User talk:CorporateM/Archive 13

I despair of ever getting through to this publicist's assistant who's shilling for a client

Could you take a look at User talk: Psmithpr? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done It's interesting that I find myself much more willing to assist other PR contributors that work for agencies. Because a corporate rep will only ever contribute to the one article, it's not worth our time to train them. Do you know if this person is notable? CorporateM (Talk) 22:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The deleted version was a smarm-fest; the actor is too obscure to qualify, in my humble opinion. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Invention

Hello, CorporateM. You are invited to join WikiProject Invention, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of inventions and invention-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Matthew Bryden

Hi CorporateM, thanks for your input on this. I take your point about my initial suggestion; needless to say I have a few more in regard to this article – some of which are technicalities, e.g. the section: '...in his April 2008 report he alleged that a U.S. missile strike against terrorist targets violated the embargo...' – comparing the second page of the April report with the second page of the December report shows that Matthew Bryden wasn't a member of the Monitoring Group in April 2008. That report was overseen by his predecessor in that role, Bruno Schiemsky. Another inaccuracy, just for example, is the assertion that his wife, Ubax Bryden, is Somali and carries a Somaliland passport – I have a copy of her passport, which shows that she was born in Toulon and is a French national. I'll be interested to hear your views on the best way to go about this work. If you think it would be useful I could create a page in my user space for a full discussion of these and other issues. Many thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you have access to the full-text of this source: "Canadians helping with relief work in famine-hit Somalia" CorporateM (Talk) 16:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

No, afraid not. HOgilvy (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

HOgilvy What you would need to do is seek a correction with Foreign Policy Magazine, as they make it quite clear in their article that they believe the 2008 missile strike was connected to Bryden's tenure. Unfortunately they do not offer exact dates in the article. I would prefer to avoid a primary source and original research war between you and User:Middayexpress. That is not how Wikipedia works. What I would like to see is an article that relies on reliable secondary sources, with very limited use - if any - of primary sources. CorporateM (Talk) 15:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi CorporateM, sorry I did see this a while ago but haven't had time to respond – I think seeking a correction of the secondary source is reasonable course of action, particularly with a publication like Foreign Policy Magazine that will be likely to take inaccuracies seriously. I agree the last thing we want is a tit-for-tat with primary sources / original research, and I know it has gone a bit that way at times but I've been careful to keep it civil with Midday. Reliable secondary sources are needed, but they must be reliable and they must fully support what's being said in the article. HOgilvy (talk) 11:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

IMO, you are wasting your time (and ours) lobbying against Inner City Press as a reliable source. While you and your client may feel strongly, ultimately your obligation to your client is to focus on areas where you will be productive. When you make obviously self-serving arguments that are not in-keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia's rules, this will damage your credibility as a "good-faith" participant and will ultimately lead to more resistance, defensiveness, hostility and/or a lack of cooperation.

Given that there was "consensus enough" that there are significant WP:BLP problems on the Talk page, I found it a little inappropriate for User:Middayexpress to continue to revert me here, despite all the feedback we got, including editors saying there was no need to discuss it "one sentence at a time". I was even more surprised that User:Lexein or someone else didn't revert him back. But if nobody else does the reverting, than it is inappropriate for me to get into an edit-war just between the two of us.

When an editor insists on making BLP violations against consensus, they can be blocked, though it would be much more practical to just use page protection. You could ask an admin like User:OrangeMike how to proceed with such a request. CorporateM (Talk) 12:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there was no consensus for a wholesale replacement of the existing page with your unformatted subpage. In fact, Drmies stated on his userpage stated that he believed that many of my edits were more appropriate. Another editor also first recommended that the discussion needed to slow down, with issues broken down into small parts for analysis and agreement. And he is of course right. Instead of encouraging less discussion, it would be more sensible to recommend posting a neutral summary on the relevant WikiProject Somalia and WikiProject Eritrea project pages if wider input is needed. Per WP:COI, the HOgilvy account would of course in the process have to reveal his conflict of interest as Bryden's Bell Pottinger public relations representative. Middayexpress (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd actually agree with that, and would of course register my COI as appropriate. And CorporateM, I'm sorry if you think my arguments regarding ICP have been self-serving but I can't see how they've been unreasonable and I think Drmies feels there's at least a weight issue with that source. My other main concern (and again I think Drmies has noticed this as well) is that we still haven't seen a reliable source that explicitly states Bryden was fired from his UN role. The ICP article just mentions his "departure".

Regarding the 60 Minutes camera crew, there's another source I think should be looked at which is this article on iol.co.za, which gives the two journalists' side of that story. HOgilvy (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Clear and obvious consensus is rarely achieved anywhere. It's common when an editor feels strongly about something for them to say there is not enough consensus, and of course there is no consensus for the current either. If such an overwhelming consensus is needed, it would take mounting a substantial community effort on an unimportant article. This is why in most cases editors just take input from others and act in good-faith to implement changes based on the discussion. However, if there were a half-dozen editors that supported using primary sources to add controversial content about a BLP, this would only be more reason to protect the page.

Midday has a habit of pointing out HOgilvy's COI repeatedly, however their COI is already disclosed, so this just comes across as general badgering. If HOgilvy continues to make unreasonable requests and insist on changes there is limited support for, I am content on simply ignoring such requests.

I think you are both latching on to User:Drmies' comments, because they are an outlier that supports your respective positions. It would be rare if everyone's comments were uniform. That doesn't mean his comments should be ignored, but edits should be reflective of the discussion as-a-whole. CorporateM (Talk) 15:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not actually making any requests, I'm just pointing things out and largely being ignored anyway. Yes, Midday does have a habit of referring to my COI but that doesn't bother me, why would it? I've disclosed it and I'll continue to disclose it. I'm not requesting changes, I'm asking fair questions and presenting new sources in the hope of prompting a reasonable discussion and that doesn't seem to be happening. HOgilvy (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You say you are being ignored, but this is not the case at all. In fact, every comment you've made has received a prompt response, usually within hours. I think what you mean is that edits are not being made on the basis of your suggestions and that is a frustrating experience, especially if you believe your edits are correct and proper, but you are being prevented from "correcting" the article.

There is a certain degree of defensiveness regarding your COI that is correct and proper for us to have, however I think what you mean is that you do not think your suggestions are being considered thoughtfully based on their merit, but are rather being treated dismissively and with excessive prejudice regarding your COI. CorporateM (Talk) 16:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I think there's an element of that perhaps but I'm not overly concerned or surprised by it, and actually looking back at the talk page you're right, most of my points have been answered, but I'm still waiting to see some sources that say explicitly that Bryden was fired/dismissed (rather than it being inferred as being as a consequence of complaints against him), and it would also be good for someone to take a look at the iol.co.za article, which is at odds with the notion that Bryden "threatened" the camera crew. In fact, according to this source he wasn't present when they were arrested and arrived "days later" to interview them:

Days later, Matt Bryden, co-ordinator of the UN Security Council’s Monitoring Group on Somalia, arrived to question them, at the request of the Somaliland authorities. Bryden said there was a UN embargo on transporting military goods into Somalia and the clothing on the aircraft was considered military goods.

“He said: ‘You’re under arrest and you’ve been charged. If I don’t agree with your story, I will report back to them precisely that. If I say you are what you say you are, I will say that, and the problem will be solved.’ After an hour-and-a-half he said he was satisfied with our story. ‘I can see you are in the wrong place at the wrong time and I will communicate that to the Somali authorities. You should be out of here soon’. Then he left.

“We heard nothing until the next night; the CID guys came back and took us to an appaling place that was dark, dirty, smelly, with a bare bulb on a cord and said: ‘This is where you are staying.’

“We were at a pretty low point as clearly things had taken a turn for the worse.”

But after a short while, they were marched out of the building to the Safari Hotel where they were left for eight days.

“We made friends with the waiters, fine guys, and they brought us the best pawpaws and mangoes.”

Meanwhile Bryden had travelled to South Africa and was in contact with the South African and Somali authorities and both men’s families.

“He was keeping us all sane. He’s the most amazing man,” he said.

Obviously I'm not suggesting we quote the journalist as saying Matthew Bryden is an "amazing man", but doesn't this article at least warrant consideration? HOgilvy (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

This one seems reasonable to me. As discussed, the level of detail of the source is a factor and it's normal for the media to use sensational language like "threatened", however, Wikipedia does not always share the seem editorial objectives as its source material. Some adjustments are probably needed there. CorporateM (Talk) 17:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• My little ears are turning red. It would be interesting to see how FP responds to such a request--has it happened? This revert, there is so much going on that it's hard for me to say what's what. It's water under the bridge by now, I suppose. But speaking generally, I think Midday's version looks better, but Corporate's version relies less on less-reliable and possibly partial sources. I don't know right now where the article is at; I may have a look later if y'all want me too. I think I can claim being an objective observer here.

  I note also that the ref given above by HOgilvy, the article from the Independent Online (South Africa), significantly alters what the account in the article should have--I note that the IOL article does not seem to have been used for the FP piece, and I note also that the phrasing in the FP piece is tendentious and suggestive: "almost as if by magic" suggests collusion. "... threatened the two South African passengers. That is, until he discovered that the two "mercenaries" were in fact a well-known 60 Minutes camera team" is even more suggestive: the IOL piece says nothing about "well-known", for instance, and gives a completely opposite view of the events. Where FP suggests that Bryden backs down because he discovers the two are journalists, the IOL article says nothing about some predisposition on his part and focuses on his ascertaining that the two are not mercenaries. I have no reason to believe that IOL is not objective, and my earlier remarks (somewhere...) that the FP piece is argumentative (not necessarily a bad thing) lead me to think that, given that this is a BLP, and if these are the two most reliable sources that we have, we should err on the side of caution--that is, on the side of protection for the subject.

  I hope this is helpful. I know more about this now than I cared for, I suppose, but that's OK. I still hope we can all meet in the middle somewhere, keeping with the goals of Wikipedia: protecting a BLP and simultaneously not whitewashing anything. (Do I need to say that I'm not accusing anyone of BLP violations or of whitewashing?) Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind removing the Qarshe and Saryan pieces for the reasons explained on the tp. However, the South African publication quoted above isn't exactly reliable (c.f. [1]). Middayexpress (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like a good discussion for the Talk page of the article. Naturally on controversial topics, there are going to be a lot of secondary sources with a widely different account of the facts. This requires good judgement to sort out to the best of our ability. I am not convinced Bryden is such a bad guy. I note the book Drmies provided points out the counter-point that Puntland genuinely did increase their piracy activity during that time frame, so it's quite likely the accusations of bias were made (or exaggerated) to defend themselves against his rightful criticisms. However, neutral, secondary sources will offer both sides of the story (or at least a proper weight of it).

I am not sure I have the level of interest to get into that level of detail. However, the discussion should focus on reliable, secondary sources. WP:BLP explicitly states that primary sources cannot be used for contentious material. Discussion about secondary sources is generally desireable; primary sources used to support controversial information should be removed immediately, without discussion, per WP:BLP. CorporateM (Talk) 18:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Matthew Bryden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ambassador Hotel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Proactiv

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Proactiv you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of LT910001 -- LT910001 (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Request

If you have any time I'd appreciate any feedback you have on an essay I've just published. Even a good proofreading would be helpful but other input and edits are also welcomed. It's called WP:POV RAILROAD. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel like you are dropping me a hint - just not sure what it is ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 16:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For long track record of improving business articles and working with new editors to explain the COI policy. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!! I'm not known for being very diplomatic, but I'm getting better at it. ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 20:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

CorporateM - please explain your removing content on the American Academy of Art Website...

Hi. I'm Jason Sherman. I work with the American Academy of Art. The school approved and provided the new content that I edited and placed on its Wikipedia page. You have removed nearly all of it. Can you please explain your actions and re-place my edits and additions to the Academy's website? Thanks, I appreciate it. You can reach me directly at jason@shermancm.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.167.213 (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• From a talk page stalker: the edits introduced in this series are simply not acceptable: the tone is highly not-neutral, a list of alumnus award winners is not of encyclopedic value, and the list of "notable faculty" seems to be just a list of faculty (with such lists, the rule is simple: no article, no entry). I fully support CorporateM's trimming of content. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I think Jason is a little confused is all. Wikipedia is not like a Twitter handle where the company has control of the content. This is a common misconception. A better comparison is that Wikipedia is like a crowd-sourced version of The New York Times. So if you follow that analogy to its resolution, you see how irritating it is to the site's "journalists" when companies think they have a right to control the article. CorporateM (Talk) 19:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk page stalkers

Per my usual broadcast for anyone who is interested in stalking my PR contributions, I've posted a draft at: Talk:NextWorth_Solutions and advertised it at COIN. This is a pretty straightforward article about a small(ish) company with mostly mundane, non-controversial information about how they were founded, what they do, etc. I am proposing a Reception section that is a bit mixed as well. CorporateM (Talk) 22:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Another one here for Monster (company) CorporateM (Talk) 17:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

And another one here for Noodles & Company CorporateM (Talk) 21:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

My Edits

Do you mind me asking why you haven't assumed good faith? I would have hoped that by reading the article that it would have been clear a number of COI's have edited over the last few years. I come along and try to improve the article and take out the pure slander (which isn't encyclopedic), and I get tarred with the same brush as a sockpuppet? Verdict78 (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

In fact, I have a suggestion to try and turn this into a positive conversation. After viewing your userpage, like you I get annoyed by COI and single purpose accounts. Please tell me how I can help you in stopping this. I would actually like to help. As you can see on another article I was attempting to stop a merger on, it was in a revert war against a single purpose editor, but I didn't have a clue what to do. If you check my history you should be able to see what I mean. While I'm not happy with the accusation you made, I hope we can move past that. Verdict78 (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

My knowledge of your COI comes from the real-world, not on-wiki and I'm quite confident in my assessment. Your ploy is exploitive of AGF and the fact that you go out of your way to deny when I know it is the case just shows how bad-faith your paid editing operation is.

Now, normally I wouldn't get involved, but in this case you jumped into an article I was previously involved in and no other editor seemed to be watching it closely. CorporateM (Talk) 15:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, CorporateM. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Orphaned non-free image File:Noodles&Company billboard.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Noodles&Company billboard.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Blurred Lines 22:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Noodles&Company billboard.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Noodles&Company billboard.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Orange Mike | Talk 22:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Probably a good call. The ad is an example, but is not itself famous. Trying to describe an ad in-text is painful, but it probably doesn't meet the requirements for a non-free image. CorporateM (Talk) 22:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for asking!

Hi CorporateM, thanks for inviting my help on SAS (software). I'm currently in the middle of enough projects that I shouldn't really add another one, but I'm definitely still around as a Wikipedia editor in general. :) Dreamyshade (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh good! I was afraid the experience with Cantaloupe had pushed you away. I'll try to find someone else with an interest in enterprise software. CorporateM (Talk) 22:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk page stalkers

Per my usual broadcast for anyone who wants to stalk my PR contributions, I have submitted a substantial expansion of the article on WhitePages.com here in my PR role and highlighted two criticisms where my COI is more potent where a disinterested editor may want to take a closer look. Other than those, it's a pretty mundane page on a software and data company. CorporateM (Talk) 13:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Code 42 Software

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Code 42 Software you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Moswento -- Moswento (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Somalia Report

Hi CorporateM, many thanks for your message on my talk page regarding the Somalia Report. I do understand that this is a very tricky and contentious topic (many involving Somalia are) and that different sources dealing with the same issue are a) often of questionable reliability and b) often vary wildly in their standpoint. I also appreciate your and other editors' natural suspicion of me in terms of NPOV. I hope at some point to be able to send some documentation to Wikimedia to clear up some of these issues as I firmly believe, my role as Bryden's representative aside, that there are misrepresentations here that are inevitable given the limitations of the available sources. Politics in Somalia, as I said early on in my COI declaration, is (unsurprisingly given the last two decades of its history) deeply divisive and often very hostile, and, again my COI aside, I do have concerns about Midday's neutrality. I'm loathe to resort to an ad hominem attack (as he has felt himself at liberty to do many times with regard to my position), but this page in particular, which discusses Somaliland's eligibility for classification as a state under the Montevideo Convention and includes an exhaustive debate on the reliability of 'pro-Somaliland' sources, I feel demonstrates his strong bias against Somaliland, and goes some way to explaining his resistance the whole the way through this process to any criticism of op-eds expressing the view that Bryden is against peace in Somalia and that he somehow abused his position to further the cause of Somaliland independence. Primary sources show that he is a far more neutral observer of Somali affairs than the current article suggests, but to infer this from those sources is original research so it's check mate. I don't see a way round it. HOgilvy (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, any editor that contributes to controversial topics can expect a combative environment on Wikipedia. POV pushers are often the most determined to have their viewpoints represented and they will often win against less determined casual participants. Yes, as you point out, we can only repeat what's available in secondary sources. I agree with an observation I've seen User:DGG make a few times, that PR reps (in most cases) are one of the most prolific POV pushers, but the least determined, because they rarely have the same time resources to devote when compared to determined volunteers. CorporateM (Talk) 03:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Very true! I must say though you're the only editor I've encountered so far who's open about their role as a PR rep (and I appreciate you contribute in both capacities, as a PR and as a volunteer). HOgilvy (talk) 09:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The community prefers it. It is easier to justify the time investment in helping someone that is paid to be here if that person also contributes back to the community. It also shows a degree of commitment to becoming a quality contributor and helps an editor gain perspective. As a PR rep you will make certain arguments that are common COI problems, but not realize it or understand why editors are irritable about it. But then when you switch roles, you act as they did and understand. CorporateM (Talk) 13:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Squadron

Hi, thanks for coming by, but the NPOV tag clearly states it should not be removed until the dispute is resolved. And.... if you had checked the talk page you would have seen that numerous POV issues are currently unresolved and under discussion. I think I'm going to coin the term, "drive by un-tagging". Anyway I've replaced the tag and you are welcome to join the talk page discussion :-) Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

If we tagged every article that was imperfect, we would need to tag all of them. For an article to be tagged, the problem should be substantial. CorporateM (Talk) 02:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

There may be some truth to that but in this case the POV pushing is there and is more obvious as one reads the sources. In any case if you would indulge me on this one for a little while I'd appreciate it and you are still invited and welcome to edit and participate on the talk page etc. as the clean up proceeds. Peace! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Trilantic

Hi there, I've left some notes for you in the Talk section the other day. When you get a chance could you let me know your thoughts, please? Many thanks Kt1502 (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks M - please see for my response. I've noticed a few errors. Kt1502 (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, CorporateM. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Your GA nomination of Code 42 Software

The article Code 42 Software you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Code 42 Software for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Moswento -- Moswento (talk) 08:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Wall Street Magnate was accepted

Wall Street Magnate, 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.

• 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 .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Payten5301 (talk) 03:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Cool, so you feel they meet the notability bar? CorporateM (Talk) 03:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

AfC Harold Brierley

Please see my response to your notes on the nomination for speedy deletion: Harold Brierley.

Separately: In regards to your edits on the existing AfC page. With all due respect, your rewrites don't form a cohesive paragraph, and butcher the facts. I implore you to allow me to return the full text sans the bibliography (redundant). It was far more detailed and clear. Please discuss changes and with me and allow me to edit before you destroy the text. Perhaps you could place markers to show me what you think is wrong before you make such drastic changes. I don't wildly go through your texts and make unsubstantiated cuts. Please show similar respect and wait for a conscensus. Thank you. TylerHayleyOgilvyOne (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)TylerHayleyOgilvyOne

@User:TylerHayleyOgilvyOne The article consisted almost entirely of poor and primary sources. I do not think your efforts here will be a good use of your time. If an article is to exist on him at all, a single paragraph would be adequate and it would not include the award that is the basis for your contributing, but is only covered in primary sources. Angry flailing like this is just part of the process of learning to contribute with a COI. Over time, you will learn that it is not an effective way to serve your clients. CorporateM (Talk) 14:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Look, as I told you before, I am not serving any clients. I would appreciate you leaving the integrity of the information on the Harold Brierley page intact. It is my contribution and I believe you are going too far in your edits. Obviously you are not being objective. For example, you chose to eliminate the section about his fraternity, yet that directly lead to his first business enterprise. It is important. The page is small. You have negated lots of hard research. If you want to pillage a page go do it on Richard Branson's. Please cease to edit the page and I will leave it in the condensed form as far as my latest edit. That is reasonable enough. Are you going to really be that distraught if an extra few sentences make it on to Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TylerHayleyOgilvyOne (talk • contribs) 15:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

You will need to use the Talk page of the article and be specific about the proposed text and the suggested source. CorporateM (Talk) 15:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

All of the sources are there. Spend a minute. Read how I have it. Look at the source material. It's all validated. It's nothing malicious. It's not going to ruin Wikipedia to provide a date of graduation, or to acknowledge others that were involved in the first frequent flier rewards program. The fact that you contest that claim shows you have no idea what the material is. It is a FACT. It was the first one to give rewards based on mileage. Have of the sources list him as the pioneer of AAdvantage. You're the only one who thinks otherwise. Keep an open mind. I have compromised a lot, how about a concession on your part? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TylerHayleyOgilvyOne (talk • contribs) 15:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I did not actually see "first" in the source and whether the source (a college paper) is strong enough to support such a significant claim would also be up for debate. Again, you will need to use the Talk page of the article and wait for discussion. Please note that our policy is to focus on the content, not attack editors, and such behavior is sometimes grounds for being blocked. Just chill out and wait for User:OrangeMike to decide how to handle it. Hopefully the article is at least protected, so any changes can be discussed. CorporateM (Talk) 16:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Proactiv

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Proactiv you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Edge3 -- Edge3 (talk) 02:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! CorporateM (Talk) 02:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I saw your edits and appreciate your quick response to my suggestions! I will be providing additional comments soon. I usually don't do a comprehensive review at once, but rather spread out my review over several days. Hopefully we can get this done within one week. Edge3 (talk) 02:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I started reading your "Active Ingredients" section, but I'm feeling sick tonight so I'll review it tomorrow or later. Edge3 (talk) 03:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for such a thorough GA review and get better soon. CorporateM (Talk) 04:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm fine now, after sleeping well last night. I've reviewed your new paragraphs. Edge3 (talk) 04:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Credit rating agency - History

Greetings, CorporateM. I don't know if you are still interested in the Credit rating agency article, but this week I have proposed (original post is here) a new "History" section (draft is here) which I believe would be an asset to the article. If you have time, would you be willing to read it and consider adding it to the article? Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't remember having an interest in the article, but I edit a lot of pages, mostly on businesses and marketing topics. I don't think I have the stomach to tackle an article on credit rating agencies and having been asked to help other COIs a lot recently, I'm a bit puttered out. Working with COIs can be very draining - it often involves a dose of drama because I rarely make the edits they want me to make. You might want to try user:Pine, who has an interest in financial articles I think. CorporateM (Talk) 19:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Just wanted to inform you of this discussion in case you would like to participate.[2]

• Yelp Inc., a highly controversial company forever being dragged into all manner of litigation, has a paid editor working actively on the article. I am not aware of any articles being written about it. BP and Chevron's paid editors were the subject of publicity and those editors continued their good work for the company, undeterred.-- Coretheapple
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Despite the sensational depiction, User:Coretheapple is basically correct. Yelp has been involved in litigation, there are some controversial elements, and they do have a paid editor working to improve the article... It's natural for editors to focus on shaming disclosed PR reps, because we make ourselves easy targets. It's much more work to go after the others. However, it is not unreasonable for editors to intelligently pursue the discussion and level of comfort with disclosed Talk page participation. I hope he doesn't turn into a another stalker and harassment case like the now-banned user Cantaloupe2 though.

One obvious difference from the BP case is that the Yelp page is almost entirely written by Keithbob at this point with copyedits and input from myself, rather than copy/pasted without any independent research and editing. One problem is that any editor that wants to shame a company can present a skewed version of events on User:Jimbo's Talk page and a "thoughtful" discussion will not necessarily be what ensues, rather than an angry and misled mob.

Luckily this article has a subject-matter expert User:Wikidemon involved and heavy involvement from yourself, which is a much better scenario than many company articles where there are no volunteers with enough interest to participate in a substantive way. CorporateM (Talk) 16:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I did notice I have gotten sloppy about adding the COI disclosure template. I am going to add it to a few that I have missed. CorporateM (Talk) 02:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I am certainly not attempting to "shame" any editor and I would hope that my concern regarding paid editors would not be seen as such. Never-the-less, I have a question about the Proactiv article which I put on my watch list a few weeks ago. I note that on the talk page you have called yourself a PR person for the company and just a few days ago you added a COI disclosure template. At what point in your editing of that article did you begin to accept payment for your editing? Gandydancer (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I have never edited Proactiv on a volunteer basis - only where I have a COI. Coretheapple did bring to my attention that several of my COI disclosures had been archived, so I added the template to a few articles where it was missing - in case new editors show up that are confused or misled. That's my bad - obviously a simple template should be added to avoid any confusion. It is going through a GA review if you care to participate here.

I also noticed the Proactiv Talk page archives don't seem to be working properly.

Yes, I think Wikipedians should be uncomfortable about it and companies should too. If someone is not uncomfortable, I consider that the most obvious sign that something is being done wrong. I endorse discomfort on all sides. CorporateM (Talk) 14:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done The Talk page archives were left behind on the Proactiv Solution page after the article was moved to just "Proactiv". I've restored them on the new page. You would think article-moves would include the archives pages, but I guess they do not. Please let me know if you have any other concerns, questions or comments. CorporateM (Talk) 14:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Proactiv

The article Proactiv you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Proactiv for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Edge3 -- Edge3 (talk) 04:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I see that the article was actually passed, not failed. Must be the bot picking up on the prior nomination. CorporateM (Talk) 04:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Well-deserved. Thanks for all your good work and persistence on that article. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Honestly, every shred of appreciation I get around here means the world to me. Doing good work with a COI is incredibly difficult. CorporateM (Talk) 12:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention uncomfortable. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

If it is done right, it is uncomfortable. It should be. But most PR reps are far too comfortable. I sort of kid sometimes that somehow I stay in business despite having a roster filled with unhappy customers. Obviously, if clients were 100% satisfied, I would be doing something wrong right?

I am a hypocrite because I am a paid editor that opposes paid editing - because my real-world experiences have only taught me that in the vast majority of cases, it can't be done to Wikipedia's betterment. The BrightLine doesn't seem to prevent COI edits, because critical editors don't participate and AGF extremist will post anything that is asked of them.

The best way forward is for every article to have a GA guarantee, so editors are confident the article will be made exceptional, even if not perfect at first and to enforce my Statement of Ethics with such extreme stringency, that I can prove myself a trust-worthy anomaly in the paid editing market filled with less beneficial participants. CorporateM (Talk) 14:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I think your approach is the answer to all the hullabaloo over paid advocacy/editing. Please keep going. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

COI and CRA

CorporateM, in looking at your edit history I find that you make a regular habit of directly editing articles about brands who are your paying clients. In one instance you justified a direct edit because it "seems so clearly counter-COI, I don't think anyone would accuse me of impropriety for it." That may be so. And yet this is latitude you appear unwilling to grant me on an article that is not about even about a brand. Do you not find it ironic that I, who work in the industry, wish to restore a "Criticism" section? I find it strange and likely inappropriate that you are discouraging me from doing what you do regularly. If I have a COI with CRAs, you have a COI with me.

Here is what I think is the best course of action: I will begin making improvements to the article, first avoiding the sections which you have worked on. Once I have completed that, I will begin comparing material you have worked on with what I had originally proposed. If your material is fine, I will leave it. If I find problems with it, I will explain. And if you have questions about changes I make, I will be willing to discuss them on the talk page. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 16:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The BrightLine is best applied with good judgement, just as all our policies, such as verification depend on the circumstance. It is not good judgment to overhaul a major business article without discussion and where editors disagree with your changes, with a COI. It may even be poor conduct if there was no COI.

You keep re-proposing that you just edit the article or that we just copy and paste your content into the article, and my answer will continue to be a resounding "no". You will have to learn to collaborate with other editors and be patient. Additionally, you will not always get your way. You are motivated to get copy included in the article that has gone through corporate approval processes, but we want an article that is developed collaboratively and organically, where you are one of many editors participating, which is the normal process.

I notice Moody's Corporation had a huge Philanthropy section using mostly primary sources, which is one of the Hallmarks of COI. It suggests to me that you do not always exercise good judgement. This is not a sign of impropriety - it is rather the whole point of COI that a conflicted editor may show poor judgement as a result of outside pressures, but may still be helpful in assisting non-conflicted editors.

The article will improve and I will help. It needs improvement and it is good of you to draw our attention to it and provide a well-referenced first draft as a starting point, but we can't just overhaul a massive and important (controversial) article in a day.

Your COI is less important than you think. It matters, but not so much. We need to spend less time talking about it and more time talking about the content. CorporateM (Talk) 16:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Harold Brierley/Ogilvy

Hi CorporateM, hope you're well. I noticed a couple of mentions of me regarding this article and its nomination for deletion due to edit-warring etc. Just to clarify: my name's Henry Ogilvy but I'm not at Ogilvy PR, I'm at Bell Pottinger. By the way I really appreciate your assessment here of my involvement on the Matt Bryden page – as you've said before it does often come down to who has the most time and/or interest. I hope at some point to be in a position to revisit that article because there has been counter-consensus editing and it could be more neutral. I like your last sentence here by the way – sums up the challenges perfectly! HOgilvy (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for the confusion. Yes, PR reps are usually happy when I take their side, and angry when I do not. I've been there too.

A bit of personal advice, if I were you I would change your username and never disclose personally identifiable information like you just did (I can ask someone to retract it if you like). The instructions are here if you choose to change your name.

The reason being that we have a lot of problems with personal attacks, harassment and stalking in general. As a disclosed PR rep, you will experience personal attacks and POV pushers that will attempt to use your COI as a weapon to win their arguments. Unfortunately, that is the environment here. However, the off-Wiki harassment can be avoided by keeping your personally identifiable information close to the chest.

Technically, there are probably many edits you could make to this page that would be acceptable as ANY editor can correct BLP problems, but I don't advise it. I think this one will likely end up needing administrative intervention, but you can see how difficult it is for any editor - COI or not - to get assistance on a website where nobody is accountable for anything. CorporateM (Talk) 17:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes I know it invites problems potentially but to avoid accusations of hidden agendas we decided to set the bar as high as possible and go for complete transparency by revealing our names on our user pages. Also, I agree there are many edits I could make that would be acceptable but we don't edit pages directly in light of Jimmy Wales's views on paid editors. We simply make suggestions. HOgilvy (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

@HOgilvy Because disclosure is a good thing, does not make extreme transparency better, but it is your choice naturally. The BrightLine will not protect you from criticism here, just as any volunteer is open to criticism, though they edit normally. The only difference is that when you have a COI, editors are more likely to interpret any poor edits you propose as being intentional, or COI-related; it is not unreasonable for them to do so.

For example, I was rather irritable that you were proposing using primary sources to add mission statements about organizations he has worked for. No regular editor would decide to add this material. The fact that another editor was about to make your edit by proxy only makes it worse.

This means you are under a lot of pressure to be a perfect editor, because even if one editor "approves" your content, another will disagree. You will find yourself under extra scrutiny here, while simultaneously clients will push you to use poor sources, cherry-pick information from sources, etc. to support their point-of-view. But each time they do that, they accept additional risks, lose relationship points and cause other problems.

Anyways, I am usually available to "help" but a look around my Talk page shows that I rarely make the edits that are asked of me and usually my PR colleagues are quite angry at me, because I don't immediately make the edits they want. You were quite frustrated at first as well, but a little calmed down now I think. The easy way out would be to work through AGF extremists who will just copy and paste your material without question, which can be fine if you're absolutely confident the content is beyond reproach. I will have a healthy amount of defensiveness and hesitation, which I think is right and proper, but like most editors am most interested in making articles better. CorporateM (Talk) 00:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

A COI will always put you under extra pressure and it can get tricky. I get where you're coming from re 'extreme transparency', although I would say that so far it's been welcomed in the case of non-controversial articles, but when it comes to the more contentious issues, well...need I say more?! I was frustrated at first because my POV opposite number had an inherent advantage and made regular personal attacks, but I have to expect that kind of response in those situations and just soak it up. I think at first you felt I was wasting everyone's time but I also hope I'm right in thinking you revised that opinion to a degree later on. I don't push a point unless I think I have one. I can understand your irritation at proposing primary sources – I was ignorant about that and I've learned a lesson there. And believe me, I regularly push back on clients who make unreasonable demands and have no problem whatsoever in doing that. I too want to leave articles in better shape than I find them and I think most editors I've worked with would say my contributions have been to that end. HOgilvy (talk) 13:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, because the original suggestion was poor, I made an assumption about the others that turned out to be incorrect. It wouldn't be the first time I made a similar error, but then like most editors I make lots of errors regularly. Now that it has become obvious that Midday is a POV pusher, I think you will see him get the same treatment. POV pushers will experience hostility here, regardless of whether their motives are financial or not. Some of the suggestions at ANI to remove criticisms entirely I think are a bit of overcompensation.

It does feel like you are treated differently, but we would also keep POV pushers out of article-space if we could and it's possible that will be the ruling at ANI. All editors are at a disadvantage against persistent editors. If you were to edit in article-space, it wouldn't have made a difference. It would have only made things that much more confusing for ANI to sort out.

Anyways, it is difficult to get any concrete ruling/action on Wikipedia, it being crowd-sourced and volunteer-based. I cannot guarantee anything will actually happen. Even though there is a problem that likely needs an administrative action, no one is accountable for making such actions and they are difficult to obtain. CorporateM (Talk) 14:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Paid editing debate

		The Original Barnstar
		For your intelligent thoughts during the Paid Advocacy Policy debate. Your grasp of the situation is perfect and I wish you every success. Carrite (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks! I was half expecting someone to snipe at me for commenting on paid editing policy as a paid editor. CorporateM (Talk) 18:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Guthy-Renker

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Guthy-Renker you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Edge3 -- Edge3 (talk) 04:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! That'll be 14 GAs and counting when it's done! Some of my COI GAs are not quite as good starting off, just because the normal COI procedures do not allow for incremental improvement and polishing, nor can I boldly revert poor or promotional edits when they are made. So you'll have to forgive that they need a little more work than my regular volunteer noms. CorporateM (Talk) 18:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I passed it. Congrats! :) Please note that I didn't see this message until now, since the bot sent the initial post on my behalf. Next time, you can use {{reply to}} to send me a notification. Edge3 (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks @Edge3! Your GA reviews are very thorough; I appreciate it. The GAN department doesn't seem to mind my burdening them with a flood of corporate GAs, so I'll keep 'em coming. I think it's a good way to weed out some minor nuances from my COI and to ease tensions by assuring the community my COI works will be brought up to impeccable Wikipedia standards.

I was a bit bolder than usual in direct editing in response to your GA review feedback. Do you think that's ok? I just nominated Monster (company) - that particular article is about 50% controversy, so I'm uncertain how I'll handle it from a COI perspective. I was a big Bright Line advocate, but now I've learned how easy it is to make COI edits by proxy and I figure the better way to handle ones COI is to focus on impeccable content standards, rather than process. CorporateM (Talk) 20:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem. It's important to have a thorough GA review, especially in cases where the COI would call the article's neutrality into question.

I'm not very familiar with WP:BRIGHTLINE, since it's not an official policy. Also, I haven't been following the PR debate here, so I really don't know what the community's position is on paid editing. Instead, I focus on following WP:COI, the official policy that addresses this issue.

Direct editing in response to GA review feedback is acceptable, in my opinion. WP:NOPAY already allows your changes to be made once you've already discussed them with an uninvolved editor, and it seems bureaucratic to require that you submit requests for edits that have already been suggested during an impartial review. Therefore, I do not think that it is necessary for you to refrain from direct editing when you are under the active supervision of a GA reviewer. As you say, we should focus on upholding our content standards rather than following process, and I think WP:IAR might apply here. Edge3 (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Cool, that's along the lines of what I figured. Though one issue with COI in general is that you will get so many different answers to the same question. I'll pry just be very cautious in controversial areas even during GAs. Thanks again! CorporateM (Talk) 21:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Suburban Express

HtownCat has made an undiscussed edit on the Suburban Express Wiki. After reviewing his edit history, he continues to make undiscussed edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.78.1 (talk) 02:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I noticed, but user:HtownCat is actually correct or at least I think he is. I looked over at the source and it does not appear to actually contain the 81 lawsuits in a week stat. OTOH, I presume this just had the wrong citation assigned to it? CorporateM (Talk) 02:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Noticeboard Entry

Be advised that I have reported your poor-quality edits and will continue to do so until you cease and desist the practice of contributing false information to the Suburban Express article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.28.113 (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Here's the section link: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Low-Quality.2C_Biased_Editing_by_user:CorporateM (note: I'm not 99.147.28.113, this is just so you can easily find the section applicable to you) ~Crazytales (talk) (edits) 15:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Bryden

The reason I had suggested you voluntarily step away was as a gesture of compromise with Middayexpress - whether they are forcibly topic-banned or not, I just think it would help grease the wheels of collaboration if you let other editors take a crack and didn't do so yourself, even if you are in this case pure as the driven snow. I don't think any admin will actually topic ban you, nor even ask you to topic-ban yourself, that's really something you have to step up and propose if you're willing.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Understood - I volunteered to withdraw from it previously for the same reason. I think I would prefer a "wait and see" approach. There is no reason to pounce on the article the moment he is topic banned, like a spit in the face for "victory", but if nobody else takes the article under their wing... OTOH, if I opted out every time an editor latched onto my COI disclosure, I would hardly be able to edit anywhere. CorporateM (Talk) 03:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Guthy-Renker

The article Guthy-Renker you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Guthy-Renker for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Edge3 -- Edge3 (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI, this edit is unnecessary, since the bot does it automatically. Edge3 (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	This Barnstar is for being a good example of how to do things the right way, even when it isn't the easy way. Guy Macon (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! All the Wiki-Love I've gotten recently is very much appreciated. It's a lot of work to do things properly with a COI. For many clients, they have such a strong opinion on their subjects, it is a long and emotional struggle. It's also very difficult to get organizations to understand why they would include negative material about themselves. I think it is scalable to an extent, meaning we can increase productive COI participation from 10% to 25%, but it will always be the minority that is actually helpful. CorporateM (Talk) 15:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Monster (company)

Hi CorporateM, I was the one who reverted the rant. (For some reason I had Gaijin42's talk page on watch.) Anyhow, it's been added again, by a different SE Asia IP. Not wanting to get into a revert war, this time I simply removed the bold header for it and marked the "reference" as . The IP is clearly representing ONIX DNA Ltd (the "injured party"). Perhaps, bring it to COIN? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

@Voceditenore I figured it was probably a COI edit, but I kept those thoughts to myself as to at least give the appearance of AGFing ;-)

It looks like user:North8000 reverted them again, which is what I would have done. It's funny how often a COI editor will encounter other COIs. Some articles even become a battleground between competing COIs. CorporateM (Talk) 12:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The Telecommunications Barnstar

		The Telecommunications Barnstar
		Thank you so much for your work on Guthy-Renker and other corporation-related articles. Please accept this barnstar. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much!!! I feel like user:OrangeMike might have a fit seeing all the barnstars I'm getting for COI work. (we previously had a conversation about how he felt barnstars were reserved for volunteers not getting paid for their work). I've created more than 10% of WikiProject Companies' GA or above pages now - and I'm excited about racing to 30%!

These are also great because I forward them to the client and it's sort of a re-assurance that Wikipedia appreciates them doing things the right way. Ultimately, it's the client who chooses to work with me, rather than pay less to get a more favorable article faster with an astroturfing service. And everyone within their organization has to struggle a lot more doing things the right way than if they just edited the article covertly into the page they would most prefer.

All the kudos really means a lot to me. CorporateM (Talk) 12:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries! As long as you remain neutral and make public your COI, keep up what you're doing. Regards, --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 13:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jeremy Stoppelman

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jeremy Stoppelman you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Edge3 -- Edge3 (talk) 04:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey @Edge3, you're on a roll! Appreciate your thorough reviews and I apologize mine are slightly more painful on account of my having to be cautious about my COI. CorporateM (Talk) 12:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I have more free time this month, so I figured that I should spend some time helping out with the backlog. I like reviewing your articles because they've been written to near-GA standards, so there hasn't been much work left for me to do before they pass. :) Edge3 (talk) 00:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

SubEx thanks

Thank you for taking on the relatively thankless job of keeping that article honest and up to date.

This is a pointed example of what's wrong with some of the bad ways that people try to recruit/hire editors to game articles: as they then posted to the bounty & reward board and got at least one established editor to [start to] take them up on the offer. Are you game to talk a bit about this case and the reward board (which is now up for deletion) in general? I don't want to make you uncomfortable, but respect your approach to these issues.

Regards, – SJ + 23:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Not uncomfortable at all. Any place that article is brought up tends to attract battlegrounding, but if it becomes a bother we could always take it off-wiki by phone or email. CorporateM (Talk) 01:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

We can at least start the discussion in public. Questions on my mind:

• Does our current community get any real benefit from having cash rewards on the R.B.? (as opposed to only wiki-gifts: barnstars, &c).

Most of the board's success has been the latter kind. Of the 12-15 cash rewards ever claimed, a handful may have been offered to make a point.

• Does it make sense to combine requests from community members with those from outside groups w/ one-track agendas? (like PR firms or SubEx)

The current SubEx reward can't end well. Two different editors (or one, twice) have been motivated by it. I'm not sure they could have found proxies without this board.

• Do we want to encourage individuals to get personal fulfilled at all?

Most of the potentially bad outcomes of such boards that I can think of are tied to an individual 'requestor' having control or ownership over whether someone else's edits are 'good enough'. In contrast, consider edit drives and kickstarter-like boards where groups choose topics they'd like others to focus on.

I've also been thinking about what a list of 'rewards in progress' would look like if it were framed as summarizing ongoing COI activity, for review. I like the perspective you noted elsewhere of having subject experts or researchers or publicizers, whose knowledge and time-to-spare editors need (and who are expected to restrict their work to discussion pages, and work through the community): and matching them with neutral editors who can make use of, vet, and apply that knowledge. In which case the opportunity we need to fill on-wiki is connecting those two groups; not helping institutions find or reward the former. – SJ + 23:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I support the Reward Board's deletion, but chose not to vote since it was tangentially related to an area where I have a vested interest as a regular marketing/COI contributor.

Whether it is done by proxy or in article-space, COI editing is discouraged, because the editor is unlikely to be neutral. However, it is not prohibited, since some COIs can be neutral enough, their article may be unfair to them, it may contain factual errors, and so on. Since it is discouraged and generally undesirable in the majority of cases it doesn't seem to make sense to create a system that promotes and legitimizes it, though we should also be open-minded about exceptions. Additionally, any overly-centralized system for COIs is a target-list for harassment from COI antagonists. OTOH, we should be aggressive about providing customer service for corrections, unsourced contentious material, and victims of POV pushers, etc.

It is possible to have client-approved content that is neutral, but the approval process is at least as damaging to neutrality as the COI itself. Technically the Reward Board could be used for what I call "sponsored editing" whereby the client has no control over the content, but realistically, no client would pay for such a service. Most importantly because they would put their jobs at risk by doing so and would not be able to obtain corporate approvals for such a gamble.

Now, there are other areas where sponsored editing could work. For example, a while back WMF had to erase an article and lock it out, because the article-subject was threatening to sue and the article had overt BLP problems. It would have been cheaper, easier and maybe even less controversial for WMF to use a paid editor to fix the article following COI best practices, rather than make it a legal matter or steam-rolling the community by erasing an article that had some legitimate content. That would require some buy-in from the article-subject threatening to sue I think, but could be done in a sponsored editing format.

The intensity of the COI can be measured by the delta between the client's preferred article and Wikipedia's preferred article. For many companies like Suburban Express, that delta is too significant for us to expect any meaningful benefit from collaboration.

Hopefully in all that I answered your questions somewhere. CorporateM (Talk) 02:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

This is food for thought, thank you. Some of your language above is particularly helpful and new to me. And I agree that actively providing good customer service for corrections is key to any sane ecosystem. – SJ + 02:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I started on a COI Wizard that would create a more streamlined process for requesting corrections and the like, but I lack the technical expertise to finish it. I think such a wizard could also help discourage COIs from trying to re-write their own articles (even from Talk) by featuring the appropriate warnings, unless they truly understand what is expected of them, etc. (ie. if you are not willing to add negative material about your own client, maybe you should abstain) CorporateM (Talk) 02:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jeremy Stoppelman

The article Jeremy Stoppelman you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jeremy Stoppelman for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Edge3 -- Edge3 (talk) 02:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That's No. 14! Or it might be 15. I can't seem to figure out if I'm missing one or if I was counting one twice on my userpage GA icons. Oh well. CorporateM (Talk) 04:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Suburban Express

Just a heads up, Suburban Express again is posting about you here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#CorporateM_.26_Suburban_Express He did not properly tag you.24.15.78.1 (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like they were finally blocked - long overdue. However, I doubt that will be the end of it. CorporateM (Talk) 01:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure very far from it :-/ If it doesn't continue here, they will find a way for it to continue elsewhere. I really hope Wikipedia acknowledges you for all of your efforts. All the best: 24.15.78.1 (talk) 03:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Didn't take long to spill over: http://i.imgur.com/aOm3tVa.jpg 24.15.78.1 (talk) 04:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I recommend you guys read Don't Feed the Troll. CorporateM (Talk) 05:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Like24.15.78.1 (talk) 05:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Name-dropped you here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It gives me a chuckle to think about a block on accounts we have not identified for edits we can't see. The natural conclusion of that discussion is that it is in fact policy that marketers disclose. This seems obvious to me since disclosure is most likely required by law and as user:Smallbones would argue, by Wikipedia's terms of use. We should stop providing such misleading information in WP:COI, which is apparently out-of-step with community consensus.

It's not all rainbows and sunshine on my end - I have been stalked, harassed and subjected to personal attacks as a result of my COI disclosure. Also, the Matthew Bryden article is a good example of a POV pusher using COI accusations to win an argument. However, harassment is common here, a COI disclosure just makes it more likely.

A certain amount of defensiveness about COI is right and proper, but we should have the right amount. It is common for COIs to feel they are treated unfairly, when in fact they are being dealt with appropriately and I have the benefit of having been in that position plenty of times myself.

Anyways, thanks! I love all the kudos I've been getting in the wake of the Wiki-PR scandal for doing things appropriately. CorporateM (Talk) 20:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents post

I have mentioned you in an Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents post24.15.78.1 (talk) 04:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Request at Yelp article / standing offer

By now I think that you know where, between abilities, available time and my routines where / how I can be helpful. Usually it's to size up and blaze through things quickly. Also I'm a GA reviewer (have done about 50 articles) and would be happy to give any article such a look. In cases where I've done little or nothing at the article I'd also happy to do the review. The big effort you are talkign about oon an off-line draft isn't my cup of tea, but keeping the above in mind, always let me know if you want any help. North8000 (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks @North8000. As you know, avoiding bold edits - while necessary for one with a COI - can be a clunky process. Do you have any suggestions as far as how we should proceed logistically? CorporateM (Talk) 21:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy to blaze though it to make any quick suggested changes (limited by my limited knowledge of the topic). Also to then look it / give thoughts as a GA reviewer, although I wouldn't actually do the review as a while back I did a burst of edits on it. Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

LM3LABS

After seeing the recent revert by the company's presumed COO, I have tried to find some references and create a more-encyclopedic article. Since you have also been working there towards the same goal, I thought I'd solicit your input. I also dropped some notes on that editor's talk page about COI editing. Thanks. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 10:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice work @Eggishorn.

If you are interested in improving it further, at a glance, I think it may be improved by making it easier to comprehend for the average reader.

• "user interaction with computers using motion sensor technology" -> "motion-based controls for computers"
• What do we mean by augmented reality interaction with a system? Maybe "to provide an augmented reality experience whereby the user's motions are mimiced on-screen."
• What do we mean by "active and passive gestures".
• Add a few words on what CNRS is?

I don't understand the topic well-enough to make the right edits. Thanks for chipping in! CorporateM (Talk) 13:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. I made edits for your first two points, but not the latter two. On the third point, it is not the gestures that are active or passive, but the gesture-recognition that is. Active gesture recognition would be using things such as sonar or radar to track movement, passive would be to use cameras. I'm not sure what LM3 uses, even after reviewing their site, as active technologies so I have left that out. As to what CNRS is, I think using the full name makes it clear that it is a governmental organization and linking to the CNRS article is enough to provide that information. I just am worried about coatracking such a relatively small paragraph. Does that make sense? --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for contributing! CorporateM (Talk) 16:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree files

Some of your uploads may be unfree. See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 November 15#OTRS pending since July. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was expecting to get permission for an OTRS ticket, but never did. Please go ahead and delete. CorporateM (Talk) 22:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)