User talk:CorporateM/Archive 10

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Good work. You are improving everyday and that's a great achievement. Happy editing :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the Wikilove! Was this for anything in particular? Thanks for your patience with me on the CIPR article. Maybe after I get a few more GAs under my belt, I'll try for an FA. CorporateM (Talk) 23:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was for all your career and improvement since I saw you for the first time at WT:GAN :) FAs are a difficult process I still have yet to conquer. I have two under my belt, but they are the result of very hard work. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An invitation for you!


	Hello, CorporateM. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's article for improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members. Happy editing! Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for signing on, and happy editing! Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Untangling the wp:coi Gordion knot

Wikipedia:Strategic issues with core policies#Structure needed to resolve clarification of wp:coi What do you think? I put things that I learned from you into there.North8000 (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Strategic issues with core policies#Structure needed to resolve clarification of wp:coi

Looking through it. Do you want me to edit or just comment? CorporateM (Talk) 13:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either or both would be cool. Keep in mind that it is just a framework to organize and frame the questions to untangle efforts to develop answers, it's not the answers. North8000 (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's only questions now. Feel free to re-work or revert. CorporateM (Talk) 17:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WP Brands – Lists compiled for project banner tagging using AnomieBOT

A discussion is occurring at the talk page for WikiProject Brands at Proceeding with automatic project banner tagging using AnomieBOT regarding moving forward with automatic talk page tagging with the project's banner using AnomieBOT. All members of this project will be notified with neutrally-worded notifications about this discussion, and please feel free to contribute to it. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guthy-Renker

I think I fixed a date in Guthy-Renker. You wrote 1998, and the old version and the website says '98. I just wanted to make sure that was correct. Ryan Vesey 05:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thanks for catching my typo and for answering the request edit. Yah, I'm sure it's '88, since they picked up Proactiv in '95 (making their foundation in '98 an impossibility). Off-wiki I'm knee-deep in the draft Proactiv article. Being that my background is in supporting enterprise software and semiconductor companies, I never thought acne treatment would be interesting, but here I am reading clinical trials and books on entrepreneurship on their business strategy. It's pretty interesting. CorporateM (Talk) 05:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hitachi Data Systems Page

Hi CorporateM, I sent you a previous email on this page, but received no response. Just wondering why you changed most of the page to Hitachi Data Systems history which is covered in the Hitachi Data Systems History page. I believe that the page should cover (as it did before your changes) the current goings-on at the company. This is what users expect when they come to the page. Please respond.

Thanks

Csoares66 (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have it backwards. What readers want to see on the page is the company's history, including history from predecessor organizations that is relevant to the current org.(granted it may need a complete re-write)

What readers do not want to see is a list of 50-some-odd technology partners, because Wikipedia is not a directory.

As I said before, I prefer to stay out of it. I trust the Wikipedia community to eventually clean up articles like Nirvanix and I don't need to get involved personally. CorporateM (Talk) 23:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Sig Mejdal, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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 leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Version 1.0 of JMP 1989.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Version 1.0 of JMP 1989.png. 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. Stefan2 (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code that was emailed to you.
To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 18:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology of Safavids

Hi! could you please check this page out weather it has got any grammatical mistake or not? thanks a million. Alborzagros (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I gave it a quick read-through. CorporateM (Talk) 14:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks dude. Alborzagros (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure in some cases if I understand the intended meaning of the text, but I'm happy to keep helping if you like. CorporateM (Talk) 14:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Goodnight

I made the requested edit. If/when you have any similar requested edits that are more than a week old, please let me know. (Since there are less than 20 of these, I'm surprised that other editors aren't getting to them all that quickly. But Wikipedia ranks are a bit thin everywhere.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 05:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. Yah, it's tough for editors to compare and assess a rewrite, but there's also no practical way to suggest so many changes at once. I think the solution for an editor in my position is to adequately earn a reputation so editors feel comfortable. Such a reputation cannot be easily earned, since clients vary on their ability to be neutral and I often did not write the article personally. But I guess we all do what we reasonably can from both roles. CorporateM (Talk) 06:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the image, I put it into the (official) article, and removed the tag/template from the image (File:) page. So you should be go to go, at least with regards to waiting a full week. I don't think there is much point in waiting beyond that, but it's your call, and certainly if you wait longer, there is less that others can say about not having the opportunity to comment. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That works! Thanks! I did send FYIs to Noun, DGG and Charles, who all participated in the first draft, so this gives them more time. CorporateM (Talk) 17:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re: COOP

Sure, I will try to help. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, but it's far from my fields of expertise (or interest), I am afraid. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can always take a look for any red flags, np. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Non-free content policy and guideline

Please do not place or replace any non-free images to any pages except for actual articles, as you did at User:CorporateM/JMP. Such use is a clear violation of point number 9 of our policy concerning the use of non-free images. Continuing to do so can be viewed as disruptive behaviour. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sir. CorporateM (Talk) 17:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Cantaloupe2 is up there again. I brought up your IBAN request from before. Wanted you to be aware. --No unique names 05:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Viralheat

I don't like the sentence "Viralheat is known as a cheaper alternative to tools like Radian 6". Wikipedia and costs/prices rarely mix well (this can change, can be biased, etc.). Remove it, and it gets my support vote for inclusion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yah, I was hesitant on some of the pricing content. Pricing is a big part of why they are notable and the media articles often introduce them as the cheaper alternative. But their pricing has increased since then and we don't normally include that stuff. I removed the sentence.

Do you think small articles like Viralheat and Sig Mejdal could be GA reviewed? I would like to bring every article I work on (COI and volunteer) to GA just as part of raising my quality of work here. Wasn't sure what the rules are on really small articles. CorporateM (Talk) 14:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My sense (without being able to quote anything) is that small articles may not even qualify for "B" level assessment, since that level does have criteria that (at least to me) imply that there is a breadth requirement for that rating.

The larger issue is if someone presents a small article as a GA candidate, there is a lot more cause for worry that the primary article author has been selective about sources in a way that biases the article significantly. But to prove that would require some research by the reviewer, and for a more obscure topic, that's not a trivial challenge.

On a different topic, I'll be happy to review and move the draft you asked about (but not to be a GA reviewer, though I will probably offer suggestions; I'm not comfortable in that role). Unfortunately I'm on the road until this weekend, and using an iPad for my Internet access, and it's fairly painful to do Wikipedia editing in that mode. So I'll aim for this weekend. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I would go the other way (ie, cherry-picking). Less notable companies/products have fairly sterile reputations, so all they need is neutral writing. Larger topics have more controversies and have more corporate bureaucracy problems that fight against inclusion of sensitive topics. For larger companies, you can usually find a very complete and neutral profile somewhere to check for exclusions, but whether the GA reviewer is that thorough depends.

Anyways, I'll just wait and see what they say. The same goes for Tijuana Flats, where I don't have a COI. It may not be long enough. Thanks for helping out. I'll wait until I get some feedback on the short articles before submitting more to get a sense of things. CorporateM (Talk) 02:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re: Eric Everard

I would welcome your opinion on the articles about Eric Everard (in English, French and NL). I recognize a COI issue but have tried to work within WP:BIO. Looking for resolution. Best regards. --EdWalker58 (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the primary argument for notability is tied to the award, of which I have no familiarity, so I can't comment. Instead, I'll comment on COI, where I have more experience.

As I often do, I imagine the same scenario with journalists and traditional media. Imagine you wrote your client into the New York Times, then told the editorial board that if it was promotional THEY should clean it up. Then the journalists call a meeting to take a vote on whether to delete the article and the PR person themself comes in to vote and makes arguments that are very far afield from how the editorial boards make these decisions.

In a perfect world user:nonsense would have infinite patience, they would assume good faith and understand that as an editor with a conflict of interest, you lack perspective and didn't mean any harm by it. Realistically, it's a frustrating experience and Wikipedians equally lack perspective in that we are so engrossed in Wikipedia's policies, it becomes difficult to imagine how unfamiliar a COI editor can be with Wikipedia's decision-making process.

In any case, in the future I would suggest checking out Articles for Creation. You can disclose your conflict of interest and offer contributed content. An editor will provide feedback (just through standard templates mostly) on how to make the entry acceptable. If you ever need help, you know how to reach me.

CorporateM (Talk) 15:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have noted your edits. I don't think the NY Times analogy is quite right but I get your drift. The reality is, if I submitted an article to a journal about a personality, the journalists would not need to be told what parts were promotional. They would edit the content, adding and removing stuff, and then (I would hope, though it does not always happen) resubmit to me to check for factual accuracy. However, the fact of the matter is, they do depend on getting a lot of content from a variety of sources. I note your comment on Articles for Creation and will take you up on your offer to provide feedback. Is it possible now to remove the big request for deletion block at the top? I have noticed that these often hang around for a long time on Wikipedia. Best regards --EdWalker58 (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance I see two delete votes, three that look like COI/astroturfed votes, and 1 presumably legitimate keep vote. Only an admin can close the discussion and as part of the process they have to use good judgement on identifying which votes are from actual impartial editors. I am not an admin, but if I were, I would probably have to relist it. All this just delays the AfD's resolution. Best thing to do is just wait it out. CorporateM (Talk) 15:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my ignorance but I only know AstroTurf as a kind of artificial grass. --EdWalker58 (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For example, if I was in a dispute on Wikipedia and I went and asked all my friends to vote in my favor. If I specifically asked them to vote for me, or knew with great certainty which way they would vote; Wikipedia has a similar concept called "canvassing" or meatpuppets.

The term comes from the idea of being fake grass-roots. It attempts to make it look like there is popular support for a keep, when in actuality there is not. If the subject of the article, his PR guy and his friends all come in to vote Keep, this makes it look like there is popular grass-roots support within the Wikipedia community to keep, but there is not.

Often people don't mean any harm by it; it's a reflex if you want something badly and an editor may see it like running for office where it's a good thing to get your voters out. CorporateM (Talk) 17:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I must trouble you again. I am pleased to see that the decision was to keep the article. However, there is a factual inaccuracy in the first paragraph. Rather than edit the article directly myself, I have inserted a comment on the Talk section for the article. Best regards. --EdWalker58 (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to take a look at

User:Dreamyshade/RFCU. It may prove of interest to you. --No unique names 16:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long overdue. I will participate, though I fear in doing so I will attract retributional hounding and battlegrounding. Dreamyshade is the best person to start the RfC, since he has had more exemplary responses to the behavior than I. CorporateM (Talk) 16:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She! :) (And thanks!) Dreamyshade (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh shoot. Well you know, using "he" is just a good way to play the odds around here. :-D CorporateM (Talk) 01:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts of articles

Hi. I had Talk:MarkMonitor/Draft restored. My rationale is here. Let me know if you have any questions, comments, concerns, etc. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's weird. Was it deleted by me? I often cleanup drafts in my user-space, but...

I've been bugging them to take a second run at it. The Research section should be in paragraph form and could be updated with their latest research. The Board Members section should be deleted and the Controversy section could be broken up into History and Research per WP:Criticism. I think the lead needs a lot of work, the History could use anti-promotional trimming and simultaneous expansion, etc. etc.. So hopefully I'll be back to bring it into better shape eventually.

I know it's been almost a year, but still on my radar ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 23:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you can't delete pages here. The log indicates it was requested. Dunno if that's true or not. I was mostly posting here to let you know the page had been restored (in case you didn't still have that page watchlisted) and to hopefully prevent future talk subpages from being deleted. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Viralheat, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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 leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

GrooveDog FOREVER 21:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Messages

Hello, CorporateM. You have new messages at GrooveDog's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GA on hold

Hi! Just so you know, your article about Waggener Edstrom Worldwide is currently on hold. I've done a preliminary review so far and you can find my comments on the review page, thanks!Retrolord (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! Some of your GA review comments are things I should have caught. But I'm just inching my way up from B and C class to GA territory, so I appreciate you bearing with me a bit. CorporateM (Talk) 22:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review WALMART

Thanks for making those improvements to the Walmart article. I know your not the nominator but your the only one that has responded to the review, so I was wondering if you would have any objections to me failing the article for failling to meet the criteria?

Let me know. Retrolord (talk) 08:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I was going to pick up where they left off and bring it to the finish line, but as I started digging in - it needs a lot of work before it will be ready for a GA review. CorporateM (Talk) 13:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Chaplin

Hi. You said you are willing to move this user-draft article to Roy Chaplin. Thank you. Please try to resist the temptation for the moment. The author Jonathan Chaplin (talk · contribs) has asked for more time to add further content. In addition, we are holding the move so as not to fall foul of DYK rules (five-fold expansion since posted to main article-space) as this appears, to me at least, a prime DYK candidate --Senra (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. CorporateM (Talk) 15:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page stalkers

Any Talk page stalkers are invited to contribute their thoughts here regarding a COI-related template for company articles that was been incubating for a few months or so. CorporateM (Talk) 16:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erm. I stalked! --Senra (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am a big fan of TPS myself, probably to the point of being annoying. I like looking for little problems that are bothering someone and jumping in uninvited and surprisingly helpful (or at least that's how I envision it).

I was thinking of announcing my major COI contributions here to invite second opinions and eyeballs, etc. but that might get quickly annoying ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 18:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RTI International

Hi Corporate, I'll get around to that review shortly.Retrolord (talk) 05:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I know the lead needs some bulking up. If you have time to provide GA prep feedback, that would be welcome, but even just starting it out at B/C for now would be great. CorporateM (Talk) 05:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, why not nominate the article for a GA review, and i'll do it there, and instead of bringing it up to a C/B standard, why not make it GA standard? Just a thought. Retrolord (talk) 08:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated. The review might be slow or messy in this case. For the most part I don't edit article-space where my contributions are made in a PR capacity. Jimbo Wales[1] asked that I not edit the article even during GA reviews. Meanwhile, when I posted the question on GA nominations Talk page, Pete suggested doing a GA review in draft space would be a pain for the reviewer. So I haven't figured out the most practical way to bring COI works up to GA without getting under somebody's skin ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 14:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to WikiProject Hotels

Hello, CorporateM. You are invited to join WikiProject Hotels, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of hotels, motels and lodging-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at my talk page

Hello, CorporateM. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added byNorthamerica1000^(talk) 04:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Chartered Institute of Marketing

I have made some updates to the CIM page as per your suggestion. There are still some references to the CIM's own material but I have added half a dozen external citations. I have added the 2004 crisis to the "History" section (this episode is not mentioned in the official CIM version) and a paragraph on criticism (I may add to this). I would be inclined to remove a couple of sections (the ones on accreditation centres and excellence awards ... what do you think?) Anyway, it reads less like an advertisement now. Cheers --EdWalker58 (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed. Very pleased to see that you took up the project! As long as you're interested in working on it, I'm happy to keep helping. I posted some detailed suggestions on the article talk-page. Ping me again when you want more feedback.

Yes, it is a bit funny. Journalists would never call out that a PR person is "paid," because.... isn't everybody paid for their work? On Wikipedia the dynamic is different, because editors donate their time here for free. CorporateM (Talk) 19:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page stalkers

I have asked for consideration of a major content contribution to: Talk:YouSendIt#Draft_for_consideration, where I have a COI.

Feedback, collaboration and a strong second pair of eyes are invited. CorporateM (Talk) 19:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible candidate for PR support?

Hi. Following this help-desk query and as per your request, would 81.202.185.127 (talk · contribs) (R Davis?), who appears to be the PR for Joseph Ferrante, be a possible candidate for your support? --Senra (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I responded there. CorporateM (Talk) 20:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013

Please do not remove the {{copyvio}} template from articles, as you did with Public relations. Your action has been reverted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted, and removing copyright notices will not help your case. You can properly contest the deletion at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. If you are the owner of the material, you may release the material under the Creative Commons and GFDL licenses, as detailed at WP:IOWN. Alternatively, you are welcome to create a draft in your own words at Talk:Public relations/Temp. If you continue to insert copyright violations and/or remove copyright notices, you may be blocked from editing. Psychonaut (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I presumed the huge tag was created by the persistent vandal I saw in the edit history. How long until the content and tag are just deleted? I plan to work on the article anyway and will get to that section eventually. CorporateM (Talk) 00:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The copyvio will be processed as soon as an administrator or copyright clerk at Wikipedia:Copyright problems gets around to it. (How long this takes varies; it depends on the size of the current backlog and the availability and inclination of editors to process it.) You could probably expedite the process by rewriting that section, putting it at Talk:Public relations/Temp as suggested by the template, and then leaving a note at the corresponding entry at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2013 January 22. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you once again removed the copyvio template, and also copied the infringing text to Talk:Public relations/Temp. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear above, but you shouldn't remove the template or the text it covers from the main article until an administrator or copyright clerk has dealt with the matter, nor should you duplicate the infringing text anywhere else. The page at Talk:Public relations/Temp should contain a copy of the article, written in your own words, which contains none of the infringing text. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the explanation in the edit history. If I'm going to re-write it, I'll probably use different sources and text anyway, so I'll wait for an admin to handle it. That template is very complicated and confusing. CorporateM (Talk) 15:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CorporateM. You have new messages at Debloper's talk page.
Message added — Deb ‖ Poke • Edits ‖. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lunch

That sandwich is seriously making me hungry! I have three other GANs in the hopper too, so pretty soon I'll have six! A lot of my COI works-in-progess will eventually be nominated too. I'm just waiting to see if an editor will have any pre-GAN feedback for JMP (statistical software) before nominating. CorporateM (Talk) 17:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Jaeger

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hi Rob. Every once in a while I do a search for articles that contain the word "industry-leading" which must be how this came up. I won't delete the article, but I have nominated it for consideration and other editors will chime in on whether to delete it or not. CorporateM (Talk) 02:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thanks for trimming down the Association of Flight Attendants article. The article had been so plagued with COI/promotional editing and coatracking that I gave up on it months ago. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 05:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Because my background is in public relations, I usually attract some constructive criticism for a promotional writing style, but doing a search on "industry-leading" always reveals some easy chops and AfDs. I came across the AFA article, through the article on its President Veda Shook. Do you have any thoughts on if Veda's article should be kept? It has no viable sources on the article, but a Google News search suggests it might be keepable. CorporateM (Talk) 14:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that article is terrible. None of the sources on the article are about her, and I haven't found many truly independent sources about her in doing a search. Of course there are going to be sources that mention her or quote her since she is the president of a high-profile organization, but whether or not that constitutes significant coverage is open to debate. Her status as AFA president does not in and of itself cause her to meet the notability criteria. It's not a clear-cut delete, but it's not a clear-cut keep either. Perhaps an AfD should be opened to generate a discussion and consensus. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would think if she founded AFA, the keep would be more certain, but just holding the position, which is usually pretty short-term at an organization like that - I went ahead and AfDd. CorporateM (Talk) 03:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aben Resources Ltd

Oof, that's a tough question. Never know what I might be getting myself into.

At a glance, it looks like Aben Resources doesn't meet WP:CORP, so there's nothing I can do to help except gently shoo him away. CorporateM (Talk) 20:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infront Sports & Media

I would be most greatful for your help once again with this article. I'm afraid I'm a bit of a novice and whilst I am trying to comply with all the guidelines on COI, I'm not sure I've done the best job at drafting my proposed update to this article. You helped me last year and once again the information now needs a revision as it is out of date. I have requested the revision on the Infront Sports & Media Talk Page and prepared a revised draft on my Talk Page but references are all a bit confusing now and I'm concerned about making edits on the Article page directly due to previous concerns. Really appreciate support--HablasESport!121 (talk) 12:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was SilverSeren that helped last time. I just closed the Request Edit, since he had made the edits. I provided detailed feedback there. CorporateM (Talk) 14:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your constructive feedback. I am certainly keen to improve the article in any way possible. However the article does not now represent the major activities of the company. The examples you have provided in the Notable Services section really are not the most 'notable services' and actually a lot of the information that I was suggesting in my draft should be deleted still remains. I have therefore made one edit myself that was most prominent and incorrect. I hope this is acceptable conduct. Would it be appropriate for me to go back to Silverseren in this situation for support? Or would you be happy to help me to make specific changes to the Notable Services section that reflect the major activities of the company? --HablasESport!121 (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. The problem with direct edits is one editor will say it's fine and the other editor will say not to, which puts you in a bad position, because you will get contradicting advice.

I would support a second draft that is 2-3 paragraphs long. I would simply trust your judgement in identifying the most significant projects now that you have some guidelines, without personally getting involved in it. CorporateM (Talk) 17:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I hope its ok for me to reply here? Rather than below? I would be very greatful for your support with a revised 2-3 paragraphs for the notable services. If I prepare something for tomorrow morning that is in line with your guidelines, is it appropriate for me to post it here for you to update directly? Or where do you recommend I put it so as not to create any major issues? Much appreciate support. --HablasESport!121 (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general it's best to post on the Talk page of the article, so any editor interested in the article can see. Then to ping editors to bring the Talk page comment to their attention. However, another method would be to ping an editor for feedback before submitting the Request Edit on the article-Talk, as a way of getting a quick second opinion before submitting. CorporateM (Talk) 17:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciate the advice. Will do that and be in touch. --HablasESport!121 (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infront Sports & Media - Revised

Hi again, Herewith a revised version of the article. I have references available for everything obviously but wanted to see if this was suitable from your perspective. The article that is currently 'live' on Wikipedia is very outdated - the updates made refer to an article in 2009/10 - a lot has changed since then. Much appreicate the feedback.

--HablasESport!121 (talk) 11:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infront Sports & Media

Infront Sports & Media is a sports marketing company based in Zug, Switzerland. The company handles the media and marketing rights for international sports events and federations as well as media production and sports services (hospitality and advertising).

Contents 1 History 2 Corporate 3 Services 4.Notable Clients and Campaigns

History

Infront was created from the purchase of the former KirchSport AG, which originated from a merger of the two marketing companies CWL and Prisma Sports & Media, by the late Robert-Louis Dreyfus on 31 October 2002. It was officially incorporated in 2003.

Infront's origins are in the football business but in 2005 the company lost a majority of its FIFA business and subsequently diversified. Today the company is divided into Summer and Winter sports properties in line with the Olympic differentiation. Until 2011 it was owned by a consortium of shareholders, including significant majority shareholder Jacobs Holding AG.[2] In September 2011 – European private equity firm Bridgepoint reached an agreement to acquire the company.[3][4][5]

Corporate

Infront has approximately 500 staff members in over 20 offices around the world. Benoît Bassi is the chairman of the board of directors,[6] Günter Netzer is a member of the board,[7] and Philippe Blatter has led the operative business since 2006[8] as the president and CEO.[9]

Services

Infront Sports & Media offers an array of services to sports rights holders to support them in the commercialisation, promotion and dispersion of their events. The core business pillars include global media rights distribution, marketing concepts as well as sponsorship sales.

The Infront Group is also specialised in media production – providing tailored sports content for all platforms. Its services range from host broadcasting to post production to archive management. The subsidiary Host Broadcast Services produces the television and radio signals for the FIFA World Cup since 2002 and will continue to do so for the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil and the 2018 FIFA World Cup Russia, amongst other international events.

Furthermore, Infront provides the relevant services required around major sports events. These include besides others hospitality and catering, stadium advertising solutions and event management.

Notable Clients

Infront is often associated for its work in Winter sport, the company represents six of the seven Olympic winter sport federations at international level,[12] including the IIHF for ice hockey and the IBU for biathlon. It also manages media and/or marketing rights to most of the FIS World Cup events.[13][14] In summer sport, Infront has recently diversified into mass participation and endurance sports – including Ironman events and the UCI World Championships in cycling. It is also a partner for the EHF EURO in handball and the CEV European Championships in Volleyball. In China, Infront represents the CBA League and the national team, Team China Basketball.[11]

In football, Infront’s works on all levels – internationally and nationally. Besides its partnerships with FIFA and UEFA, it works with the German Football Association (DFB) and the Italian Lega Serie A. Fourteen clubs in Germany and Italy are also part of the portfolio, including AC Milan and FC Schalke 04. --HablasESport!121 (talk) 11:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Hi Hables, here are my suggestions. Let me know if you would like more explanation on any of the points specifically.

Delete the Corporate section. We already have an infobox with employee-count and Key people.
Services: "Infront Sports & Media ~~offers an array of services to sports rights holders to~~ supports ~~them in the commercialisation, promotion and dispersion of their events. The core business pillars include~~ global media rights distribution, marketing concepts as well as sponsorship sales for sporting events. ~~The Infront Group is~~It also ~~specialised in~~ media production ~~– providing tailored sports content for all platforms. Its services range from~~ hosts broadcasting, to post production, and archive management. The subsidiary Host Broadcast Services has produced the television and radio signals for the FIFA World Cup since 2002 ~~and will continue to do so for the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil and the 2018 FIFA World Cup Russia, amongst~~and other international events. Furthermore, Infront provides the relevant services required around major sports events. ~~These include besides others~~Infront also provides hospitality and catering, stadium advertising ~~solutions and~~ event management and other related services."

I would also incorporate some of the content I added to the Services section, regarding the company's structure - primarily that it has 12 subsidiaries that all specialize in different service areas.

Notable projects: ~~In football, Infront’s works on all levels – internationally and nationally~~

The notable projects is missing the controversy that is currently in the article[2] and probably notable based on its coverage.

~~CorporateM (Talk) 13:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]~~
Discussion Reply
[edit]
Hi many thanks for your input, this is great. It really would be fantastic to work towards a better rating for the page. I have prepared a revised draft, taking into consideration all your points. Shall I now proceed directly on the Talk Page and 'Request Edit' or would you rather amend directly? I can copy the text here again (if that is agreeable)? Also, if I'm to amend on the Talk Page - should I prepare it all with the references and links within it? Most of them are still there but the order will have changed etc.
I also have a better version of the logo - is it ok for me to attempt an upload of that directly. Assuming its not conflicting with COI policy?
Once again, really appreicate the support with this, you really have been very helpful:-) --HablasESport!121 (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hables. I've moved your draft to Talk:Infront_Sports_&_Media/draft and made some tweaks there. When offering the draft on the article's Talk page through Request Edit, I would suggest doing it one section at a time and only the sections you're re-writing.
The logo can be updated here, where you can click "upload a new version". We would prefer a higher-rez version on a transparent background if you have one. I would advise you go ahead and do this without using Request Edit.
My approach would be to give it a {{request edit|G}}, which just means that I agree the content is an improvement and am asking that you make the necessary edits. If you prefer to wait for someone to make Proxy Edits, that's ok too. CorporateM (Talk) 18:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Great, thanks for the support with this. I have started with the Notable Projects section and once that is sorted would then proceed to the Services section as the subsidiary information is not correct and I'm currently sourcing references etc. I have put a Request Edit on the Infront Sports & Media Talk page Talk:Infront_Sports_&_Media for the Notable Projects section only and have been working to update the Infront/Draft Talk:Infront_Sports_&_Media/draft you created with references. Thank you for this. I hope you agree its coming along.
Re logo, I've managed to upload a new version but it still doesn't look that great. Are there any size specifics or other guidelines - I'm sure I can get it better?
I'd also be very grateful of the opportunity to discuss the situation of PR people being the most 'trustworthy and knowledgeable' source of 'correct' information on their organisations with you and why neutral PR input should be welcomed (as long as its not promotional obviously) by the Wikipedia community. Surely they are missing a trick here? There must be much information across all of Wikipedia that is incorrect and that through PR people (with integrity) could be avoided. It seems ridiculous that incorrect and outdated information can be uploaded when it would be easy to source current facts direct from the source?? --HablasESport!121 (talk) 10:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Ok, I thought I had made tweaks to your draft previously, but I was actually editing in article-space. But I made similar tweaks over again and merged with article-space.~~
~~Neutral PR input is always welcome, but in practice that is not the community's experience with PR people.~~
Just an hour ago I was at an American Marketing Association networking event. The speakers were comfortable talking about how a client's CEO got on Twitter and started following XXX handles, but when asked about Wikipedia, the speakers stiffened up, dropped their mics and got so uncomfortable the question was ultimately stone-walled and diverted.
Most PRs are ashamed of what they do on Wikipedia, and we should be. I would like to see more orgs do PR work on Wikipedia we can be proud of. I want to see it in case studies the same way we brag about the excellent work we do with press and Twitter. CorporateM (Talk) 18:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
COI+
[edit]
Hi Corporate! I have removed the 1-month direct editing exception from COI+ so I believe it's now consistent with your brightline approach. Would you take another glance at it and consider signing on? In any case, I'd love your feedback. Best, Ocaasi^{t | c} 15:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ocaasi. I think this would have been better if it was proposed in user space. Like any such project would as part of the natural collaborative process, there are a large number of things I would change. The timeline is too aggressive, the agreements too prescriptive and the project page is filled with editorializing with a pro-paid editor agenda. There is no method to affirm that certified editors meet the criteria and no method of booting certified editors that violate its principles. I would delete half of it and re-write a lot of it, not because it's "bad" or anything, but because it is primarily the work of a few individuals with a strong leniency in one direction. As a result, I fear it serves only to create opposing political camps within the community as oppose to being something constructive.
I would make similar observations about COOP and PAIDWATCH and now regret participating in either. I don't mean to be harsh or beat anybody up; just being straightforward. CorporateM (Talk) 16:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
EBS reply
[edit]
Hello CorporateM, I have replied to you again on EBS and unmarked my request as complete, which it was not. If you are interested in discussing it with me and working toward a solution, please join me there again. Stellatarum (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lets put things in context. Say The New York Times published a story on Emergent Biosolutions and you called the journalist (Wikipedian in this case) and said:
I would like to request a "correction." Our company doesn't "develop" vaccines, we "offer" them.

How do you think a journalist would respond? Did I act any differently? CorporateM (Talk) 18:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have singled out a single word from the overall request, which is unfair. The difference between "develop" and "offer" is minimal, I may have agreed on that point, and you surely have read the Emergent discussion page enough to know which issues are most important in my view. I am surprised that you describe yourself as a PR person. I am trying to follow Wikipedia rules to seek assistance, but your quick dismissals and unhelpful tone have made this more difficult. Please consider taking the time to explain your views and give respondents the chance to respond in the future. Thank you. Stellatarum (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, lets say you call a journalist and you say:
I would like to request a "correction." Our company doesn't "develop vaccines," we "develop specialty vaccines."

How would you expect the journalist to respond? CorporateM (Talk) 20:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor?
[edit]
~~Another editor for you? (Tell me when to stop - he he) --Senra (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]~~
That's a perfect one. The fact that he/she has disclosed and asked for help suggests they didn't know the content was promotional. No other editor will spend the amount of time required to help them and telling them to just not edit on account of their COI is silly (certainly the IP's boss isn't going to take that answer well). Really, PR people should be paying for the training they need, but given that such training doesn't exist and few would pay for it anyway, I'm willing to donate my time for the cause. CorporateM (Talk) 03:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]