Talk:Rich Riley

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rich Riley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for //log-me-on.com/learn_more.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear Rayman and fellow Wikipedians,

We removed the COI because we removed any and all material that does not have a factual source. In terms of conflict of interest, that is exactly why we have assured every fact here has source material. You can clearly view this in the edits o mn the site and the editorial we removed.

As an example: We had a picture of a Bloomberg broadcast on which Mr. Riley appeared, and we went through the trouble of getting it approved by the show to use, and the user Rayman not only removed it but told me I don't have permission, which is incorrect. We sent permissions to Wikipedia when we posted. This is just one example; in addition, we removed quotes that had source material to attempt to adhere to proper guidelines.

We are dealing with this on a weekly basis, and ultimately we are just trying to update the page to reflect Mr. Riley’s experience, accomplishments and up-to-date biography - while adhering to the Wikipedia standards. Any help from the Wiki Community in resolving these issues would be greatly appreciated.

conflict of interest

This article has had numerous issues including neutrality and SPAs with a seemingly COI agenda. I have added COI tags many times and they have constantly been removed with no justification. Advising User:Rampage45 to check the guidance on this issue and not to remove the tags without giving their reasons here. Rayman60 (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Rayman and fellow Wikipedians,

We removed the COI because we removed any and all material that does not have a factual source. In terms of conflict of interest, that is exactly why we have assured every fact here has source material. You can clearly view this in the edits o mn the site and the editorial we removed.

As an example: We had a picture of a Bloomberg broadcast on which Mr. Riley appeared, and we went through the trouble of getting it approved by the show to use, and the user Rayman not only removed it but told me I don't have permission, which is incorrect. We sent permissions to Wikipedia when we posted. This is just one example; in addition, we removed quotes that had source material to attempt to adhere to proper guidelines.

We are dealing with this on a weekly basis, and ultimately we are just trying to update the page to reflect Mr. Riley’s experience, accomplishments and up-to-date biography - while adhering to the Wikipedia standards. Any help from the Wiki Community in resolving these issues would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.176.21.237 (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The need for references and factually correct information is not independent of the COI policy. You can see the concern when the COI person removes the tags repeatedly and aggressively. I'm not sure if you've read through the WP:COI but unless there's a serious reason (e.g. blatently libellous) to urgently remove something, you should refrain from editing the article and either raise issues in the talk page or ask for assistance from other editors. Please review the guideline and if you need any assistance in its interpretation, please visit WP:Teahouse. Rayman60 (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

We understand the need for references and factually correct information/flags are independent of the COI policy.

We have removed the COI tags because we corrected the information and gave unbiased third-party sources - and by posting mere correct and sourced facts about his experience, achievements and biography, in turn, both the COI and UNsourced data flags are rendered moot. We are trying in every manner, to let you know that, and apologize if you felt it was aggressive; we just want it to be up-to-date and accurate. We made sure ALL the material is properly sourced, SOLELY BASED ON YOUR COMPLAINTS. Can you please remove the flag? You can cleary see all the material. We have assured it is all compliant with Wiki. You have aggressively said there is a COI without naming it. We corrected data and all sources. We did not remove a flag as a treatment to the fact we are trying to resolve with compromise and proper language. Thank you Rayman, we genuinely appreciate your help and assistance in getting this resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rampage45 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Rampage45: when you write "we" above, who do you mean? Please be aware that a Wikipedia account should only be used by one person. Maproom (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

It was just word choice, as the original letter addressed the community, and I was referencing the third-party sources we did garner approvals from. Please rest assured that I am the sole person editing in this case, and I wrote that reply in a bit of a haste so as to expedite this process. Apologies for the confusion, and thanks for your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rampage45 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

No, it isn't word choice. You are not here to reflect "Mr. Riley's" anything, because you're not referring to "Mr. Riley" in a non-neutral manner. No one uses "we" as a singular entity when they are an actual singular entity, unless you happen to be HRH Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain or the like. You have been notified of the COI discussion. Please go to that board and respond there. Until such time as the matter has been resolved, let's leave the article alone. MSJapan (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

page deletion

Thanks for the message you left on my talk page. I was unaware there were issues until I read the talk page here. I took a quick look at the history of the page and cannot see where there was a consensus for not having the page or the deletion discussion. Is there a link you can send me for that? In the meantime, I restored the page as I cannot find the consensus. I apologize if there is a deletion discussion I did not see.--CraigOv (talk) 01:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't see a consensus anywhere. Just because you say there is doesn't make it true. I'm also not edit warring. I read the guidelines for this and I am simply disagreeing with your edit. If you want a consensus to redirect, then get one. Currently you want to revert probably due to past issues with the page above, but that has nothing that do with consensus. I read the guideline and I'm following it. If you don't like it, recommend deletion and get a consensus to edit the page so you feel it meets your standards , but unilaterally deciding such isn't right. I also read the message on my talk page for COI. I am not the subject, related to the subject at all, nor am I connected to the company. I came here to create the page as there wasn't one already. Now I see that I am surely not welcome. --CraigOv (talk) 02:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Multiple editors have agreed to redirect here. That is consensus. Now please refrain and stop POV pushing, otherwise you will be blocked. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)