User talk:RRDNJ10

Welcome!

Hello, RRDNJ10, 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: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Lexington Partners
Please note that while your input is welcomed, it is noted that yours appears to be a WP:Single Purpose Account intended to make edits to the Lexington Partners article. As such, it is important that your edits do not affect the balance or tone of the article. You may have a WP:Conflict of Interest in editing the article and as such I have been monitoring the changes you make. If you want to discuss any of the changes please leave a note below |► ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 17:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Dear Urbanrenewal, Many thanks for your note. You are correct this account was created to edit the Lexington Partners article. I am part of the investor relations team at Lexington Partners and after reviewing our article along with those of our peers, I identified some information that is, unfortunately, incorrect. Many of the reference links are no longer valid and some lead to pages posting articles that could be violating copyright laws. Our goal is simply to keep the article informational and accurate. It seems many of our peers have single accounts to monitor their articles as well. I have just posted updates to the Lexington Partners article. Please let me know if you would like to discuss those before changing the information. Or please let me know if I should reach out to a certain department within Wikipedia to discuss the changes. Thanking you in advance for your continued cooperation, RRDNJ10 Thank you for your response. We would like to work with you in ensuring the Wikipedia article is accurate and informative.
 * First of all, I don't think your statement about single purpose accounts is accurate. If you think there are articles that are overly promotional in tone, I would certainly go through and make changes as necessary.  However, your edits certainly do appear to be constructing the story you want to present which is not the purpose of this forum.  That is the purpose of your website.  I spend a lot of time with this particular section of Wikipedia and try very hard to strike the right balance between permitting firms from making appropriate edits to their own articles and turning articles into extensions of their website.  For example, you radically changed the historical transactions section, removing cited publicly disclosed transactions.  That appears to me to be very difficult to reconcile with the objectives of this project.  Lastly, I don't think that a link to an article can be a violation of copyright.  I am very sympathetic to your issues so what I would suggest is if you would like to list your issues below I will incorporate those into the article in a balanced way.  As you can imagine Wikipedia's goal is to be neutral and balanced and above all factual.  Hopefully this will be satisfactory for you. |►  ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 22:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have made some changes incorporating many of your factual edits. |►  ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 00:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

With respect to copyright infringement, this is something we have discussed with the many trade publications we subscribe to and here is a note regarding use/posting of articles: “© PEI Media Ltd. All rights reserved. Content on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of PEI Media or in the case of third party content, the owner of that content. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content. You may download material from this site (one machine readable copy and one print copy per page) for your personal, non-commercial use only.” Article in Endnote 1 is a pdf and contains a handwritten edit, therefore infringing copyright laws. Several endnotes also link to an error page as opposed to an actual article.

Wikipedia is not the proper forum for investment performance statistics, and after much research we respectfully request it be removed. 1) It does not add to the reader’s knowledge of who Lexington Partners is as a firm and its removal would not effect the editorial balance of the article. 2) Upon review of our peers’ Wikipedia articles and those of other private equity firms, we noted no performance information is listed, including those that are publicly available. 3) Furthermore, the returns listed on the CalPERS website are calculated by CalPERS and do not reflect overall fund performance.

Please also remove the first two sentences of the third paragraph of the investment program section. 1) The first sentence is factually incorrect. 2) There is no basis for the second sentence.

Regarding historical transactions, they are mostly confidential and out of the respect for the privacy of our sellers we purposely choose not to disclose them on any materials, regardless of what is available publicly. We would rather disclose notable milestones for the firm as our peers have been able to do.

We believe the facts and tone of our edits are consistent with those of our peers and other Wikipedia articles. This article was started without our knowledge or consent. We do not wish to make this an extension of our website, but we do want it to be accurate.

Unfortunately, the article is not satisfactory for Lexington Partners. We will revert the changes to our last posting. If we are unable to collaborate and reach agreement we will request that Wikipedia removes the article completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.69.196 (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have made some further changes to be as fair as possible but again the subject of an article is typically not afforded the ability to censor or dictate the material included in an article. I have at times come into similar discussions with other firms and tell them exactly what I have told you.  If a firm slips something through it will be reversed in time but we are only human and at the current moment I am dealing with your major edits to your firm's articles.  To be accomodating, I have temporarily removed some of Calpers information because it is outdated but this is publicly available information that has been commented on publicly.  If you are unhappy with that information being made available publicly I suggest you take it up with Calpers.  I believe all of my actions are consistent with wikipedia's policies whereas your edits are merely an attempt to customize the article to your liking.  Every transaction listed is in the public sphere and is cited and again if it is in the public sphere it is not confidential.  And linking to pages does not appear to be inconsistent with copyright restrictions and is consistent with Wikipedia policies.  It would not be constructive for you to simply revert the changes in the article.  Please review Dispute resolution if you have questions and feel free to seek out additional perspectives Requests for mediation.  I don't think you will find a lot of sympathetic ears within Wikipedia to a company looking to write its own article. |►  ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  •  TALK  ◄| 23:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)