Talk:Conduit (company)/Archive 1

Archive 1

July 2015 redraft

I've created a proposed new re-draft of the article for Conduit (publisher network and platform). I'd request that a very experienced editor work with me on this proposal. The Conduit article is in urgent need of an extensive overhaul for a few reasons:

1) The company sold off the controversial "toolbar" business, which is the focus of most of the article. The toolbar business is now part of a different, publicly traded company called Perion. Information about the current business activities of Conduit should be made more prominent and information about the former toolbar business should be moved to the History section. Previously offered services can be integrated into the History section, where relevant, and abbreviated.

2) The prominent characterization of the former toolbar business (of what was, at the time, the largest Internet company in Israel) as a "browser hijaker" and "malware" violates several Wikipedia policies including:

• WP:NPOV violation
• extensive use of unreliable sources such online forums. See WP:NOTRELIABLE. Online discussion boards ("self-published sources") can't be used as Wikipedia sources to make claims about third parties. See WP:SOCIALMEDIA. Self-published social media citations should be removed, such as:
• most of the supporting sources for these claims cited are personal opinion pieces/advice columns and violate WP:NOTRELIABLE or product instructional manuals in violation of WP:NOR, not third-party sources that qualify as reliable citations WP:SOURCES. Opinion/review/product manual citations should be removed, such as:

Since these accusations are inflammatory and controversial, there is a particular burden for the sourcing to be high quality. Dozens of high quality reliable sources cited refer to the business as a publishing platform and only a few fringe, unreliable sources call it a "browser hijaker" or "malware." The phrases "browser hijaker" and "malware" should therefore be removed or at the very least, represented as the opinion of some commentators, not a fact, or the primary description of the company (especially since the toolbar business was sold to another company).

When you eliminate the self-published and unreliable sources, you are left with reliable sources that represent that some say the toolbar is difficult to uninstall and "potentially unwanted."

3) Some major mistakes throughout the article, such as:

• falsely attributing the 2015 venture financing of a completely different company (Startup Conductor) to Conduit: "In 2015 Conduit raised $27 million in capital."
• listing an out-of-date business model as current one: "At first Conduit's partners provide their apps and use of the app-creation platform to users for free, but requires a percentage of the advertising revenue generated from apps created with its software." I replaced this with a newer source that lists the current business model.

I've also corrected citation formats. Some citations included large chunks of text, in addition to the source, which is an improper work-around to include extraneous information in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BC1278 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I have a WP:COI because I am a paid consultant to Conduit, so I am proposing these changes via my user sandbox, rather than making direct edits. I am a frequent Wikipedia contributor and strive to abide strictly by WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR and all other Wikipedia rules.

I realize I have a special obligation to avoid bias, so I'd be pleased and grateful to work with an independent editor on the proposed revisions. Please see user:BC1278 for details about me.

A revised version of this request is at: Talk:Conduit(publisher network and platform)

BC1278 (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)BC1278

Copied Talk from User Page to unite discussions

This is copied from a section I added on Talk page of User: Graeme Bartlett, a Wikipedia admin. No response yet. BC1278 (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278

---

Will you assist me with a section by section review of Conduit (company) to address any concerns with WP:NPOV? I have tried to engage User: Grump International, who made the challenge, with the same request but they have not replied. Further research suggests this account is a sock puppet, as I think you surmised by looking at it yourself. The user simultaneously raised challenges to the related entries Ronen Shilo, Conduit (company) and Perion Network. The prior two (thinking of Conduit as the original article) have come under repeated attacks over the past few years and had to be protected by admins.

In any case, I'd like to fix any NPOV issues now, while my attention is still focused on this article. I've only added a or re-worded a few sentences, which I'll point out. The rest comes from the original Conduit (publisher network and platform)

The first section is the intro and I did re-word it from material in the entry. Do you see any NPOV problems with it?

---

Conduit is a software developer that offers mobile apps and mobile loyalty programs for small businesses, under the brand name "Como".

It became the largest Internet company in Israel before it spun off its sometimes controversial website toolbar business in 2013 into the Perion Network, a publicly-traded NASDAQ company.

---

I can move this discussion to the Talk section of Conduit (company) if that's better.

BC1278 (talk) 00:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278

Possible attack from sock puppet account

User: Grump International, who posted the "News Release" banner, appears to be a sock puppet: User shows extensive knowledge of procedures here and skill in Wikimarkup, but their account is only a year old and has small number of edits for someone with this level of experience. Grump has attacked multiple entries related to this subject in a 2-day period. "News release" banners were placed on this article and Perion Network (which acquired a major asset of Conduit), and nominated the article for Ronen Shilo, CEO of Conduit (company) for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronen Shilo. The entry for Ronen Shilo and the related entry for Conduit (publisher network and platform) have come under repeated attack over the past few years and both have had to be protected by admins. The use of a sock puppet account for all these simultaneous challenges suggests the user is biased and may have an undisclosed WP:COI.BC1278 (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)BC278

I see these articles as spam, but to be honest, I don't have the energy to go up against someone who works for the company. That you believe no legitimate editors could possibly see your string of articles on the same subject matter as spam, is a little surprising. I would be cautious to AGF considering the AGF-nature you are pleading for from the commmunity as an admitted COI. Any good work you do, great! Keep it up! But why you would try to spam Wikipedia for your client, I have no earthly idea. Also, I do have a question. As per your COI, are you being paid by Conduit? Grump International (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

As I said, I have a COI as a business partner of Conduit and they pay me for lots of different things, as do many other business partners. Please note that I've made no edits to this article. It was posted by User: Graeme Bartlett, a Wikipedia admin. On my Sandbox, I suggested all of three or four new sentences and posted none of these as myself. Mostly I presented an update of Conduit (publisher network and platform) because the company sold off the platform the article is about, but I preserved most of its original content. User: Graeme Bartlett decided to split off the article from Conduit (publisher network and platform). 95% of this article existed previously at that article and was the work of dozens of contributors including multiple admins and senior editors. Please read the history of that article to confirm the many hundreds of edits over five years. It's also been under attack for years. It's untenable to say an article about a billion dollar Internet company that was larger than Twitter until a couple of years ago, which has been the subject of hundreds of news articles around the world, is spam. There are criteria for WP:NOTABILITY and this one isn't close. The article itself includes some pretty stinging criticism of the company. I've offered to go over the article with User: Grump International section by section, in order to work through just where he/she is seeing any WP:NPOV issues and he/she has not responded. He/she hasn't named any specific issues, so it's hard for me to respond to a blanket accusation of "spam." Nor has he/she removed the warning banner, so I can only presume is to undermine the credibility of an article which has no actual issues he/she can name. If I am to assume good faith here, then according to the contribution history of USer: Grump International, they have contributed a couple of articles and made a few edits. With this little experience (and that's doubtful given their proficiency with Wikipedia mark up and policy, but let's presume it) an editor shouldn't be making blanket attacks on articles without some specific to back it up. If there is some specific criticism, let's talk about it and reach consensus. I won't make direct edits here, so I can only offer my opinion. If there's no specific issue, User:Grump International or someone else should please remove the "news release" banner. BC1278 (talk) 02:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278

Disagree with assessment

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Solid consensus request for comment is not specific. Major rewrite down to remove news-like tone. Moving forward, please do remember that policy and guidance trumps local agreement of groups of editors, so be sure to stick to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE and all the other WP:TLAs, and remember also that the onus is always on the person seeking to include some new item to achieve consensus if it is disputed. Gpeja (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Note: The exchange below was with User: Grump International, who upon closer examination, turned out to be running a probable sock puppet account with an undisclosed COI. Please see WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Brickell_Flatiron for a full examination. Two of the articles User: Grump International's were immediately nominated for speedy deletion by WP:COIN editors. The Conduit article has a long history of attacks, over several years, (before it was recently split off from Conduit (publisher network and platform) into a separate article, and had to be placed on protected status for several years. I believe the flag here, saying this article reads like a news release and mentioning possible speedy deletion, is part of this attack pattern. People attacking articles can have an undeclared COI or personal bias as much as those contributing to articles (or Talk pages). You'll see the article has significant criticism of the company. It is hardly a news release. User: Grump International simultaneously nominated for deletion the 5-year old article about the CEO of this company (which until a couple of years ago, at 260 million users, was larger than Twitter, and the largest Internet company in Israel.) WP: Articles for deletion/Ronen Shilo

I have a declared WP:COI with respect to Conduit as I am a paid business consultant to the company. As such, I have made no direct edits here. I'd request that a neutral editor to look at the article and make any changes they think are needed to make the article neutral or point out issues and ask me to suggest changes on this Talk page. I am happy to go over the article section by section. By the way, the direct edits you see in the history from me are a result of Wikipedia admin Graeme Bartlett moving over my accounts' sandbox history when he decided to move the draft on my sandbox to this article.

Note: I'd suggest deleting this sentence in the History section as it's not terribly relevant. "In 2010 Conduit then-president Adam Boyden was featured in Forbes.com, discussing the link between successful social gaming and marketing principles." In my sandbox draft of this article, I tried to be deferential to other users' contributions but on second thought, I should have suggested deleting this sentence. BC1278 (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278

Well, I guess you could keep attacking other editors (representing Conduit in a fairly bullying manner as you have been repeatedly); or you could actually address the new release issue... Grump International (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Grump International: This article's content was almost 100% taken from Conduit (publisher network and platform), a five year-old article.

That article has been split in two because it's about a software platform that Conduit created which was sold and is no longer in operation. So the content about the company was divided into a new article by Graeme Bartlett, a Wikipedia English language admin, not by me. He based it on a version I created in a sandbox, but he reviewed it first.

If you look at older versions of Conduit (publisher network and platform) you will find 95% of this content, which was created and vetted by a couple of dozen editors over the course of five years. I never contributed to it. The article was closely followed by two other Wikipedia English admins over a period of years - Diannaa and and all this content was in it, except for a couple of sentences on the latest developments, such as the acquisition of a new company, Keeprz.

There are substantial criticisms of the company in the article, not at all what you would see in a news release. Every fact is backed by a reliable source. There's no promotional language that violates WP:NPOV so far as I can tell (please tell me if there is and I will suggest a change), there's no original research WP:NOR and all sources are verified WP:V

I have a WP:COI and am not making direct edits. Presumably as an English language Wikipedia admin, Graeme Bartlett has sound judgment as to whether an article merits stand-alone.

If you wish to make changes to the article to improve then please do. There are dozens of high-quality, reliable sources abut the company, which make it clear it passes WP:Notability It is one of the largest technology companies in Israell was once the largest Internet company in Israel, and one of only a few dozen Internet companies to achieve more than a one billion dollar valuation. All this is amply sourced from the likes of The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, the Financial Times, Inc. Magazine, the Economist, etc. I've also written many articles for Wikipedia and it isn't even a close case that this company passes WP:NOTABILITY.

I think User: Grump International has placed a "news release" tag and suggesting possible deletion because they are unduly influenced by the fact that I have disclosed my WP:COI. But that's exactly what I'm supposed to do under WP:COI -- disclose and make suggested changes on the Talk page. As you know, 99% of COI changes on Wikipedia are never disclosed. If you penalize those that are abiding by the official policies as it will just encourage COI editors to never disclose.

If you think there's an issue with any of the article, please make specific suggestions. I'd suggest you try to engage with Graeme Bartlett, Diannaa and Jeremy112233, the three Wikipedia English language admins, before suggesting the possibility of deletion an article that's the work of so many people over so many years. BC1278 (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278

Yeah, nobody nominated this for deletion. What are you even talking about? Anyhow, the language isn't neutral, but no one is arguing against Notability. This lengthy reply is a bit weird, though perhaps explained via the expectations of your employer: I read how you feel how "improvement banners" somehow threaten your livelihood on the toolbar talk page. If so, no one is stopping you from fixing the article: feel free to gut the article of non-neutral material and I'm sure the tag will be removed. The COI tag, though, would require someone other than you to read through it and give it their go-ahead. I would advise against stating that editors here are biased against COI editors; in most cases the bias comes from the originator of the content, not the reviewer. Grump International (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The template [[User: Grump International chose mentions speedy deletion as a possibility.BC1278 (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278

Grump International I do not work for Conduit. I run a technology company and have a WP:COI because I have a business relationship with the company. I write for Wikipedia all the time, I have a background as a journalist for well known publications. Read about me at User:BC1278 My interest began here because the original article devolved into an attack piece based largely on online forums, despite the best effort of two admins over several years. I don't see any non-neutral material but am wide open to any suggestions. There's one sentence I think is superfluous in the History section but I left it in in deference to the contributor. I've added only a bit to this entry; Almost all of it was lifted from the Conduit (publisher network and platform) article, written by many contributors over several years and hundreds of edits (and I tried to leave their material about the company in tact), before it was split in two separate articles by Graeme Bartlett. Going back and forth with you saying the article is promotional and my saying it's not is not getting anywhere. I'd like to suggest a section by section review starting with the introduction:

Conduit is a software developer that offers mobile apps and mobile loyalty programs for small businesses, under the brand name "Como", It became the largest Internet company in Israel before it spun off its sometimes controversial website toolbar business in 2013 into the Perion Network, a publicly-traded NASDAQ company.

Do you see anything that does not meet the WP:NPOV criteria in the lead? Please let me know and I will change it or, please rephrase it yourself.

I'd be happy to discuss the issue of declared WP:COI editors somewhere other than the Talk page of this article but suffice to say that anyone who discloses a COI and is suggesting changes through the Talk page is probably being extremely careful about WP:NPOV. The problem is with non-disclosed COI trying to sneak through edits. Your comments assuming bad faith on my part due to a non-existent employee relationship you wrongly guessed at, are misplaced. My "livelihood" isn't affected one way or another by an improvement banner - and ad hominem attacks like this are why the WP:COI disclosure policy is failing to catch on despite rampant COI editing. I shouldn't have to put up with personal attacks. I object because I find it very unfair for you to paint with such a broad stroke - there's nothing in this article similar to a news release. That's a banner that newbies get for articles without any merit. I doubt there are more than a handful specific issues you can find here and I hope you'll show me anything if we move through section by section. If you point out specifics, or change stuff yourself you find not to be neutral, you'll see I am fine with criticism and working toward consensus. Only a a few sentences of this are even my writing - it almost all comes from the original, five-year old article. BC1278 (talk) 03:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278

Grump International Do you plan to engage with me to review the article section by section? And/or point out or correct WP:NPOV issues that you perceive? Please let me know. Otherwise, I may begin the WP:DR as your flag on the article is without any basis that I can see. It's basically a five-year old article that's just a split off to reflect new events.BC1278 (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)BC1278

References

RFC comments

Comment I was invited here randomly by a bot. This does not appear to be an RFC and if it is intended to be one it is not properly formulated (what is the request?). Jojalozzo (talk) 02:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment I was also invited here by a bot and echo Jojalozzo's sentiment. What's the issue? Because all I can see is a lot of mud-slinging (which may or may not have substance, but which we cannot sort out on an RfC). Please sort out COI and sock issues then ask us to comment on something specific. Pincrete (talk) 07:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Pincrete The request regarding this article is evaluate whether you see any NPOV issues (as is suggested by the flag) and if so, if you can point them out so I can propose changes here or, please make any fixes yourself. The separate undisclosed COI issues regarding User: Grump International have resulted, to date, in some of the editor's content being removed as promotional and one of the editor's articles being proposed for deletion. As to whether there will be more action with regards to the editor's account, that's up to the admins. I discount the User: Grump International's non-specific claim that the whole article is "spam" as silly on its face -- it's almost entirely a split (a decision made by an admin) from an article that's five years old and has had dozens of editors; it's also about what was the largest Internet company in Israel, with more users (260 million) than Twitter until a couple of years ago. Hundreds of news articles have been written about this company. If you see NPOV issues anywhere, I'd be pleased to work with you to find fixes or, perhaps you can fix them yourself.

I tried to leave other editors' work, with any sort of reliable source, untouched in my sandbox proposal. But I think that the third sentence in History is superfluous and can be removed: "In 2010 Conduit then-president Adam Boyden was featured in Forbes.com, discussing the link between successful social gaming and marketing principles." That's my only suggestion. Otherwise, the article has a brief synopsis of present business activities, a recounting of its history, along with some strong criticism of the company,BC1278 (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)BC1278

I'm sorry to be unhelpful, but I think you need to ask a more specific question, and you need to sort out COI etc. issues elsewhere, (I noticed an ANI). Pincrete (talk) 10:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Pincrete The COI is being sorted elsewhere. You don't need to address it. But that won't sort any issues with this article, which is not under discussion. There's a flag on this article saying it reads like a "News Release". It's just a split of an existing five year old article, so I don't think you'll find much to change. But I'm open to any or all changes if you agree with that assessment (even though it's just a split from another article) - you won't get any resistance from me and I'll do any work required. How about if we work through it section by section? So for example, the opening reads:

"Conduit is a software developer that offers mobile apps and mobile loyalty programs for small businesses, under the brand name "Como".

It became the largest Internet company in Israel[5] before it spun off its sometimes controversial[6] website toolbar business in 2013 into the Perion Network, a publicly-traded NASDAQ company."

I see no issues. But I'm happy to take any direction.BC1278 (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)BC1278

Pincrete Just FYI, ANI archived the issue. I asked the editor who brought it what this meant: "AN/I archived the discussion because the bad editor behavior has stopped. Grump International hasn't edited in article space for a week, and has said they will back off from that area. Admin action is taken to stop future bad behavior, not to punish. Wikipedia tries to assume good faith. Now, if the bad behavior resumes after they said they would stop, that would be considered worse than the original behavior. Sometimes they come back, and that usually means being dealt with more harshly. Meanwhile, don't obsess on this. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)"... So, I am left trying to sort out the tags and other edits originated from this undisclosed COI account, but I can't do so directly as I have a disclosed COI. I'm just hoping someone else will read it again (an admin did before they posted it) and change any NPOV problems you see or direct me to make suggestions (and I will go section by section if requested.)BC1278 (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)BC1278

I'm on the 'any subject' RfC list, when summoned, sometimes I don't feel I am able to comment, sometimes I leave an opinion on a specific question, sometimes I am willing to hang around and get more involved. In this instance, I don't feel I have the expertise (or frankly, the interest), to do what you are asking. I'm not sure what to advise you to get such help. Pincrete (talk) 10:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment I was invited here randomly by a bot. This is what I did: (1) Googled Conduit Ltd. Company is legit and the products are interesting. (2) I've read this Wikipedia article. Everything in the article is well referenced with inline citations. The problem is that the information in the article is not structured as a company article (history, products/services, financials etc.). The information provided is not adequate. I would suggest rewriting by removing at least half the references and focusing on relevant facts supported by objective sources instead of looking good numbers provided by company itself (such as 260 million users).(3) I've read some comments. It seems there is something going on in the background between some editors that is mudding the main issue: low quality article. It does read as "News Release" because most of inline citations are from the news telling how great company is. I am suggesting we all focus on improving this article instead on defending our opinions. Gpeja (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Gpeja Thanks for some constructive comments. I've been hoping to engage with an editor on the substance here. This article is a split from another article - I created the draft in a sandbox, then an editor picked up on it and created the new article here. As a disclosed COI editor, I didn't want to touch most of the content contributed by many editors over five years (I first saw the article a few weeks ago), so I just left most of it intact. It's not the greatest, but it's what was there. But I can take your feedback to create a new sandbox draft that I think comes closer to what you want. I've written B-class articles about companies when I can start them from scratch. I'll do a redraft and get back to you soon, then you can use it however you wish.BC1278 (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)BC1278

Gpeja OK, I created a proposed re-draft based on your feedback. User_talk:BC1278#Revisions_to_Conduit_.28company.29 It now has the usual sections for a company, it is shorter and it has fewer sources. Feel free to use it however you'd like. Happy to do more if you have any requests.BC1278 (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)BC1278

BC1278 Great start! Is there a reason these articles (Conduit (company) and Conduit (publisher network and platform)) are not moved into Draft stage for you? It would be easier to review than on your talk page.

BC1278 There is no enough information to justify two articles but the split makes sense because of the changes in the company. Did you search something else other than web? Is there a book or a scholarly article mentioning Conduit Ltd.?

BC1278 I am still stuck on the first sentence: "Conduit is a software developer that offers mobile apps and mobile loyalty programs for small and medium-sized businesses, under the brand name Como". It seems almost we should rename this article from Conduit Ltd to Como? It seems the company is trying to do that too (conduit.com only links to como.com, all information is on como). We could than write "Como is a DIY mobile app platform that enables small and medium-sized businesses of business to create, promote and manage their mobile apps." (paraphrasing [1]). If we want to stick with Conduit than Conduit is a software company not developer (developer refers more to a person). Don't you think that even Conduit Ltd itself is trying to shed its name? Why did they come up with Como? Let's do them a favor and rename this page to Como and mention Conduit in its history. Is this another RfC? Please don't create third article! There is really no substance to justify even these two! What is Conduit Ltd if we take out Como?

Could Graeme Bartlett comment on this? I am also confused by Talk:Conduit (publisher network and platform)#Request for assistance correcting poorly source material? Why don't you just make changes instead of these long comments hard to sort through? If you do something wrong we will just redo.

Gpeja (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

GpejaYou could perhaps name it Como and link Conduit (company) searches to the page. The company has a meaningful history prior to Como, becoming Israel's first billion dollar internet company, second largest tech company, then selling its main asset when it became controversial. So I think that's a valuable piece of history which very well might be of interest to business historians and researchers in the future. As long as we keep the History section and forward Conduit searches here, the name change seems a good idea. Normally I do these proposed drafts in my Sandbox, but I'm working on something else there. I'll figure out how to do a Draft space article for this and the other... That's ok under COI rules as long as I don't make it live? Working on a phone now but will make the changes tomorrow when I'm back on my computer. ThanksBC1278 (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)BC1278

Perhaps name changes are in order. But I would recommend not forking the content into a draft and just edit the article in place. There is confusion with the publisher platform, which was their product earlier, but now no longer, and now likely goes under another name. But until someone comes up with a reliable source for a new name, we have nothing to go on. I suspect there was enough bad-will and embarrassment built up about the product that the connections to it are being disguised by all companies involved. But I too do not know what we are supposed to be commenting on here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gpeja. I created a new subpage associated with my user account to make it easier for you to edit this redraft. User:BC1278/subpage I made the one change you asked for so far. I'm going to do the same thing with the related article in a moment. I'll also do a search for books and scholarly articles. I have not done that yet.BC1278 (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)BC1278

I have created clean version of the companion article, about the old platform, at User:BC1278/Conduit (publisher network and platform) I've tried to eliminate as much overlap as I could (which shortened it a lot), though it's still often redundant. My explanation of why specific sources were deleted as unreliable can be found on that articles Talk page at: Talk:Conduit_(publisher_network_and_platform)#Request_for_assistance_correcting_poorly_source_material BC1278 (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)BC1278

Hi Gpeja. I did thorough searches on Google books and Google Scholar, as requested. The one book I found was already cited: "TechnoCreep." I found a few scholarly journals for librarians about how to build a Conduit toolbar, but they seemed pretty minor. So, I think the sourcing is mostly going to be the periodicals already cited. As mentioned above, I've created drafts for review at User:BC1278/subpage for this article and User:BC1278/Conduit (publisher network and platform) for the article on the platform.BC1278 (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)BC1278

Hi Gpeja Thanks for your work on the Conduit company re-draft. I did a copy edit (which was my job for 15 years!) just to improve the wording and the flow of language. Substantively it's the same. I left your idea lone -- to stress the reinvention of the company. The one slight change in substance I made was to remove the words "one product" just because just a few weeks ago they bought Keeprz for $45 million, and that's a second product (a mobile loyalty program). My guess is they'll re-brand it Como something or other, e.g. Como Loyalty, but I have no idea. If you don't like any of my wording changes, please revert it -- I'm trying to improve the article but happy to defer to you. I'd be glad to keep working with you on the rest of the piece in the draft space. I know you already know this, but I only work in the draft spaces and Talk pages because of my COI. I can't do direct edits as per WP: COI So when you feel the article is ready, please do me the favor of moving it to the main space. I'm about to go check the companion draft articles to see if you or anyone else looked at those. BC1278 (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)BC1278

Closed I did a major rewrite with BC1278 (talk). The article is more clear now and we can close this RfC. I also added the archive bot to the talk page. Let's move on and work on other articles with more importance. Conduit Ltd. with it sole product Como is still to make its impact and the future. Please create a new RfC if you disagree with edits and make your question clear. Gpeja (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.