User talk:My2011

Rajat Gupta

 * Oh I meant that these links to biographies, etc. are getting taken down fast (by other people). For example, I can't find the TeleSoft VC bio anymore.
 * Wow, I didn't know you could send messages this way. Nor did I know you could make a user page. Working on it.
 * Thanks! [See below, first, then this top 3 'graphs, then below-below. Swliv (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)]

"BUT these references aren’t staying up for long!!" Those exclamation points. Easy to misread. (I was not thinking "dismay" really, of course. But .... Well, it could be misread, too, I guess. Ultimately, not the best place to communicate.) And I really don't know what you meant, either. Just a caution ... about that form/forum of communication and, really, about communication in general. That's why I added the "BLP," and link to it, here, too.

Wouldn't it be nice to "get some red out" of the revision-history page by just doing a minimal, at least, user page for yourself? (You know, you just click on the red-link and go from there.) And another helpful encouragement? I think you do the minimal link-only citations. They don't look as good/tell as much in the references, if you know what I mean. I know it takes time; and I and others chip away at them. Do what you can. Glad to have you working on this (and other? haven't checked) article(s).

Cheers, and welcome to your new user-talk page. Swliv (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As they said below re: the (so far) lamented Fred Gluck page, (a) SIGN your posts here (and, generally I think, put them BELOW those to which you're responding) with four "tildas" -- "~ ~ ~ ~" (but single spaced; I've double spaced them here to show them; single-spaced, they trigger the signature); from the far upper left of the keyboard, below "Escape, upper case shift, on mine; (B) I've double-indented (with two colons) your response above; almost missed it; and I'm glad for the response; good sense; Telesoft's gone? Yeh. Well, it may be time to let the ... court do its work (the Judge is a ...n interesting development, for sure) ..., let the dust settle. There's a limit to the timeliness, here. The basics are there. Try to guard against ... dramatic degradation ... though ... it too happens. ... Well, bon jour, bon chance, bon joue (+-?) ..., for some fractured French on the ... landscape.
 * Well, ps. I tried rather feebly to help at FGluck by finding and posting as Ext. Link the Forbes ... source ... you'd used; looking now I may have accelerated the demise; at least Forbes was cited by name in the deletion-execution; and you hadn't cited it. Well, I'd hoped you or someone would see the Forbes and build on it, make footnotes from it, add in ... for instance the Fred Gluck Astrophysics Professorship+- I saw somewhere (via Google; you really looked for other sources? it's not that hard, usually; though as one below says, you also do have to pick and choose; the Geentali sp? wedding source, for instance, though I took a fair amount from it, ... is a little marginal). There is some art of course to the whole thing. I hope you try it again (and didn't lose too much work irretrievably with the delete; it can be hard/boring to retrace steps; maybe the proffered help below could help on that score, too; there are ways to gain access I think to deleted material ...; I particularly liked the chain of succession box at the bottom.) I would use caution about "hidden." I think "weasel words" may be a Wiki phrase. Anyway, that one smacks of conspiracy, which tends to move one out of the realm of sourced encyclopedia work. (Even if you do find a source for it, if you gather what I mean.) Can be good stuff; probably this will be a frustrating venue to pursue it ... directly. ... Cheers.
 * And (c) or whatever, click on one of these red My2011s ... and follow directions to create your user page (aren't you glad I created this talk page so they had a place to land the speedy-delete b ...onbon? ... No; I remember my first ... and maybe only; it's rugged ... but copyright's one of those things ...).
 * "... [G]etting taken down fast (by other people)" at other sites. Right. Swliv (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Fred Gluck


A tag has been placed on Fred Gluck requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  ttonyb (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please bear in mind that if you wish to write a biography - or indeed any article - then taking an existing text and paraphrasing it is still quite likely to run foul of copyright restrictions. To be reasonably safe you need to draw from multiple sources for each article. If multiple sources do not exist then almost certainly your subject does not possess sufficient notability to justify an article here.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 11:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to add to that if you try again, you do need to be in your own words and give references. Look at WP:BIO for our policy on biographies, and WP:RS for details on what are reliable sources. Good luck. Peridon (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you for the feedback. I can't find multiple sources on Gluck, but believe he is noteworthy (and intentionally hidden). What would you recommend?
 * Keep trying. You need one source as a minimum to escape a Proposed Deletion BLP (biography of living persons). It's easier if they're dead, sometimes. (Don't......) A couple can pass muster if they're really independent and not just saying Bill Smith attended the funeral of Joe Bloggs. Have a look in some other articles that are BLPs - see what they've got. Beware, however, that some slip through the net... Set up your article as a subpage of your userpage (if not sure, leave a message on my talk page and sign it with ~ as you should here too. Then ask one of us for advice. Most of us regular editors are willing to help. Peridon (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 01:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Anil Kumar
The proper format for a WP:RM discussion is that it stay open for a full week; if this were a snow case, we could move it now, but it's definitely not to that point right now. Nyttend (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd rather leave this to another admin, since I've already commented here. Requested moves are tracked by date, so you can count on another admin finding it before long.  Nyttend (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The reference and a word of caution
First, thanks for putting the reference. Second, the onus of placing the reference is on the editors who wish the paragraph to be included, not on the editors challenging the statement. You have to realize this critical point of who is in general responsible for finding out the reliable sources. Lastly, a word of caution. Kindly do not use sources like consultingnetwork portals for validating statements like ISB is a "McKinsey brainchild". Unless you are able to validate exact statements from reliable sources, I would again encourage you to delete all the sentences that are clearly not validated from reliable sources. If you need any help or assistance from me in understanding why Wikipedia cannot put such statements from unreliable sources, please do feel free to ask me. Kind regards.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  07:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

India export CEO's
Power, Carla, "India's Leading Export: CEOs," TIME, Monday, Aug. 01, 2011: Wondered, after a day or two of pondering it, if you'd seen this one. A notable absence you will find if you check it out. I view it as a "bounce back/never happened" explicit (in this say-nothing way of things) effort. One tidbit I did learn was that Unilever has an Indian CEO. ... Which I now realize connects more to my unrelated interest in Ann Fudge, but one never knows where these connections will go.

Anyway, I did dig up these related links: The Indian CEO: A Portrait of Excellence by Signe Spencer, Tharuma Rajah, Shyamala A Narayan, and Seetharaman Mohan (Spencer's quoted in the TIME article, including being the one plumping McKinsey (!) and the perhaps too ethical standards of Indian-exported CEOs); and Managerial Excellence: McKinsey Award Winners from the Harvard Business Review, 1980-1994 (Harvard Business Review Book) by Nan Stone & Rajat Gupta. I sort of yearned to get a peak inside The Indian CEO to see if anyone not mentioned in the TIME article maybe was mentioned there.

One quirky amusement (had to be inadvertent, "off [the say-nothing] message") was one of the "red print" "see this related story" teasers at the bottom of the 2nd page: See "India's Government Aims to Curb Excessive Weddings." (I think that's the right link.) (And now that I look at it again, maybe it was just an extra dig. Who knows?)

So, for what it's worth. The Managerial Excellence should go on the Rajat page I guess ... but in the end ... this was just too much all for me. Until I thought of YOU, ... maybe not knowing about ANY of it. So, here, ... my gift :) Swliv (talk) 01:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

TIME is also tagging the story with the line "India may be the Ideal CEO Training ground," the popup for it on my Firefox browser. Swliv (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi...
Hi. Sorry for using the term puffery in my edit summary in the Indian School of Business article. Didn't mean it to sound bad, but when I re-read my statement, it sounded a little offish. Sorry for that. I've redone a couple of your edits and left an edit summary with a note; do tell me how it looks. Also, per UNIVERSITY, we can have only one statement about ranking in the lead. Best regards  Wifione  Message 04:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

ISB page
Hi

Thanks for the information on Wiki policy. Just to check, could yo help me by telling me how to edit the info box? Want to add a couple of rankings... — Preceding unsigned comment added by RajniCant01 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure, happy to help! Rankings shouldn't go in the info box -- see here: Template:Infobox_university. Take care My2011 (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

McKinsey
Thanks My2011. You're not late at all. What you see there is the entire discussion thus far. Appreciate you joining in. Corporate 00:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi My2011. I went ahead and did my best to create an updated Galleon scandal section based on your feedback on the McKinsey & Co Talk page. Really appreciate all your help and patience. With so much complex and controversial content, it's unlikely I'd be able to improve the article without so much participation from the community. My hope is that if the section is basically ok, we can move to article-space and there can be bold edits from there. I should have updates on the History/Org sections by next week. I gave a similar update to Kiethbob on his page as well. Corporate 20:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

AICTE clarification on ISB page
This is just to understand your reasoning behind undoing my post on Kapil Sibal at ISB. I understand your reservations about writing about a political personality on wiki. However, don't you think that the fact that the national HRD minister, who also heads ISB, has somehow recognized the school by giving out graduation certificates is important? Is it now an important news for people not familiar with AICTE? Please let me know your thoughts on this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2012smine (talk • contribs) 17:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi there, thanks for reaching out and sorry for making you do a bit of extra work to get your edit up on Wikipedia. First of all, "it is interesting to note" is always a red flag, as it likely violates WP:NPOV. Second, it's awfully specific for a university -- "person X attended functions Y and Z on date A" is overkill. At best we might want to say something like "Indian Education Minister Kapil Sibal presided over the school's 2010 graduation ceremony." You're welcome to put that sentence up there, or I can. Thanks and take care, MY [2011] ( talk ) &#124; 00:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Revert
Hi MY2011, I wanted to let you know that I have reverted your reversion of my edits at McKinsey & Company. There are two reasons for this. One, you objected to a single change but your reversion undid several changes. That's not helpful. Second, you put back in a sentence that is unsourced and sounds to me like editorializing. If you disagree, you could find a source for it and then put it back in the article or we can discuss it on the talk page. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia and I look forward to working together. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 17:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Tell you what, I've looked at the MC talk page and I see that there is a discussion underway about going through the entire article and checking it for accuracy and neutrality. So I have reverted myself and am allowing your revert of my edits to stand. So we can start fresh....I'll go to the talk page with you and we can participate in the ongoing process there. Thanks for your patience and I'll see you round :-) Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 17:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keithbob, sorry for the reversion and inadequate explanation. You're right, the article needs work and I haven't been able to get around to it -- agree that the best place to start is the talk page. There are a bunch of other editors watching as well, so we should be sure to get consensus. Really look forward to working w/ you. thx, MY [2011] ( talk ) 19:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Galleon section
Hi My2011. I'd like to request your forgiveness for my clear violation of WP:NORUSH as I ping you regarding the merge of the Galleon scandal section on McKinsey & Company; Especially considering my slow response on the History and Organization sections. There is an upcoming court case that may bring a lot of eyeballs to the section next week and I'm just annoying you in hopes we can make some kind of update before then. I'm sure your busy in real life. Thanks again for your unparalleled civility and all the work you've done in our collaboration on the Talk page. I humbly apologize for bugging you so much. ;-) Corporate 14:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * King, thanks for the reminder -- sorry this had drifted for a while as I became busier in real life. I'll work on it this week and fully understand your goal of getting something up before the upcoming court case (which is next week? that soon?). No need to apologize. best, My [2011] ( talk ) &#124; 00:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks My2011. The trial starts this Monday. I appreciate your being so considerate. I am not normally a WP:NORUSH violator, but I feel there is reason to be considerate of the real-world impact of delay on such a timely and high-profile issue. Thanks again for your endless bounty of civility and for what is surely a significant time investment in our collaboration. If it's possible to merge before this weekend, I would be in your debt. Corporate 16:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * King, I spent as much time as I could today merging the "Galleon insider trading scandal" section given the short deadline and other external factors. Let me know what you think in the talk page. What else needs to be done on the McKinsey page? Is there a reason the "multiple issues" tag is still up? Sorry, have been busy the last few weeks so just catching up. And btw, thank you for your kind words. It's really a pleasure to work with you! My [2011] ( talk ) &#124; 01:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks My2011!! I was hoping to get your thinking on the recent edit on McKinsey's policy against outside consulting. This can be confirmed in reliable sources. Is there something out there to the contrary? Corporate 15:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi King! Good to hear from you.

Yup -- turns out in the trial a few days ago we found out there was no formal or written policy against outside consulting, just a vague understanding. So it's completely inappropriate to include this in the article -- you cannot fire or suggest someone "broke policy" based on something that isn't even a policy. Suggesting otherwise (though I am not a lawyer!) might be grounds for defamation, which is why I was quick to take it out.

Prosecutors wanted to ask Anil Kumar, a former consultant at McKinsey, about millions of dollars in payments he got from Mr. Rajaratnam, co-founder of Galleon Group, and whether those payments violated McKinsey policies. [...] However, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff, in a win for the defense, declined to allow that testimony after a prosecutor acknowledged Friday that McKinsey had no written policy banning outside payments, but a general understanding among its partners not to accept such payments.

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303640104577440451784326274.html?mod=WSJ_Deals_LEFTTopStories


 * Understood. Good call. After re-reading our original sources in this new context, I see that they don't actually say "company policy" either. Appreciate all your attention and diligence. From my perspective, I'm not after the individuals involved, but wanted to make it more clear McKinsey didn't sanction the engagement. I revised the infobox per your feedback. That seems like a good idea on how to handle it. Corporate 21:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Followup
Now maybe I've gone too far for you. Or I've tossed "less subtle" comments unusefully into our still new three-way navigation over at RGupta et al.. (I've just read your comment re:/quote of me here, where you sounded discouraged.) Well, I was feeling aggravation in both directions on the three-way tug while particularly trying to cope with the spinoff of Insider Trading 2011. If I overstepped, I am sorry.

I also wanted to make sure you'd register your opinion on the re-naming of the Insider Trading article at Talk:Insider Trading 2011 -- and whether you think Anil Kumar is worthy of inclusion in the proposed more detailed title -- if you care to.

Thanks and cheers. Swliv (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Not discouraged, just busy IRL and therefore terse sometimes. I think Anil Kumar is in fact worthy of inclusion in the detailed title. My [2011] ( talk ) &#124; 02:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of List of affiliations of Rajat Gupta for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of affiliations of Rajat Gupta 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/List of affiliations of Rajat Gupta 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. TOW talk  22:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

McKinsey & Company
Hi My2011. Whenever you get a chance, could you put in the revised infobox on the McKinsey & Company article? (see revised on Talk page) Sorry for being a nuisance. It's not appropriate for me to directly edit the article in this case. Corporate 17:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Done My [2011] ( talk ) &#124; 22:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Gupta Guilty
Some editors kind of updated the page but we should create an official page also like SEC_v._Rajaratnam, thoughts? --Monstermike99 (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree! I just won’t have much time for it… My [2011] ( talk ) &#124; 19:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

McKinsey Update
Hi My2011. Thanks for the invitation to comment on the conviction. I have a few comments for your consideration:


 * 1) Do you think we can add that there was no evidence that Gupta leaked confidential information regarding McKinsey clients during his tenure as managing director?


 * I don't think so. It's very clear from the chronology and it's actually irrelevant to the current section -- there's no basis for anyone to think that.


 * 1) I think it's fair to say that Gupta was an "emeritus" at the time of receiving perks, but not at the time of conviction. I know we've talked about this previously, but we reached a good compromise for the infobox. Would it be possible to duplicate that compromise or the language used in reliable sources, such as "former managing partner," "former CEO," "former McKinsey chief," or "retired head of McKinsey?"


 * Which line(s) are you talking about in particular? Let's chat case by case.
 * How about "Former managing director (CEO) Rajat Gupta was convicted of four counts of conspiracy and securities fraud in June 2012, and acquitted on two counts, resulting from his outside board memberships while a senior partner emeritus of McKinsey."


 * 1) I noticed the conviction is mentioned twice, which I have no complaints with except as a minor editorial nit, but since his conviction was tied to his position as a board member after leaving McKinsey, I would prefer the update be somewhere after the sentence stating "Rajat Gupta joined the boards of Goldman Sachs and Proctor & Gamble among other institutions" as to avoid confusion with the chronology and relevance. This would ensure readers don't incorrectly think his conviction is tied directly to actions Gupta performed during his tenure as managing director.


 * The conviction isn't just "part of the chronology," it's the point of the paragraph. Thus it should be the first sentence, the topic sentence, and not somewhere after a "lead-in".
 * Again, how about "Former managing director (CEO) Rajat Gupta was convicted of four counts of conspiracy and securities fraud in June 2012, and acquitted on two counts, resulting from his outside board memberships while a senior partner emeritus of McKinsey."

As always, I appreciate your patience, time and civility as we tackle controversial issues. It's a pleasure hashing things out. Corporate 02:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As do I! And between us, I wish we could have done this under happier circumstances. My [2011] ( talk ) &#124; 23:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks My2011. I think your proposed copy addresses all my concerns and is actually better editorially from the defensive language I had suggested. The "emeritus" issue still claws at me, because it's not clear if "while" means while the crimes were committed, or when he was convicted. I also wonder if the reader will understand that "emeritus" does not mean an actual position with the firm, but rather a connection to it. But since the proposed is factually accurate, I can only nit-pick so much. Consider me on-board with the proposed copy!


 * Of course there are plenty of opportunities for us to collaborate under happier circumstances too! I was actually curious if your interests were primarily on the scandal or in other areas related to McKinsey as well. There is a draft Offices section pending addition to the article and a draft History section pending feedback. I just to put tags on them, but always prefer involvement from editors familiar with the subject. Corporate 18:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Great, so I'll put in my copy with a few small changes. I think it's a good first pass -- let's wait for it to settle and then check any tweaks.
 * By the way, we've seen that the "emeritus" role carries with it an office, email, assistant, and salary -- so it sounds to me (and lay people) like an actual position, not merely an affiliation.
 * I am indeed interested in other aspects, but this scandal has just dominated so much that I wanted to pay particular attention before moving on to the rest. :)
 * My [2011] ( talk ) &#124; 19:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think we can call this topic a wrap. Thanks again for your exceptional diligence and civility. Looking forward to working on other areas as your time and interest allow. Corporate 15:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

McKinsey History
Hi My2011. Thanks for chipping in on the McKinsey history section. You may have noticed I filled out the Recent History a bit more and made other improvements in early July. I also went in after you posted feedback and condensed several areas based on your suggestions.

I don't want to fuss over tags (this happens a lot with COIs), but it's actually proper format on Wikipedia to only post a citation once when multiple, consecutive sentences rely on the same citation. That's why, for example, the first paragraph of "2000 onward" has only one citation. The whole paragraph is from the same source.

In any case, let me know if you think it's ready for article-space yet. It has been up in draft form since May and can be further improved once posted. I also wanted to see if you could move the Office Locations section in. I think we agreed on this in May, when we talked about replacing the list of office locations, but it never got moved in. I should really do it as a non-controversial edit, but I am being extra careful. Corporate 16:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just noticed your Talk page note. Looking through it now. Corporate 17:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

McKinsey Healthcare
Hi My2011, I posted a draft on the Talk page regarding a controversy about a healthcare survey McKinsey published. Your comments are welcome. I also pinged other involved editors and asked DESiegel if he was interested in contributing. Corporate 23:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi MY. Just wanted to check-in to see if you had any further comments on the latest draft. If it has your support, I'll go ahead and request the merge to article-space. Corporate 17:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi My2011. Your name just popped up on my Watchlist and I realized I haven't posted anything in months! Just thought I would drop you a line and let you know we're still working on things, including a second draft of their history which incorporates your feedback from the first draft and brings it down to three concise sections. Sorry things are so slow on my end. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 01:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi My2011. I noticed you haven't edited in a while and was wondering if you would have time to collaborate with me again. Sorry for my long leave of absence, but we're back on the ball and working on some new content, including taking a shot at a second draft of the History section with your feedback in mind, some of the controversies and the Barton article. Wanted to see if you would be up for it. CorporateM (Talk) 15:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

McKinsey recent edits
Hi My2011. Regarding these edits I apologize I did not do a better job at drawing your attention to the discussion. I pinged you on the Talk page of the article where the content was discussed, which should have produced a notification. In any case, I have copy/pasted below the discussion from Talk that led to the content being removed below. I think it would be great if you joined us on Talk. If you have any questions, let me know! I noticed you haven't been editing/participating as much and I hope I haven't done anything to make you feel discouraged/frustrated. CorporateM (Talk) 14:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion from Talk

 * 2. Deleting the last paragraph of the "Recruiting and compensation" (I think user:My2011 restored this, so I'll ping him here). I've broken down why this paragraph should go in the collapsed section below

"As a private firm, McKinsey is not required to disclose compensation figures." This is true of all private corporations "Unlike the financial services sector, consultants are not paid proportional to the business they bring in;" There is no mention of a commission in the article, so I don't think there is a need to explain a negative "This was estimated to be $2–4 million in 1994 dollars ($3–5 million in 2009 dollars).[58]" The source does not actually say anything about McKinsey and is not reliable. "However, there are indications these numbers have increased ~40% in the subsequent 20 years.[59]" Does not appear to be supported by the quote provided in the source "For example, according to public tax records, the senior partner leading McKinsey's Norwegian office in 2011 earned 67 million NOK ($11.5 million USD).[60]" Possible privacy/BLP issue + the source seems to just link to a random news site? A 1993 Fortune profile says, "The Firm places itself above discussing money as a motivation, yet senior partners often earn as much, or more, than the CEOs they advise."[61] This sentence appears well-sourced and should be kept.


 * Where should the last sentence be moved? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @User:Crisco 1492 It looks like this is actually already in the Organization/culture section, last sentence in the first paragraph: "McKinsey claims its consultants are not motivated by money.[19]" Whichever sentence is the better between the two should probably go there.CorporateM (Talk) 01:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. Will remove — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

reply on compensation section
Hi there, CorporateM, it's been a while! Thanks for the kind words -- definitely not discouraged, just been quite busy in real life! In order not to duplicate some of the existing work / discussion, I've just edited the paragraph directly with some of your suggestions. I'll also try to edit / check wiki more often over the next few days -- sorry for not being responsive! best, My [2011] ( talk ) &#124; 02:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem! Maybe I should start a new discussion string where we can hammer it out one item at a time? CorporateM (Talk) 12:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I spent a bit of time on it yesterday, is there anything left to hammer out? Made almost all your suggestions and replaced some sources. My [2011] ( talk ) &#124; 18:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I haven't culled through it all yet, but this sentence "Since it is a private firm, McKinsey is not required to disclose compensation figures." was the first thing that I noticed. This is a true statement of any private company and the statement is not supported by the source. CorporateM (Talk) 20:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi My2011. occasionally asks me to look into stuff he has a COI with. I reverted your last addition to the McKinsey article, and I think there is enough rough consensus (three editors vs you) that this is inappropriate. "For example" smacks of WP:OR, and quite frankly the amounts mentioned there are so completely off the chart that I wouldn't be surprised the original article was pulled because it was incorrect, so that's why you're now forced to use the wayback machine. Perhaps it would be better if you could find one or two reliable sources for such compensation figures, and manage to get some context beyond your "for example" usage. § FreeRangeFrog  croak 20:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Question
Hi My2011. I am working on submitting a sockpuppet investigation here with the help of regarding three accounts that I believe are from a Wikipedia astroturfing service that is organizing to create the false appearance of consensus for favorable edits to the article-subject. One of those accounts happens to be someone you've encountered previously, MonsterMike99.

I should emphasize, that this has nothing to do with my affiliation/COI with Gupta's former employer McKinsey - just happens to be a cosmic coincidence.

I was wondering if your interaction with MonsterMike gave you the impression that they were affiliated with Gupta and if so if you happen to be willing to provide links and examples. CorporateM (Talk) 21:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've done more research into it now; I think it was just a coincidence that he showed an interest in a page where other SPAs were engaged. You can see a related discussion here. Sorry for being a bother! CorporateM (Talk) 17:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)