Talk:Reynolds and Reynolds

Untitled

The fact that Bob Brockman of UCS will become the Chairman of the combined companies is detailed in the document that I linked to under "wholly owned subsidary of Universal Computer Systems". Note, this is on the Reynolds and Reynolds site. It is documented and referenced. There is no reason to delete it. Dipics 19:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Reynolds and Reynolds has been taken private and is no longer listed on the NYSE. 69.205.159.11 02:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Reynolds Logo.jpg

Image:Reynolds Logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Total Rewrite

I completed a total rewrite of this article; it read as if it was written by a company employee and an advertisement. It also left out a lot of details about the recent merger and activity within the company. --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

- It doesn't look like this was done in a neutral voice at all. Actually it looks more like someone with an axe to grind. How do you flag something for review? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.233.75 (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles are reviewed every time they are read. You're welcome to modify the article to make it more neutral. It might help a little if you create an account to edit through, but that's not required for now. Leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions. -charleca (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Anon - it would help if you write under a real account. Can you please point out what exactly/specifically in the article is inaccurate and written by someone "with an axe to grind?" --Virgil Vaduva (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Additions

In 2008 the company was ranked tied for the second worst ranking on Glassdoor."Who's the Lowest of them All? Glassdoor Reports Companies with Lowest Overall Ratings". Glassdoor. 2008-12-29. Retrieved 2009-01-21.

That site is not reliable. I asked on the reliable sources noticeboard and they agreed. 206.180.44.25 (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I have a financial connection with Reynolds and have added a conflict of interest disclosure template on the top of the Talk page. Glassdoor's ratings are not reliable, because they are crowd-sourced, but they do publish reports sometimes that offer profiles of organizations, including their history, that I think are reliable enough to be used. A blog is probably not all that reliable, however. CorporateM (Talk) 16:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Department of Labor Sanctions

I was surprised that the DoL's $500,000+ fine of UCS for overtime violations wasn't listed. Since UCS appears to no longer have an article, that particular detail fell off Wikipedia. That was part of Brockman's motivations for the name swap, iirc. (yes, yes, npov. it's a talk page, I kept it out of the article itself.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.91.164.7 (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft

As previously discussed here this article's history suggests competing edits adding excessive criticisms and philanthropy respectively. The end result is that only about half the article is encyclopedic material with strong secondary sources.

I've created a draft at Talk:Reynolds and Reynolds/Draft for consideration that I believe would resolve this and bring the article up to GA quality. I was hoping a disinterested and uninvolved editor might be willing to take a look at it. I'm happy to go through it section by section or whatever is easiest. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 18:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• As I mentioned elsewhere, I like this draft better than the current version, though I'll add that this was a cursory reading. Specifically the sections about the issues after the merger and the corporate fluff (philanthropy) are, IMO, unencyclopedic. Drmies (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Drmies: I just culled-out most of the local sources from the draft, as you suggested on your Talk page and given the entire draft another round of copyedits. It's worth noting that relying less heavily on local sources means almost eliminating the content about post-merger criticisms from employees, currently located under the "Merger issues" section. I have done some poking around and haven't been able to find any strong national sources about it, besides the one I left in there. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 06:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the talk page draft was better than the current version and have thus replaced the current version with the draft. There was one issue I'd ask David King to check: There were two different references named "new", the one still so named and the very last one (which I renamed to resolve the conflict). Are now all instances of <ref name="new" /> referring to the right source? Huon (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Huon:!! I will double check the sources to verify this week. There are a couple others I'd love your help with, but I'd understand if you're busy! I'll check that source as soon as I'm done wrestling with Wikidata. CorporateM (Talk) 19:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to chime in that I'm the "some random employee" in question and I'm totally happy with the rewrite. There was a ton of nonsense in the article before. 206.180.44.25 (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Bob Brockman notable enough for dedicated page

Should this individual have a dedicated page?

‘Largest-Ever Tax Charge' might breach the notability threshold.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-15/tech-mogul-brockman-indicted-on-tax-evasion-laundering-charges TuffStuffMcG (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

https://www.smh.com.au/national/australian-barrister-denies-us20m-theft-from-a-billionaire-s-trust-20200522-p54vl6.html TuffStuffMcG (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily-tax-report/billionaire-robert-smith-fighting-u-s-criminal-tax-inquiry

This is the third source TuffStuffMcG (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

https://www.ft.com/content/1cfea1c4-1305-4418-b1e2-60714db3e02d TuffStuffMcG (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

There is now a link to create the Brockman page on Robert Smith's page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Smith_(investor) TuffStuffMcG (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)