User talk:Patyoshida85

Your submission at Articles for creation: Milgram & Company Ltd.
 Milgram & Company Ltd., which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. 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 may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2013 (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.

Hi there but be careful
Re:"I work as an account director for High-Touch Communications, Inc., as such, I am authorized to work on BioAmber Inc.'s behalf."

Please discuss your edits on the BioAmber Inc. article before reverting another and experienced editor who has no conflict of interest. See WP:COI. That way nerves are kept calm and editors learn from each other. My contraction of the article took what appeared to be judicious steps, trying to remove hype and remove overspecialized content in keeping with the encyclopedic tone. Now I might have erred or whatever, but the approach, especially as a relatively new editor who might have a COI, is probably to discuss.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Forgive my inexperience. I'm not well versed with the editing protocols and would like very much to come to a mutually acceptable version of the article.


 * Looking at the diffs, I took little issue with the simplification of the JM Davy content. Although I would have likely preferred that if you felt it attempted to hype the technology, that you simply would have stricken the words "and optimized" [its process] and "fully" [tested] from the existing text. The remaining content would then be more neutral, and remain consistent with the referenced source.


 * Next, I'm curious why you thought it was necessary to change "building block chemicals" to "commodity chemicals" and "energy intensity" to "energy costs." The former bugs me more than the latter because it removes the implication that value-added derivative chemicals can come from succinic acid, which is objectively true. Then, "energy intensity" seems more precise and contextual to the topic of sustainable manufacturing than the "energy costs" alternative, which seems to me like a simpler accounting metric.


 * Then, most significantly, the entire Markets section of the article was axed; it is directly relevant to the business environment in which BioAmber operates. This article pertains to BioAmber as a company, and as such, this information is as important to the article as the chemistry and technology the company uses. I don't agree that this content seeks to bring hype to BioAmber's business prospects; it rather reasonably sheds light on the market that exists for succinic acid and 1,4-butanediol. And I'm not sure how it can be deemed overspecialized content when it pertains directly to the the company's narrow product portfolio. I feel like the removed content has its place in this article; it is fair, directly relevant and cited with verifiable, third-party sources. Perhaps language can be tweaked within it if you feel there's anything that compromises its neutrality, but I think that slashing it entirely is aggressive.
 * --Patyoshida85 (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Patyoshida85, thank you for taking the time to respond and I apologize for making some edits that you think are unwise or such. First of all, please understand that I am not in charge (no one is) and have no particular authority, but we do work toward consensus around here.  Let me try to revert most of my work.  I will say that "building block chemicals" vs "commodity chemicals" and "energy intensity" vs "energy costs." are (to me) market-speak and awkward for readers who are looking for meaning vs hype (unintended as it might be).  --Smokefoot (talk) 02:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Smokefoot, I thank you for your thoughtful responses. I appreciate the lessons. I'm learning here. I'll concede that "building block" chemicals could resonate as market-speak to chemistry folks and academics, but likely not to industry, application development people and even laypersons reading about BioAmber. This is a company article after all: not a chemical page. Also, I do believe "carbon intensity" is common nomenclature in energy and environmental contexts, and an especially important topic today in light of the COP21 conferences, climate action, sustainable innovation, etc. Very respectfully, I still have trouble seeing where any hype comes in; there's no creative or leading speculation in any of the content. Thanks for reinstating the Markets section. May I ask why you omitted the BDO/THF/PBT and market applications paragraph from the reinstatement? The discussion of these derivative chemicals also brings credence to the idea of "building block" chemicals that has since been replaced. And come to think of it, has bio-based succinic acid really been commoditized? There's a strong argument to be made that it hasn't. --Patyoshida85 (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * About hype, I am just paranoid maybe, slightly sensitized because I worked on biomass upgrading. I encourage you to change the terms back the way you wanted.  I am going to back off and work on more chemically topics, my forte.  I mainly was interested in getting the succinic acid content redistributed.  Happy editing, --Smokefoot (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)