User talk:Mikec85

Welcome!
Hello, Mikec85, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Rocky 734 (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

SPA and UPE?
You cannot say CONVICTION as Judge Cogburn has not made any conviction ruling. A jury ruled Lindberg guilty, however, Cogburn made no adverse ruling or conviction due to the appeal. Stating "conviction" is simply false.
 * First, for discussing the content of the Lindberg article, please use the talk page there: Talk:Greg Lindberg. New additions can be made at the bottom of that page. Please sign your comments. In regards to your problem with the use of the word conviction, there seems to be no convention barring the use of this word. Merriam-Webster dictionary defines conviction as "the act or process of finding a person guilty of a crime especially in a court of law". Cambridge dictionary defines it as the following: "the fact of officially being found to be guilty of a particular crime, or the act of officially finding someone guilty". Lindberg was found guilty by the jury. None of these definitions stipulate anything about a judge's sentencing being required for the word conviction to be used. Secondly, news sources have described this as a conviction:

- Indy beetle (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear Mike,

Could you please read WP:SPA and WP:PAID and confirm that you are a single purpose account and a paid editor? If so you'll need to declare who is paying you. Please also read WP:COI and let any other editors you're working with know these rules as well.

'''I can confirm I am a SPA and that I'm a paid editor as I am the webmaster/administrator for www.greglindberg.com. I have the authorization to cite any material from his website. I am paid by a company called Apex International LLC. Thank you for providing me with the rules I will follow them from now on.'''

The general problems include copyright violations - you'll need to get releases for material that you've taken from Lindberg's websites and placed onto Wikipedia. Also just quoting Lindberg's lawyer taken from press releases or Lindberg's website doesn't work. Those are considered to be primary sources. We need material that reliable sources, such as newspapers, have mentioned. If Lindberg wants to make a plea in court, Wikipedia is not the place to make the plea, the courtroom is.

As mentioned above, I am the webmaster/administrator/copyright for www.greglindberg.com and I have the authorization to share material from Lindberg's websites.

Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * You'll need to be neutral in your edits - see WP:NPOV. I'm letting an administrator know about the problems here now  and I've reverted your recent edits.  You need to let other editors, e.g. me, edit the article.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

'''Can you let me know what isn't neutral here? There any many news articles about Greg Lindberg and it seems to be equally as subjective to focus on just the alleged bribery. There have been numerous articles about Lindberg's business practices, personal and professional life. Can you kindly share why the Bribery is the sole focus here?'''

Mike,

Thanks for the disclosure. A minor request - please sign your edits on this page with 3 tildas To properly declare your paid editing status please fill out the template and copy it to the top of the Talk:Greg Lindberg page (on the 2nd line) (and to fill in the parameters),

The parameters should probably be filled out as follows (but please make sure that these are correct)
 * User1=Mikec85|U1-employer=Apex International|U1-client=Greg Lindberg|U1-otherlinks=e.g. greglindberg.com, any other employee of your employer who is editing Wikipedia on this . 

and supply a clearly visible list of your paid contributions on your main user page.User:Mikec85, e.g. a list like (just fill in the proper times and dates: My paid edits
 * Greg Lindberg - 8 edits before December 21, 2019
 * Greg Lindberg - December 21, 2019 - 1.01pm edt
 * Greg Lindberg - December 21, 2019 - 2:23pm edt

More later, Smallbones( smalltalk )

I've been looking at your question Can you kindly share why the Bribery is the sole focus here?
 * There's lots of stuff on his education and the early part of his business career.
 * I'll get rid of the childhood photo with the "inspirational" quote. Most editors here would consider that an embarassment.
 * You should find a source that actually says "Yale magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa with an honors economics degree in 1993". This may be true but if we have to search on a private webcite that we are not allowed to view, it's not a good source.
 * The $50,000 donation isn't actually very much in the world of philanthropy. I'd leave it out. It makes him look like a cheapskate. This guy is supposedly a billionaire, right?
 * The $1,000,000 donation in 4 future parts is pretty much the same thing. And how much is that promise going to be worth if he goes to jail?
 * "In the news" is not a section heading we use. See WP:NOTNEWS
 * The "Triangle Business Journal in the article “A Global Search for Talent and Great Ideas.”" is routine coverage - it just bores people.
 * Use "Bribery indictment" or similar instead. It says what's going on.
 * The NPR and WSJ paragraphs are the heart of what's being published about his current business.
 * But the parts about his lawyer saying he is innocent and pleading that the case should be dismissed - that is just routine - it happens in almost every case.
 * ditto the I-was-set-up defense
 * If you want to cover the WRAL story about Lindberg acting weirdly in court it needs 2-3 paragraphs to understand what they are talking about.
 * The 3 paragraph denial that Lindberg sent in 3 days after the story was published, should not be included in our article. It doesn't actually deny what was in the original article. But our readers can't see that if you don't include the original article in more detail.
 * What else do you want to include? It can't be promotional material for his business or routine court pleadings. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 03:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

'''Ok, I understand the rules and editing requirements. To me, "Bribery Indictment/Charges" still seems very subjective. I have changed the title to "Recent Events" as that does not declare news or anything that misrepresents or promotes Mr. Lindberg. Can we agree on that title. I am working on acquiring the Yale graduation verification. I've also added the Contributor declaration on the talk page and the edits history on my page.'''

Arbitration
In response to your request for arbitration of this issue, the Arbitration Committee has agreed that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

Disputes among editors regarding the content of an article should use structured discussion on the talk page between the disputing editors. However, requests for comment, third opinions and other venues are available if discussion alone does not yield a consensus. The dispute resolution noticeboard also exists as a method of resolving content disputes that aren't easily resolved with talk page discussion.

In all cases, you should review Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact a member of the community if you have more questions. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 07:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)