User talk:Mysidae

Hello, Mysidae, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: 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 ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Introduction 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

Moody's
Hi Mysidae, I think you should really refrain from editing on Moody's like you are doing, even if you mean no harm, especially at that moment when Moody's and other rating companies are under scrutiny from the media. The subject is currently highly controversial, and even if you only mean good, avoiding conflict of interest in your case is almost impossible to reach or to prove. By the way, I think that your knowledge of how Moody's and these rating agencies work could be much better used IMO in explaining how they are working. My impression is that these companies are misjudged because nobody really understand how they are working, and as always, newspapers grossly exaggerate everything. Really explaining how ratings are given (for now, there are only a list of ratings, which is not very useful IMO) would much better help to change the maybe distorted view people have of your company. BTW, you tagged as POV the "Power and influence" and "Portugal controversy" chapters, but I really don't know why. The sources for the "Power and influence" chapter really look valid (if Thee Washington Post is not considered valid, what source is ?). Maybe it's the wording which bothers you? Hervegirod (talk) 23:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Hervegirod, thanks for your note and apologies for the slight delay. I appreciate your taking an interest in the edits I have made. As you can tell, I have been very careful to disclose my affiliation with Moody's, and you are correct that my intentions are only to make edits consistent with Wikipedia policies, specifically to make only non-controversial edits in accordance with WP:COI. I can see your point about the warning templates, but you assume correctly: although supported by reliable sources, the material within is selective as to be misleading and in some cases erroneous, so I figured a warning is justified.


 * While my efforts recently have all been about fending off vandals, you raise a good point: I'm in a good position to offer a better explanation for how Moody's works, and that's actually what I would like to do soon. The warning templates were only meant to be a placeholder while I have been developing an alternative version of this article, and I am very close to having it ready. Once it is, it's my goal to bring it to community review, and if you would be interested in helping with that process, I'd really appreciate it. Let me know, and thanks again for the note. Mysidae (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello, I'm really looking forward to that, because as a lot of people, I myself don't know very well (or even not at all) how Moody's and these other agencies work. And as I said, I never saw I explained anywhere except as flamebait articles on newspapers. And I appreciate that you disclosed your position prior to your work on this article. Hervegirod (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello, I must say that your proposal for Moody's is much better than the current article (which is not clear at all concerning how ratings are given and their meanings, and also omit a large part of the company history). However, I think that parts of the articles (for example, the "Role in capital market" paragraph) are more general and could be better in the Credit rating agency article. Hervegirod (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Hervegirod, thanks for your kind words and I'm glad that my draft has been able to add some clarification. Your idea for using some of the material for the Credit rating agency article is interesting, and I'd like to be able to help with improvement. Honestly, it's very confusing to anyone who would want to know more about credit agencies. The history of Moody's history plays a significant part in the development of modern credit rating agencies, so there will be some overlap. Perhaps some of this would be useful in looking to write a history of the industry. I'd be interested in any suggestions you have for specific areas to address. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, I will try to make a thorough review of your proposal before next week (hmm maybe more during the week-end, I'm really going home after work really late these days), of course to take with a grain of salt, because I am very far from being proficient in this matter. Hervegirod (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi again, I'm most grateful for your interest, but just to clarify, do you mean to review my draft for Moody's or a review of the Credit rating agency article for areas to address? If the former, you'll see on Moody's Corporation Talk page that my draft was split into three articles that have been taken live by bobrayner. There's now Moody's Analytics, Moody's Investors Service and Moody's Corporation articles. Your thoughts on these would be welcome, I am open to any edits that would improve these articles' clarity and accuracy. With regards to the Credit rating agency article—as I mentioned previously—I'd like to provide help with making this less confusing and a better overview of what these agencies are and how they function. If you do have the time to read through the article, I'd appreciate your views. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

A couple of points
Hi, Have fun; bobrayner (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Can you think of anything else which needs doing on the Moody's articles?
 * 2) There has been some debate recently on paid editors and COI; a couple of rival projects have started (which take somewhat opposing stances on paid editors). You might consider signing up or contributing to one of them..? User talk:Herostratus/Wikiproject Paid Editing Watch versus User talk:Silver seren/Wikiproject Cooperation.

COIN
I replied here to your COIN post. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Himanis Das talk  05:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and a query
Hello Mysidae, I have enjoyed your fixes and proposed updates to credit rating agency, which is getting much better as a result. Thank you.

You wrote on the talk page at one point, "[Moody's'] goal, as mine, is to produce a thorough, well-balanced and easy to read summary of the industry consistent with Wikipedia's Manual of Style and other content guidelines." I would like to hear a bit more about this, since this is a part of our knowledge ecosystem I would like to understand better. Have they commissioned any handbooks or reference materials on the industry in the past? Do you develop a specific map of topics to improve or does it emerge out of other work you are doing for them? Do you do your own research or more communicate existing material that you have access to?

With further thanks for any insights, – SJ  +  00:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)