link, but I included the document number in paranthesis. Can you fix the refs? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the quality of the article is now degrading. You are using Original Research, where none is required, making the Product section very awkward and vague, mucking up the citations and so on. I may revert it, or ask someone else to do so, but I will not clean up after it. Honestly it was fine after your original tweaks... Corporate 18:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * 1.) I fixed the history. I figured out how to do the citation.


 * 2.) I read through Original Research and I'm not seeing how I'm using OR unless you're finding that pcmag.com is inaccurate in its reviewer's statement that its using 2.4GHz. As far as product offerings, I referenced them from the SMS official page.


 * So, I'm not sure where you're coming up with that. I took out "sold as fashion" or whatever, as that appeared to be the opinion of a product reviewer that was referenced to that statement. "mucking up the citations" ? Please explain
 * Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for cleaning up the citations. It looks better now I think. I noticed you have a habit of a lot of spacing errors and some of them are not in templates, but these are of no real consequence. Also, your edit summary is not necessarily correct. For smaller companies we combine their product and company into a single article, but neither do we cover the product in excruciating or promotional detail.


 * Your welcome to come to my Talk page to ask for feedback, get my opinion, or settle a dispute, but please don't come here inviting argument.   Corporate 19:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I trimmed off the details like technical specifications of product like xx ##mm driver, etc. I then added clothing into product, because those were discovered on company's website. I know what I'm doing contents wise, but coding is not my forte. So, your comment "OR" is confusing to be honest. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Using official records on when they were founded is kind of iffy, but this kind of research is often a good way to find clarification where our usual secondary sources aren't specific. However, in my opinion, it's even more confusing and vague now. Also, incorporation isn't a good measure to establish an exact date a company was founded, which is often not clear. Just saying "late 2011" was fine and simple enough. Having this detailed of a discussion on it is far too obsessive from my perspective. It is an unimportant issue, and I will not revert or dispute it, but I will offer feedback if asked or possibly clean up some of the issues later on.


 * I did notice as a matter of habit, you tend to delete things on the basis that it is the "author's opinion" but this is not a good reason for deletion, unless you feel the author is not credible enough to support it and you contest its accuracy. In a way, everything on Wikipedia is based on the opinions of authors, but of authors we trust to be accurate or to present an important POV. There is an important role on Wikipedia for deletionists - we are under siege with spam, rants and just cruddy content, so long as the deletionism is not so extreme to be detrimental to the project or hostile to editors who produced it. If you take a poke around Wikiproject Companies, you may get an idea for what I mean. Corporate 20:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, I should put it this way. There are many issues we cover on Wikipedia that are complex and confusing, where we would try to make it more specific, but there are areas that are confusing where there is just no value in clarifying, because it is not important. It's a small company with a basic article that says when they were founded, a few events that have happened that were important and what they sell. That's all that's needed. For example, we could go into extraordinary depth about the QVC thing and how bloggers thought it legitimized 50 cent's level of engagement in the company and NPOV would suggest we present all the major viewpoints, but it's just not something the reader cares about. I don't know if that's a better explanation. Corporate 20:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I do question the credibility of authors and notability of subject when the backing references are significant amount of totalmarketing.info, myblog.blogspot and the like. Those websites are along the line of "I've heard of..." . Writing something up from personal knowledge and tacking on questionable websites to support what they've written in my view isn't a good reason for inclusion. I'm not sure  if you realize or not, but you'd be surprised how time consuming it is to delete something when  have to crawl through a bunch of references to determine their validity or credibility.


 * An inclusionist would say leave it in and let references gather around write ups.
 * An exclusionist would say leave it out until references are gathered.


 * Just sayin'Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I do a fair amount of trimming myself. Often when I choose to improve an article, I remove almost everything on the page first, like I did with Reputation management. If something is blatant spam, it's easy to delete it. If the article is basically ok, trimming is more difficult (and less important).


 * I do not think what you're doing now is a very good use of your time though. Take a look at the results when you do a search for articles that mention "industry leading." We're getting into some extreme micro-management here and there is too much work to be done on Wikipedia to dedicate this much time to it.


 * On that note, I would like to dial off this conversation for a while. Need to get back to regular editing, but I'm happy to come back and take a look at the articles in a month or two. Corporate 21:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

12 Apostles (record label)
Just to let you know, I have undone your attempted AFD nomination because you linked to the old discussion instead of starting a new one. KTC (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, all fixed. Thanks for the heads up. Corporate 22:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your feedback on the new article I've created, Robert Boulter. I'd welcome any help with research and of course any suggestions you have for additional secondary sources to incorporate into the article. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think I am a counter-consensus anomaly, because I think in our attempt to stick to the facts we often overlook important topics like reputation, culture, business strategy and personality, but many editors would probably say that's humbug and not encyclopedic. I'm looking to see if I can dig up new sources now - looks like there are others with the same name. Corporate 20:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I was only able to find a few scraps, but put together what I was able to dig up. I did think his Early Life was a big missing element, but sometimes we're just limited by what's been documented. It's obviously a very good article anyway. Cheers! Corporate 21:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Position on COI
Hi, I noticed your section "Position on COI" on your user page, and found it confusing. May I suggest that you consider re-wording it for clarity? – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I tried to re-write it a bit. It may still be confusing. Corporate 17:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thaks, it's better now. I'm still confused by "censorship", though. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * When a company uses sockpuppets to remove negative, well-cited information, I consider that a form of censorship. In practice, it's not that simple. Many ethical companies will ask if they can remove negative information that does not have an in-line citation, but where prolific sources exist. From my perspective, they do not realize that they are rationalizing censorship. Ethics is more confusing on Wikipedia than other channels.


 * I made a little more tweaking too. Still not very good, but I think that's as good as it's getting. ;-) Corporate 22:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It's much clearer now, thanks. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

AfC Backlog Elimination Drive
 WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive! The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from November 1, 2012 – November 30, 2012.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive. There is a backlog of over 800 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out! This drive was organized by Dom497.


 * Thanks. I am still somewhat of a newbie at AfC reviews, but I'll try to pitch in to help with the backlog. Corporate 15:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Got a minute?
Hey Corp, come on, you are way to young to 'semi-retire'! :-) Hey if you're back on this page. I have a favor to ask. Would you take a look at this new section of the Bridgewater Associates article and give me your thoughts about it? I brought the article to GA status and want to keep it tight, but I also don't want to step on the toes of other editor's efforts to improve it. This new section has some issues and I'd like your opinion on what you think should be done with it. Thanks! -- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 19:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * What is equally important as the article itself, is the behavior we encourage.


 * If we carefully cull through the edits and salvage what is supported by secondary sources, we encourage a "see what sticks" mentality. The article is improved (very slightly) but we increase the burden of oversight in the future from the same person.


 * If we revert the edits and slap a COI tag on the user's page, we re-enforce the misconception that he is not allowed here even to make factual edits.


 * I would revert the edits and ask the editor if they would point out what information from independent sources they feel is missing on the Talk page. This way we can convert them to an asset instead of a burden. There is no reason for a company to edit their own page, when a more qualified volunteer is so invested in the article and it's unlikely a company editing their own page will actually improve a GA article.


 * Since you may wish to avoid the appearance of WP:OWN, I would be happy to chip in this way. It would be a good tag-team.


 * Corporate 21:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes please go ahead, it would be great to have your input on this article and I trust your judgement. So just move forward on it however you see fit. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 16:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And yes I know you are the same editor I've interacted with at Credit Suisse and at the corporate requests page. I see you have shortened your name to one word, but yes I still recognize you :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 16:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Reverted and discussed. It's unlikely they have substantive improvements to make to an article that is already GA, but I'm interested in seeing how they respond as a matter of experimentation with different ways of engaging with COIs to improve the overall outcome for Wikipedia. Corporate 17:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I also left a welcome note there for him/her. I don't want to put someone off just because they haven't learned all the rules yet. And yes we can look at Credit Suisse together and see what it needs for a GA bid.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 18:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks!! I'm working on an "investment strategy" and the "corporate culture" section atm and finding a few holes in the History section.
 * I'm not entirely happy with our usual COI-UI tag, so I went ahead and put together a custom one I'll use in the future. Corporate 18:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

AT&T
Thank you for your help on the AT&T disambiguation project described here! For you and talk page stalkers, the remaining unsorted links appear here. (I really appreciate the help. I should add that you did miss one link, though, at Talk:Texas. Many more edit requests are very likely to occur that can also be watched for.) If anyone wants to get more involved, feel free to grab from that linked list and change AT&T to AT&T if before 2005-11-18 or AT&T if after. There are about 2000 links to do and probably at least half are incorrect because they should point to AT&T Corp. and don't. Thanks again. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, just so you know, I've been doing these because I watch for request edits, but you should actually be using edit protected or edit semi-protected. Request edits are for editors with a conflict of interest, while edit requests are for IPs trying to make edits to protected pages. Corporate 18:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. No reply necessary, but the request at Talk:Texas was declined. If you intended to get that one at the same time, and you don't mind making the edit now given the decline there, I'd appreciate it if you go ahead. If this is not applicable, I understand if you don't feel like acting on it now. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

COI Draft
Hi, I saw your message. The irony is that you would have a conflict of interest editing the conflict of interest guideline. I think it will damage the credibility of the rewrite if you were heavily involved in the actual edits, so I appreciate your discretion to not dive right in. I think you could be very helpful to the process of determining vocabulary to use to describe things, so I'd appreciate your input there. We need greater precision in our vocabulary, and to eliminate jargon when possible. Gigs (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I like to think I only have an "interest" but that my position is not in conflict with Wikipedia's. I want to encourage behavior that is both ethical and beneficial to Wikipedia, while discouraging behavior that is not. But I know what you mean ;-)


 * I have a different perspective than SlimVirgin. It is not to traditional forms of COI that the comparisons should be made. Companies hire experts to communicate with prospects (sales), influencers (PR), politicians (lobbyists) and Google (SEO). They even hire experts in LinkedIn, Twitter and indeed Wikipedia. Each of these are based on a model of being mutually beneficial, but Wikipedia is the only case that is openly editable.


 * The best way to describe the problem Wikipedia has is that it's as if lobbyists can write their own laws, sales can sign their own purchase order and SEO can put themselves at the top, circumventing the impartial decision-maker with their constituents/readers/company's best interest in mind and putting their own interests first. Corporate 18:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * BTW- I think BRIGHTLINE fundamentally mischaracterizes what WP:PAID was about.  WP:PAID bans paid advocacy, not editing with a conflict of interest in an area subject to said conflict of interest.  It's basically banning promotional edits, and is not incompatible or more extreme than what the COI guideline is supposed to be saying. Gigs (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Something I've never understood about Brightline. Isn't any advocacy already banned by WP:NPOV and WP:NOT?  And if Brightline doesn't address editors with a COI, then what should they consult, as WP:COI doesn't provide a clear answer for them? Ocaasit &#124; c 17:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not entirely happy with the word "paid advocate." One of the things I have to explain to companies is that Wikipedia expects us not to lobby/advocate, but to do our best to be neutral, which is different than how we work with professional journalists, who only expect the company's POV. It is the only solution presented thus far to the ambiguous "paid editors" which would include GLAM and other paid editing that is done without a COI. PAID COI could perhaps be better.


 * Keep in mind, WP:BRIGHTLINE is a "proposed policy" and I am only documenting it, not advocating for it, though I have already explained how and why I use it. I think it is a good "rule-of-thumb" that will improve outcomes for Wikipedia in most cases and help editors who find themselves under corporate pressures to make poor direct edits. Corporate 18:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we are confusing things again with vobabulary. I'm talking about your essay that WP:BRIGHTLINE redirects to. I think it mischaracterizes the actual brightline proposal/thing that Jimbo already said he considered policy at WP:PAID. I agree with your general sentiment though, which is why I'm attempting the COI draft rewrite. Ocassi, I'd appreciate your input there as well. The messy and muddled COI guideline needs all the help it can get. Gigs (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Awww - by all means, edit away!! RE WP:BRIGHTLINE Corporate 19:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, I should have read the Talk page and have more context now. My take was that Jimbo identifies the profession of PR as a form of "paid advocate" (noun) versus "paid advocacy" (verb). Paid advocates is a way of identifying a group of people (in the real world), but not in describing their behavior on Wikipedia. Another good way to lump us would just be "marketing" since it includes PR, reputation management, SEM, branding, etc. Most PR professionals aren't directly financially re-imbursed for Wikipedia edits, so "Financial COI" is not a very grounded term. I would much prefer regular business language that would resonate with the intended audience, like "marketing." Corporate 19:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, more confusion based on non-precise vocabulary. That seems to be the story of our handling of COI here.  Do you have any suggestions regarding the last thread on the draft COI talk page?  I sort of started to use "inappropriate COI editing" to separation the undesirable resulting action from the conflicted state of being, but I'm not sure that's the phrase we want to eventually settle on, since it risks being abbreviated back down to the now-common "COI editing" which I think is a hopelessly imprecise jargon term that means different things to different people. Gigs (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I will go take a look. From my perspective editors (noun) have a "potential COI," but that doesn't mean they will make "COI edits" (verb). our goal is to give good advice for editors with a "potential COI" on how to avoid "COI edits." COI edits are forbidden, (but often accidental) because it means putting your interests before those of Wikipedia, but editors with a "potential COI" often have areas of alignment and value-add. This is a good way to explain it to Wikipedians, but is not at all the language we should adopt for the intended audience.  Corporate 23:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

COI+
Hey, Corporate! I thought of you when this (COIPLUS) was posted. IAt a glance, it seems like it may incorporate some of what you've been wanting to do here. -- No unique  names  15:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yah, I know. It's a fine effort, but I had too many objections to join. I see it's changed quite a bit and it may yet go in a direction where I would be more comfortable signing my name to it. For starters, I do not put a COI disclosure in my signature (nor will I ever) because only about half of my edits are COI - it's like wearing a scarlet letter. Corporate 15:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You would almost need a second account (linked to this one, of course) and only use one, tagged account for COI editing. -- No  unique  names  16:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * From my perspective, because disclosure is a good thing, does not make excessive disclosure any better. Corporate 16:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Would like to resurrect the bright line proposal
You may have noticed that WP:PAID has been transformed into a pullout from the COI guideline. I'd like to repropose something more like the original intention. My draft is here:. Your thoughts on the talk page would be appreciated. To me, the intention here is not to ban anything that isn't already banned. It's to make it clear that WP:SOAP still applies to everyone, and especially applies to paid advocacy, regardless of protocols we may develop as part of a harm reduction strategy. It provides a clear line for any future outreach in my mind, so that we know in no uncertain terms where the line is, so you can easily say "I didn't cross that line". Gigs (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Rules are not a good strategy against bad-faith behavior, because any bad-faith editor will ignore them anyway. We do a poor job even enforcing basic civility and neutrality policies - the idea of regulating COIs is far beyond our capability. On the other hand, we can establish clear instructions and boundaries for good-faith editors, create compelling arguments on why to do things the right way, and create risk and punishment for doing it poorly. What is needed is a system of incentive, not of regulation. Corporate 16:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's how I view this, a clear boundary for good-faith editors. It's just one end of the spectrum, but it's a clear line that we can point them to to help judge their own behavior and how close they are getting to it.  It's not much of a tool for enforcement, since I don't believe it bans anything that wasn't already banned.  Gigs (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If your intention isn't to ban anything that isn't already banned, then how do you explain language in your proposal that advocates banning paid advocates? COI doesn't do that. Remember Wikipedia's pillars. This is the encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit. Rklawton (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It says that people "engaging in paid advocacy to the detriment of our mission" can be banned or blocked. This is pretty much the same thing that WP:SOAP says, except it doesn't specifically say you can be blocked for breaking it.  It's implicit though since WP:NOT is a policy.  "Paid advocate" is a tricky word and my policy draft doesn't include it.  You are looking at the right version, right? Here: Gigs (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a matter of definition that needs resolving. A PR professional may be a "paid advocate" for the company, but when they come to Wikipedia, they are expected not to participate in "paid advocacy." Paid advocacy suggests wikilawyering and lobbying, which is not allowed by anyone. However, by saying the guideline is for "paid advocates" then saying that "paid advocacy" is not allowed - this is very confusing - because the reader may think that any edits by a paid advocate is "paid advocacy."


 * I brought up the idea that the rules are for good-faith editors, because the tone sounds a little hostile. Based on Gig's response, I think this was accidental and trying to improve the tone to sound less hostile is an area I contribute often as a member of the intended audience. Corporate 17:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

suggestion
I reverted your hatting on the PRSA talk page[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Public_Relations_Society_of_America&diff=521207186&oldid=521205302]. I'd suggest you take greater care before hatting comments by another editor on an article talk page. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI) 14:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I won't revert. Corporate 14:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That said, it wasn't necessarily improper. -- No  unique  names  15:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Debateable. I could reasonably label it vandalism or off-topic - Eclipsed could bring up that I'm biting a newbie. Corporate 15:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't worry about that, was more concerned that you're too involved to do the hatting (what with the recent blog posting by the user in question). -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI)  17:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Eclipsed, while we're on the topic, would you like to give a second opinion on this? Corporate 02:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead
Heya! I think you're right on WP:LEAD interpretation -- any notable controversies should be summarized in the lead. Also, I'd suggest the Federal Trade Commission complaint is notable, and should be expanded to at least a full paragraph and made as a stand-alone sub-section under ==Controversy==. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI) 21:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about that. I placed those two WSJ articles there because they are obviously about the FTC issue, but my local library doesn't have access to the full-text. According to O'Dwyer, he's the one that alerted the FTC, but this is a matter of original research and it could warrant a separate section if the WSJ articles show that there are multiple POVs and a debate to document. Do you happen to have an article database that includes the two WSJ articles? Corporate 00:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Universal Accreditation Board
Today I stumbled upon Accreditation in public relations, which I renamed to Universal Accreditation Board and added a ref, and tagged some issues. I'm not sure about the notability yet. A quickie search and I found a lot of notices about people announcing their accreditation, but little specifically about the organization or APR itself. What do you think? -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI) 17:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the rename, but would support a merge. There are also articles on the Public Relations Journal and Public Relations Student Society of America. Each is an important topic, but it would be routine for business units, products and publishing of an organization to be consolidated. Corporate 20:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

CrashPlan
I put your draft on CrashPlan in place for the most part, with a little editing. FYI: I got an automated warning that you linked to a couple disambiguation pages. Gigs (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Gigs! I fixed the disambiguation issue and took note on using straight quotes. I need to use Dab Solver in the future. Corporate 18:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. That's really not good. See TWINKLE. If you do that again you're likely to be blocked, regardless of whether you reach 3RR or not (which you now have). SmartSE (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "Good faith" Please don't feed the troll. Corporate 00:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:AGF? You can't assume bad faith and use twinkle to revert edits without any explanation. SmartSE (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * He has been hounding and trolling me for weeks. My AGF has limits. I think I will need to make another go at securing an IBAN, but I will offer an explanation next time (which will only encourage more trolling) and do it manually (if that makes a difference?) Corporate 00:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't do it again (at least right away) on that page. You can ask someone else to do it, or you can put in an edit request or request a third opinion.  Understand that WP:EW plays into this.  -- No  unique  names  06:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * FWIW, SmartSE, there has been an ongoing bit of nastiness there that streched across both COIN and (briefly) the drama boards. CM has been pushed leading into this, and may not have completely understood the tool he was using and its ramifications.  (Yes, I am fully aware that ignorance is not an excuse with TW.)  Also, you might note that the other user reverted just as plainly (albeit possibly tool-free).  As an interesting note, TW (or something else I have installed) does have revert with AGF.  It wasn't used here, but that's an interesting note to check out.  -- No  unique  names  06:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Corporate, Don't do any more reverts. You have violated 3RR and any more reverting will likely result in a 24 hour block. Gigs (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * OK. Do you know what I need to do to obtain an IBAN? It seems obvious, but every time I ask for it, the comments are "if Cantaloupe continues" (he has). Naturally editors that don't know the context (or haven't read a pile of diffs and spent hours researching it) will make speculations that I am trying to avoid scrutiny or protect promotional articles, etc. and it is difficult to get a concrete decision about anything that requires consensus. Corporate 01:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not easy, nor are those kinds of bans particularly effective. Keep notes and diffs, but don't keep them on-wiki because that could be considered harassment as well.  Your options are WP:RFC/U or a post on WP:ANI.  In the mean time, just make sure you engage with him on talk pages instead of edit warring.  Try to pretend the history between you doesn't exist and focus on the content.  Use WP:3O if you need to.  I won't be able to answer any of your 3O requests because I'm too far involved at this point, but it may help.  Gigs (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok. At this point my patience has worn thin and I will have a hard time being civil myself, but I will keep tucking along and be prepared to ask for an IBAN a fourth time at RFC-U next time. Corporate 02:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Things RfC-U cannot do "Impose/enforce involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures;"

It says here that bans are usually done by consensus on AN, but my AN post was mostly ignored.

So would my next step be a request for arbitration? That seems a little extreme (it should be much easier to shake someone that is harassing and hounding you), but if it is the only option presented that has not already been used. Corporate 16:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Corporate. I'm not optimistic about an IBAN being approved even if the discussion shifted to WP:AN. Part of the problem is (in my opinion) that your own record has some rough spots. For example breaking 3RR at CrashPlan. There is no need for this. Here are some ideas for the future which you can take or leave:
 * You should try to behave impeccably, using WP:DRN if necessary, so there will be no valid complaints against you for edit warring in the future.
 * Consider disabling Twinkle.
 * If you are able to get a number of articles up to an improved level of quality that would be helpful. I notice you've made Good article nominations at Talk:Chartered Institute of Public Relations and Talk:Public Relations Society of America. This is an excellent idea. It would help answer anyone who is concerned you might be creating promotional content, and it could win sympathy for your position.
 * It is actually a lot of hard work to improve business articles. Businesses are often secretive about the things Wikipedia readers want to know and much of their own written output is self-laudatory. Think about taking a break to work on improving some other kind of article where you don't have to worry about promotional issues. EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ed. I think DR and 3PO would both require Cant to agree to it right? Corporate 19:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, there is no requirement that the other party agree to WP:DRN or WP:Third opinion. But the latter is only intended for two-person disputes. It does not seem very promising for you to get into more two-person disputes with Cantaloupe2. EdJohnston (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok - my impression was that these were for good-faith editors and I think I am justified at assuming bad faith in this instance. My path forward then is DR -> ANI -> arbitration. Corporate 20:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If people notice the obvious flaws in your past behavior, they will think 'a plague on both their houses.' I think your best plan is to make clear you are following a higher standard than the other party. You still need to establish this, and you have some way to go. If you take the case to ANI right now it may be dismissed as noise. EdJohnston (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

NCSoft Article sources biases/reliability
Article NCSoft question.

Hey you seem to have an eye for stuff and been here a while. Now I'm not looking for trouble or anything but I want to run these sources by you that is on that article page that seems questionable.

In short most of these are sources that are used to cite material in the article but mostly come from forums, a and a couple of magazine articles. All of them seem to support and tell the side of the story from the SaveCOH movement, which at this time is trying ot boycott NCsoft, or in conflict with them over the closing of City of Heroes. I want to know if they would qualify as substantial reliable sources.

To me, it would look like the SaveCOH campaign is trying to use this article to promote their cause at the expense of NCSoft.

These sources include

http://www.dealspwn.com/neil-gaiman-john-wright-john-kovalic-mercedes-lackey-support-save-city-heroes-campaign-113562- A tweeter source as used as evidence to show that these third parties support the movement with the assumption that these are the actual people, celebrities, named that actually made these posts.

http://www.starburstmagazine.com/editorial/3869-boycott-ncsoft-savecoh movement

http://www.savecoh.com/2012/09/call-to-action-positrons-ally.html-savecoh movement

http://us.ncsoft.com/en/news/response-to-city-of-heroes-player-and-fan-suggestions.html-forum

http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showthread.php?t=296213-forum

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-840174-Supporter of savecoh movement

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:BFC0:0:2C57:5DE7:24FE:7F26 (talk) 04:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Forum posts and op-eds are rarely good sources. In this particular case however, forum posts were used when more legitimate news articles were available. In that scenario what must be done is to improve the sourcing, rather than contest the content.


 * To a certain extent, if initiative X has garnered attention in the media for their cause, then it is acceptable for them to use those sources to add similar content to Wikipedia, so long as it's neutrally-written, properly sourced and done with proper weight.


 * Often our articles are overly focused on the controversy, however we do not remove proper controversies to return balance. The only way to balance the article is to spend the time to improve the other more mundane aspects of the company. Corporate 05:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information. I'll keep this in mind for the future. 2605:6000:BFC0:0:2C57:5DE7:24FE:7F26 (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Regarding articles we have both contributed such as astroturfing I have noticed that you've made many edits to it no explanation of what you're doing nor do you leave any comments on talk page regarding what you do. Please leave edit summary, thank you. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Cant. I should have remembered you were invested in that particular Air Force example. In my view, even after SmartSE's improvements, it might be better placed in the List of astroturfing cases article, as it doesn't appear it's gotten substantial attention. In comparison, tobacco astroturfing and political puffing in China each have dozens of mainstream press articles and are even the topic of academic study. Some of the other ones I added, the sources commented that they were of substantial historical significance.


 * One thing to keep in mind is that we use sourcing for two things; one is to establish the facts, but the other is whether it deserves inclusion. The latter is particularly important for a section like this. If we included every example of astroturfing that we can verify, it would be 100 pages long, so we summarize and include the most historically significant examples. The significance of the example is based on the volume and credibility of sources and the standards we set depend on the situation. In this case we can expect a very high bar, because there are just so many examples we could list, hundreds I'm sure. Corporate 19:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * One thing that needs to be done is combing through the List article closely to evaluate which are truly important and re-incorporating those select few. For all intensive purposes that article is basically a storage area, because I wasn't prepared to comb through it right away. Corporate 19:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's all fine.  But to get back to the original topic:  Please use edit summaries.  (To avoid accidentally leaving edit summaries blank, you can select "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" on the Editing tab of your user preferences)
 * While I strongly disagree with many actions Cantaloupe2 has done on Wikipedia, in this one particular case they have a good point. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI)  20:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It is obvious that I should have left more edit-summaries. The edit in question actually did have a summary, but it just said "trimming" and I also responded promptly on the Talk page. However it is much more productive to fix the problem and focus on the article.


 * Cant, I will respond to your comments from other pages here. It is not reasonable in the context to argue that we are both editing in the same dozen articles by chance. However in this particular case it would be natural for you to take an interest in the subject. Following editors around in a collegial manner is acceptable and a good thing. And it is natural if an editor deletes your work for a discussion to ensue. The line that was crossed repeatedly was when deletions and editing privileges were used to attack an editor, rather than improve an article.


 * As I have said many times, if you can be WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, avoid battlegrounding, etc. I am happy to discuss the issues on my Talk page. The most important thing is that these discussions aren't a way to "win an argument" or attack me, but to improve articles and as editors. Corporate 23:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Quirky talk page history as seen in popup
Hallo, There's something unusual about your user talk page. If I see it on my watchlist and hover the mouse over "hist", the popup box has edit summaries not wrapping but extending way beyond the right hand edge of the popup box. This doesn't seem to happen with any other user talk pages, or article talk pages! It's happening for the last 3 days - as far back as my watchlist goes. Just thought I'd mention it in case it's helpful for you to know. I use Firefox, in case that's significant. Pam D  22:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Browsers are like a pet dog. They growl at one neighbor and lick the other to death. I think it means your browser smells the evil on me :-p Corporate 22:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * What about now? Corporate 22:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Still happening - and I've just noticed it on User talk:Bearcat too, though to a much lesser extent: about 4 letters/line excess on his, while on yours it's

Quirky talk page history as seen in popup where the a in "page" is on the border of the popup box and the rest is overflow! Pam D  23:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure I can do anything to help, but Talk page stalkers are welcome. Corporate 01:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to confirm: I'm seeing the same thing from my end. Also a Firefox user. Don't think it's anything you're doing, but it might be interesting to figure out why it's happening. BusterD (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It's stopped happening on this page, but User talk:DGG is showing the same effect now! (And the mega-long edit summary on Bearcat's page still wraps neatly about 4 characters beyond the box outline.) Pam  D  10:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * What version of Firefox are you two using? I am on 16.0.2 Corporate 14:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * 16.0.2 also. And User talk:BrownHairedGirl is now doing it too - though there are a load of other user talk pages in my watchlist where it doesn't happen! Pam  D  22:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Re
See reply on astroturfing page talk.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Apology
Corporate: I'd like to apologize for a breach of ethics that occurred recently. One of my comments left on your user talk page was, without my permission and in clear violation of the talk page guidelines, moved by another user to Talk:Astroturfing. My comment was intended only for you, and was never intended for use in an ongoing article content dispute. I'm very unhappy about the situation, and again apologize. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI) 09:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Meh, whether it's edit summaries or moving Talk pages, what's more inappropriate than the action itself is for either of us (Cant or myself) to make an argument over the most petty thing possible. Both issues are utterly unimportant; their inflation is more problematic than the action itself. Corporate 15:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Corporate 23:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Clade template
Can someone help me in using the clade template for Credit Suisse's legal structure.
 * This looks like a question where you could use live help. Please come on IRC if you get a chance so we can give you a hand. Thanks! --Nathan2055talk - contribs 00:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Image source
Can you please provide the name of the photographer of, whether it was yourself, or SYNC. That person, not the creator of the headphones (if they are different), holds the copyright of the photograph (if by chance you're interested in the legalese behind that, see commons:Commons:CB). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * SMS Audio owns the copyright. I just got their permission. Not sure if that was the answer you need - not sure who the actual photographer is. Corporate 03:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Waggener employees.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Waggener employees.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

PRSA
Hey, dude. Always glad to inspire a chuckle rather than ire around this place! I made a copy of small copy edits and I might come back around at some point, but it's about 1:30 a.m. where I am so I'll be packing it in pretty soon. The article's getting to look pretty encyclopedic, I'd have to say &mdash; good work on your part. With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 06:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. You can see the shape of the original here. I like editing on PR organizations in particular, because it gives me an opportunity to show them how they can participate in a healthier way. In each case, I contact the organization and ask them if they would be willing to donate images, provide sources and point out factual corrections.


 * Although by and large it's a failed experiment - I keep tucking along.


 * It's one of four articles I'm working on bringing up to GA status, so any feedback is welcome. I am on the same time-zone, just couldn't sleep with so much Wiki-stuff on-mind. Corporate 06:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

exact earth for corporate minion
Ref the exact earth article - you claim it reads like an advert and lacked independent review. Both points I wish to take issue with. Firstly as an advert while it talks about the company it has been previously rejected for being too heavy on the products and was significantly reduced to be focused on the development of the company and the applications of their technology based product. As regards independent references there is a healthy mix of viable source material here. In comparison to many of the corporate related articles - this to my mind is a fair and accurate article for a company that has invented a product that has the potential to change the face of SAR and ocean marine safety. additionally it is a healthy additional reference to the AIS article Muggers 14:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmugridge (talk • contribs)


 * Stuff like "As recent government purchases suggest the utility of S-AIS is clear" or "has in its own right become a very powerful tool" is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Corporate 14:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please also read WP:UPANDCOMING. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  18:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That essay gives me a chuckle. Corporate 18:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

In praise of hard industries
Thanks for your edits to my first attempt at writing a Wikipedia entry on "In praise of hard industries." User DGG has also been helpful. The article has just been sitting in the talk section for a few days now... how do I move to the next step?

Thanks for your help.

Hubbert545 (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)hubbert545


 * Hey Hubbert. I didn't remember this article, but I was able to connect the dots easily enough. I went ahead and put the AfC submission tag on, so it will be reviewed by another editor. My only other comment is that I think the Reception section needs a closer look for clarity. Corporate 02:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I took a bit of a crack at it. I feel like the sentence "George C. Leef commented..." - there may be a something better to use from the same source. I would shy away against using a "book review" where the reviewer formed an opinion before even reading it. Corporate 15:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Slow poke
Well I finally got around to looking at Credit Suisse and PRSA. Left some comments on their respective talk pages. I hope they are helpful and that my timing is not detrimental. Cheers!--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 19:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I am indebted to you good sir. I have made the necessary edits. I will wait another month or so for the O'Dwyer discussion to settle before kindly requesting YouReallyCan continue his GA review. In the meantime, it looks like I have some work to do expanding on CS' financial products before nominating. Corporate 20:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * de nada..--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 21:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
<div style=" border:solid 1px #57DB1E; background:#E6FFE6; padding:1em; padding-top:0.5em; padding-bottom:0.5em; width:20em; color:black; margin-bottom: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.5em; width: 90%; "> In Praise of Hard Industries, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! — Earwig   talk  01:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Your submission at Articles for creation
<div style=" border:solid 1px #57DB1E; background:#E6FFE6; padding:1em; padding-top:0.5em; padding-bottom:0.5em; width:20em; color:black; margin-bottom: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.5em; width: 90%; "> Rokform, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! No unique  names  01:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Your request for undeletion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that a response has been made at Requests for undeletion regarding a submission you made. The thread is Rokform. JohnCD (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Corporate Minion/Rokform
User:Corporate Minion/Rokform, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Corporate Minion/Rokform and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Corporate Minion/Rokform during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  17:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I noted it was borderline in my AfC submission, so I'll be interested in seeing what the ruling is. I think most product-oriented articles we would expect there to be in-depth reviews. Corporate 18:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: HP Flexible DC
Hey there, thanks for your note, and sorry for the delayed response! Impressive work on the article - I agree it's ready for article space and I've approved it. It's now at HP Flexible Data Center. Cheers, --Cerebellum (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. HP/IBM stuff tends to catch my eye, but I hesitate to make any heavy-handed edits. I have a friend that works at HP, I do some work for an IBM competitor, another friend recently left HP, and I have done some work for IBM many years ago - I would want to avoid the appearance of doing favors for my marketing colleagues that undermine Wikipedia, so I exercise some extra caution about the HP/IBM duo. Corporate 22:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Marketing
Hello Corporate Minion. I noticed that you attempted to start a WikiProject related to marketing that I stumbled accross today. I've started a discussion about the project at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council that you might be interested in. Thryduulf (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Rokform for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rokform 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/Rokform 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 template from the top of the article. Spartaz Humbug! 16:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Muchos grassius!!! I am ok with either outcome, just wanted to get a consensus decision. Much thanks for your help. Corporate 16:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

UBS
Hi Corporate Minion. Sorry I misunderstood some of your comments at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations so we've probably started off badly - I moved your comments into a new section. I've also modified and expanded on my comments. UBS was a drive by review. It's not even a review, someone made some comments and "passed" the article. It the article had been bad the review probably would have been picked up and overturned. In appearance, some two years later, the article has the "look and feel of a GA" (I've not reviewed it), but the "review" was not fit for purpose.Pyrotec (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem. I didn't notice the UBS article was GA passed in 3 minutes. That's quite a drive-through review!! Corporate 21:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

coi discussion
 DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)