User talk:Ptrnext

Welcome!

Hi Ptrnext! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Love of Corey (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

Hello, I'm Meters. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Bar Refaeli, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Meters (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

added citations, thanks! Ptrnext (talk) 06:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You made an edit on Klarna adding that Michael Moritz is chairman, but did not support it with a reference. Could you add the reference? Thanks. TylerBurden (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @TylerBurden, thanks for the nudge. The existing annual report citing the financials in the infobox contained it, but I missed adding ref name tag while making my change. I've added an additional reference. Ptrnext (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop ruining my edits!

Your reversal of my edits is non-constructive and obnoxious. TD Bank Group is the trade name for Toronto-Dominion Bank, PERIOD. Babesonion (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which edit? As long as you post correct information, no one is going to reverse them.

btw, the page move from TD Bank Group back to Toronto-Dominion Bank was done by User:Joeyconnick and I'm glad they did that, but looks like you have reversed it again, sigh. Ptrnext (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi... yes, please gain consensus on the Talk page if you want to attempt to move this long-stable page. The trade name has NO BEARING given WP:CRITERIA, specifically WP:COMMONNAME. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LendingClub History request help

Hi, User:Ptrnext! I recently posted an edit request to the LendingClub Talk page where I proposed some significant additions to the current article's outdated History section. I was wondering, since you handled the infobox updates for the LC page, if you had any interest in reviewing that request, which you can find using this link. No worries if not, but I thought I would drop by and check. Thanks for all the help you've already provided. Talk soon, I hope! EFlynn at LendingClub (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello EFlynn at LendingClub, thanks for checking. Unfortunately, I'll have to pass this one. Best, Ptrnext (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

44th Chess Olympiad !?

Hi User:Ptrnext. You have erroneously reverted the name Mamallapuram to 'Mahabalipuram' in the above named article. I've only changed the name to reflect the official usage. Even government sources use only "Mamallapuram".

ref: https://twitter.com/kryes/status/1530576739436568577?s=20&t=Cd_K7Ja-hWXJR9Hh81xKjw MS2P (talk) 07:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @MS2P: Thanks for checking. While Mamallapuram is the official name, Mahabalipuram is the WP:COMMONNAME and is used in the citations mentioned in the article. Ptrnext (talk) 08:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See all the Olympics event. See the latest one in Tokyo. They have Cauldron and all in Infobox. This is the first time it has happened in Chess Olympiad so ofc it will be mentioned. And there is no budget mentioned in any similar Sports event. Please Research. JokerDurden (talk) 08:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JokerDurden, contrary to what you just said, "Torch relay starter" is not in the Tokyo Olympics infobox. Considering this event is using a custom infobox, there isn't any rigidity as to what goes into the infobox. This article is not just for folks who are familiar or understand chess, so budget / prize money provides a quick insight (which is what the infobox is for) about the event and the scale of it. In my opinion, it is a more meaningful parameter than knowing who started the torch relay or lit the cauldron.

In any case, I will not argue further as the change has been reverted by another editor as well — the editor who creates other chess event articles (so not surprised they want to keep it the same way). Thanks Ptrnext (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nationwide Building Society

Hi @Ptrnext, Firstly thank you for review the Society's page I have made the updates as you have requested. If you could take a look it would be very much appreciated as there are few more edits I will need to make, after this initial one. Thank you again CJK1979 (talk) 10:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @CJK1979, thanks for the follow-up. I've completed your request. Let me know if that works for you. Best, Ptrnext (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A massive thank you @Ptrnext! Such a great help! If it's ok with you I will let you know when I have made further suggested edits, to ensure the page is factually correct.CJK1979 (talk) 10:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ptrnext I have made some additional suggestions to the History section. If you would take a look that would be amazing. Thank you in advance. CJK1979 (talk) 13:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

90min check in

Hi Ptrnext, I just wanted to see if you had seen my reply on the 90min page. Please let me know what you think! M at MinuteMedia (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see now another editor has responded. Nevermind! Thanks for reviewing the request though! M at MinuteMedia (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @M at MinuteMedia, thanks for the follow-up. I tend to agree with the other editor on the outcome of the request. If you have an update to that, feel free to re-open the request. Best, Ptrnext (talk) 04:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks again! M at MinuteMedia (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additions to Citadel Securities

Hi there Ptrnext. I noticed that you recently made some edits to the Citadel Securities Wiki, and I am hoping you would like to take a look at an edit request I posted on the Talk page a few days ago. The request is to add a few sentences to update the article, with sources. I would really appreciate your help. Thanks. Cduffymul (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Cduffymul: I've implemented them. Best, Ptrnext (talk) 05:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you so much for your support CJK1979 (talk) 10:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for implementing my edit request. I appreciate the work you do to keep Wikipedia such a useful resource. Cduffymul (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rebekah Neumann

Hi Ptrnext. I see that you edited Rebekah Neumann's page back in April. Any chance you would be willing to examine an edit request I posted on Talk:Rebekah Neumann to remove a recently added sentence which I believe is strikingly not NPOV? My explanation supporting the removal of the sentence is on the edit request. Thanks for your help. Carlos for Neumann (talk) 11:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Carlos for Neumann, I tend to agree with you. The phrasing is questionable and even with the additional source, I don't see how "key role" is warranted. I stay away from contentious edits such as these, but I'll see if I can go through the sources thoroughly and have any other inputs.

I'm also confused why that editor also added "..Generation Hustle, which profiles American scammers,.." in her article when the documentary, though it did talk about her and had her archival footage (in all < 5 mins), was all about Adam. Ptrnext (talk) 05:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ptrnext. I am following up with you concerning the above comments you made about the non-NPOV nature of some of the content on Rebekah Neumann's page. I wonder if you would mind taking a look and seeing if you can please improve the extremely negative language used to describe Rebekah in the BLP. Further, the language surrounding Generation Hustle seems a bit excessive on Adam Neumann's page as well. While Vanity Fair does describe the show using the "scammer" language, Generation Hustle and HBO Max themselves later changed their self-descriptions, per Deadline, Law & Crime, and The Verge. I suggest removing the phrase "which profiles American scammers" from the sentence, as it implies that some kind of "scam" or "crime" was committed while the sources state that this is completely false. Carlos for Neumann (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request assistance

Hello! I've submitted a series of single-sentence updates for the WiTricity article on the company's behalf (which I've fully disclosed at Talk:WiTricity). Unfortunately, I've struggled to get editor feedback despite using Template:Request edit. I noticed you have answered similar edit requests for other articles and wondered if you might be willing to take a look at the suggested improvements I've proposed and update the article appropriately. If you are not interested, I will continue to seek editor assistance at various WikiProjects and similar help pages.

Thanks for your consideration, Inkian Jason (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Inkian Jason, thanks for following the COI procedure and for your patience. I will look into implementing some of them. Thanks, Ptrnext (talk) 05:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look when you have a moment. Much appreciated, Inkian Jason (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Inkian Jason: After looking closer into the requests, here are my comments:

#1: agree with the other editor's comment, especially considering it wasn't an award, but an 'honorable mention'.

#3: this is not notable enough and I wouldn't consider the two sources as WP:RS

#4: this is ok, but I don't think listing every car/model that is supported to be listed in the article (unless something about it warrants it)

#5: I want to add this, but I couldn't find an independent source that can verify it

#6: this should be ok with some trimming on Wiferion (but again, it may not be the best idea to be listing all the companies it licenses its tech to)

Best, Ptrnext (talk) 03:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding! Regarding #3, may I ask why you would not consider the two sources reliable? Both are industry publications with editorial staff and I don't think the claim is particularly contentious. As for #4, my goal is simply to propose claims which demonstrate how the technology is being used within the car industry over time, in line with the article's existing text. I'm open to your preferred wording for #6. Are you willing to add these responses to the article's Talk page and close out the requests appropriately? If you prefer to leave them open for others to review, I understand. Thanks again for taking time to review these requests! Inkian Jason (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jason, my concern with #3 is more that *I'm* not familiar about either publication's reputation for accuracy, whether they issue corrections and whether they disclose COI for articles that would warrant one. So, I'm going to leave them open for others. Thanks, Ptrnext (talk) 04:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TechnologyOne COI edit requests

Hi! I'm reaching out because I saw you recently made some edits to TechnologyOne. If you're interested in helping improve the article further, I've posted some COI edit requests at Talk:TechnologyOne. These requests have been open since February, so I'm reaching out to anyone I think might be interested in taking a look. Even a review of just a few items would be super helpful. Thanks for reading. Mary Gaulke (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MaryGaulke, I did update the infobox earlier with your proposed changes. I'll try looking into the other – some of them seem to have marketing terms/promo'ish tones, which I will likely skip. Thanks, Ptrnext (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely appreciate any feedback. Thanks again for your time. Mary Gaulke (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support with COI editing

CJK1979 (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your support on the Nationwide Building Society page. I have the citations for the bits you have suggested, however what I am struggling with is trying to change the colour of the font as you suggested and use strikethrough for the the suggested deletions. I don't suppose you could point me in the right direction. Thank you as ever! CJK1979 (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @CJK1979, you can try using these templates:

{{Font color|green|text to add...}} produces text to add...

{{Font color|red|text to remove...}} produces text to remove...

{{strikethrough|text to remove...}} produces ~~text to remove...~~

For highlighting and other markup, you can refer to the documentation at {{Font color}}

Let me know if there's anything else. Thanks, Ptrnext (talk) 04:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there @Ptrnext. I have made the amends in the suggested format. I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you so much CJK1979 (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New request for Kosmos Energy

Hello, Ptrnext. Thomas Kosmos Energy here. If you are still interested in reviewing edit requests about Kosmos, you can see my latest request at Talk:Kosmos Energy. Thank you for considering. TGKosmos (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TGKosmos, I'm not familiar with some of those sources (Energy Voice, Africa Oil Week), so I'd let someone else take a look. If you can provide other sources like this or this (the former is an older one, so can't use it for your proposed changed), I can look further into this. Thanks, Ptrnext (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ptrnext. Let me see what I can find. I'll ping you if I can find other sources similar to what you've shared here. TGKosmos (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ptrnext. I was looking around and one problem is that the coverage of these topics in more mainstream publications can be a little inconsistent. What are your thoughts on using Kosmos Energy's annual report for basic facts?

At Wikipedia:No original research, the section Primary, secondary and tertiary sources reads: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." That seems like it may apply here when referring to statements of fact, such as the areas Kosmos Energy operates. What do you think? If you agree, I can update my latest request using the annual report and some other independent sources if possible. TGKosmos (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ptrnext. Do you have any thoughts on using annual reports for basic facts? In this case, it may help verify some of the info that I sourced to publications you were unfamiliar with. If you think an annual report would work with my latest request at Talk:Kosmos Energy, I can update my request. Thank you. TGKosmos (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @TGKosmos, I believe the areas Kosmos Energy operates should be covered by WP:PRIMARY like you mentioned. Does the annual report also cover the areas that are no longer covered (which is also part of your request)? The last part of your request regarding partnership with BP, on the other hand, needs a secondary independent reliable source. Best, Ptrnext (talk) 03:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ptrnext. I revised my request based on this conversation. You can find it here. Let me know what you think. TGKosmos (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OmniVision Technologies is now OMNIVISION

HI Ptrnext - I see you've recently made edits to the OmniVision Technologies page. I recently made a request on the talk page to make some changes. Full disclosure, they are a client of my employer, Kiterocket, and so I can't make the edits myself, but I did disclose that on the talk page and requested these edits.

Talk:OmniVision Technologies

Most importantly, the company has rebranded to OMNIVISION and needs a new page, as I understand it. Please let me know what edits you can make. StellaBean (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WorldQuant changes

Hi Ptrnext! I have submitted a request on the Talk page of an article you have edited recently, WorldQuant. I know the rule with edit requests is to wait patiently, but as it has been over a month I thought it could be worth reaching out to someone who understands what the page is about and see if I could get some feedback. If you could take a look at the suggestions I’ve made I’d be really grateful, and please let me know if there’s anything I can improve. Yuccata86 (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have tidied my request a bit to make it easier to read.Yuccata86 (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~ HAL333 01:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter

Which regulatory filing says that Musk is CEO? 67.180.143.89 (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@67.180.143.89 It's linked in the first sentence in this Reuters article Ptrnext (talk) 01:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of Edit warring

Hello Ptrnext,

You have a history of Edit warring. I would advise you against reverting my edits 3 times, under the 3 revert rule. Edit: Sorry if im not clear: this is for the Sam Bankman-Fried article.

Later, Alexysun (talk) 05:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexysun: Reverting unsourced edits (such as yours) in BLP and reverting persistent vandalism doesn't constitute edit-warring. I suggest adding a source to your edits. Best, Ptrnext (talk) 05:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You literally changed my grammatically correct sentence to "The FTT" to make it incorrect grammatically. Secondly, you RELENTLESSLY patrol the Sam Friend article. Makes me feel like you have no life outside of patrolling a single Wikipedia article and that nobody can help edit it without you reverting. Go outside and touch some grass. Later, Alexysun (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should at least be reading the section you're adding to. FTT was already introduced as FTX's token – you don't have to keep introducing and explaining it. I didn't undo your changes since my last reply here. Other editors (rightly) removed your additions as they weren't supported by the source you provided. If you still have a problem, please take it to the talk page of the article, not here. Ptrnext (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kosmos Energy Ghana updates

Hello, Ptrnext. Thomas from Kosmos Energy here. I appreciate all the help you've provided reviewing my updates so far. If you're available for another, I've suggested additional changes here. Thank you. TGKosmos (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TGKosmos, I'm not familiar with those secondary sources, and I don't want to make the body too reliant on primary sources (for using the 10-K). I'll leave it up to another editor to make any of your proposed changes. Best, Ptrnext (talk) 07:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thank you for letting me know! TGKosmos (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Horizon founding date

Hi, I had changed it from 2005 to 2008 because that is what the company itself claims. See: https://www.horizontherapeutics.com/company/about-us Terrorist96 (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But I also do see the date June 22, 2005 in SEC filed documents. Terrorist96 (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Terrorist96: thanks for your note. I noticed the discrepancy at the time as well and dismissed the later founding date as the company not wanting to associate itself with its founder George Tidmarsh (who also served as CEO during that period). I just looked up the companies patents, and I could find one from 2006, so I think the earlier founding date should be ok. Ptrnext (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

Hello! Over at WikiProject Merge, I've proposed merging the Citrix Systems and TIBCO Software articles. I've not received any feedback in a couple weeks. I'm curious if you'd like to weigh in, given your edits to the Citrix article back in October. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Verizon History request

Hello Ptrnext, I saw the updates you made on the Verizon Communications article and they really help keep the article updated. Given your recent interest in that page, I wanted to direct you to an ongoing request that I have posted on the Talk page about the subsection Merger of equals (2000–2002).

As I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, I ask others to look at my requests and make edits on my behalf. I can answer any questions about these requests on the Verizon Communications Talk page. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @VZEric, thanks for following the COI guidelines. It does look good, but if I were to implement the request I'd be more comfortable if I'm presented with a "visual diff" of the before and after text side-by-side or through some text formatting. Also, could the marketingprofs.com citation be replaced by a WP:RS citation (e.g. this CNET one? Thanks, Ptrnext (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ptrnext. I created a diff for you in my user space so that you can see the before-and-after text side-by-side. Additionally, I swapped out the marketingprofs.com citation for the CNET one you suggested. Feel free to ping me if you have any further questions. Thanks for reviewing the request. VZEric (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quarterly Financials Updates

Hi! First, thanks for updating the Fastly and Cloudflare and whatever other pages you recently did for quarterly financials. Including citing them properly with the SEC filings.

Do you know or are you aware of any efforts to automate this process? I was a bit shocked to find that all this data from publicly-available filings has to be entered in by editors like you and I, sort of "whenever we get around to it."

I've long wanted to figure out a bot'd way to update this info on Wikipedia pages but am unsure how to go about doing that. Just thought I'd ask -- and also say thanks for updating those pages. Nickgray (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Nickgray: thanks for your message. I'm not aware of any efforts to automate it. I feel that the bot approach might be a bit tricky, but semi-automation should be quite straightforward (script to parse the 10-K and output just the revenue, ebit, profit, assets, equity, and aum parameters). For a bot to do the auto-updates, I can think of lots of special handling that might be needed (I can list them, if interested), and so most likely getting that bot approved might be challenging and time-consuming. Also, even if we have a bot for this, I'm not entirely convinced that quarterly updates are needed. My concern is that many businesses are cyclical, and quarter-over-quarter indicators don't mean much, unlike the year-over-year ones. But I'm open to persuasion.

Btw, nice work cleaning up some of the irrelevant stuff from Cloudflare page – what a mess. Best, Ptrnext (talk) 06:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Karp

Hi again, Ptrnext! You've been kind enough to provide feedback on a couple edit requests I've submitted previously, so I was hoping you might have a moment to review suggestions for another biography I've been working on.

On behalf of American book editor, publisher, and writer Jonathan Karp, I've submitted a few edit requests to update and improve his entry. One of the requests is about crediting him for his contributions to a selection of specific books, based on multiple reliable sources. I'd like to think the other suggestions are non-controversial but of course I'll let other editors decide what's best. I'd appreciate any assistance, if you're interested.

Thanks again! Inkian Jason (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Verizon "History request 3"

Hello Ptrnext, I wanted to alert you to an open discussion on the Verizon Communications talk page about my next request to update the article's History section.

As I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, I ask others to look at my requests and make edits on my behalf. I can answer any questions you have on the Verizon Communications Talk page. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 11:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CME Group request

Hi Ptrnext, I saw that you recently updated financial information on the CME Group article. Thank you for taking the time to make these changes. I've put together a proposal on the Talk page that attempts to correct some ongoing issues in the article, namely the conflation between Chicago Mercantile Exchange and CME Group. I have a COI due to my relationship with CME Group, so I won't be editing the article myself. As such, I'm hoping that editors like you who have helped to improve article content in the past can take a look at what I've put together. Would appreciate any feedback you can provide! Lbischel (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth and final Verizon History section request

Hello Ptrnext, I am working on my last suggestion for the History section on the Verizon Communications article and since you reviewed the last one, I thought you would like to end this series of requests. I posted the latest request to the Verizon Communications talk page.

As you know, I work for Verizon and I have a conflict of interest so I ask others to look at my requests and make edits on my behalf. As always, I can answer any questions you have on the Verizon Communications Talk page. Thank you, VZEric (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Neumann

Hi Ptrnext. This is a gentle reminder to please have a look at my recent edit request for Adam Neumann here: Talk:Adam_Neumann#Awards_and_Forbes_List. Thanks so much. Carlos for Neumann (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks again for your last edits. This message is to kindly ask if you can take a look at my latest edit request Talk:Adam Neumann#Philanthropy to create a new Philanthropy section. Thanks for all your help. Carlos for Neumann (talk) 08:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Carlos for Neumann, I'm not so sure whether I would consider the second one falls under philanthropy. May be the translation is misleading, but what I got is, *some* of his proceeds would go towards those community programs. Also, because it's not clear to me if that football club is owned by Neumann's brother-in-law (Google Translate says CEO)? Or does the article simply mean Neumann was introduced to the club through Avi Yehiel as a player, in which case this is OK. In any case, I'll let it sit for some time, in case others have any feedback. Best, Ptrnext (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering so promptly. Let me try to address your questions. The article states that the football club Hapoel Petach Tikvah is owned and operated by a non-profit supporters' trust called "The Blue". Yes, Neumann's brother-in-law is the CEO of the supporters' trust that runs the club, and not the owner. I hope that clarifies that the article supports the assertion that the donations, the approximately 1 million shekels Neumann previously donated, as well as the 1.5 million shekels "matching fund" donation, were both philanthropic in nature. Thanks again. Carlos for Neumann (talk) 10:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, @Carlos for Neumann. I tried looking for another source, and Times of Israel calls the NIS 1 million as an "investment" as it will "fund the club's budget for the 2021-22 season." So it needs to be dropped or perhaps added to the investments section instead. I agree that the prior NIS 1.5 million "matching fund" is a donation. Thanks, Ptrnext (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks for your quick response. Since you already said you agree that the first bullet point about the donation to the bone marrow program is OK, and the 1.5 million shekel matching fund is a donation, would you be willing to put up a Philanthropy section that includes the first bullet point and the following shorter version as the second bullet point:

In 2022, he gave approximately NIS 1.5 million to the Hapoel Petach Tikva football club, and became the team's main sponsor.

Thanks again, Carlos for Neumann (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is whether they're WP:DUE. For a billionaire, NIS 1.5M or US$400K seems undue unless there's a compelling reason. A sentence based on this article perhaps is due. Let's see if there are other comments to your request. Thanks, Ptrnext (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to look into this and explaining your position. Let's wait and see what other editors might have to say, as you suggested. Thanks again. Carlos for Neumann (talk) 08:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceX

It is better to say SpaceX's headquarters, like it is done for other articles about companies, like Amazon. Cocobb8 (💬 talk to me! • ✏️ my contributions) 14:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to show your disagreement, please provide relevant proofs to ease our discussion. Thanks! Cocobb8 (💬 talk to me! • ✏️ my contributions) 14:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Cocobb8, I don't think there's consistency in the image captions. I'd think it is roughly 50–50 if you look at the S&P 100 list or the Fortune 500 list (some examples: AMD, Boeing, Caterpillar Inc., General Motors, Honeywell, Intel, Morgan Stanley, Nvidia, PayPal, Verizon).

We avoid redundant words in WP; more so in the infobox, which is precious real estate. When someone is on the SpaceX page, and looks at the infobox image of a building with SpaceX written on it and captioned headquarters, do you really think prefixing SpaceX before headquarters adds any value? Companies with notable HQ buildings (which have their own article) are likely the ones where such redundancies are acceptable (e.g. Ford Motor Company).

I'm not going to change the caption again on the SpaceX page, but will remove redundancies when I find myself updating the infobox of a company's article and happen to see the redundant name in the image caption. Hope you're OK with that. Best, Ptrnext (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that makes sense. I didn't realize there were other articles that had it that way too. I'll change it back to "Headquarters". Cocobb8 (💬 talk to me! • ✏️ my contributions) 13:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request reopened

Hi Ptrnext, I just reopened the edit request at G42 (company) as you suggested. Please feel free to have a look at the other parts, but there is one part aimed specifically to you as it regards your recent addition to the Partnerships section. Thanks! Oddoso (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:ShotSpotter, Inc. company logo.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ShotSpotter, Inc. company logo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. 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. Ixfd64 (talk) 03:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

YouGov

Hi Ptrnext,

I noticed you recently updated the YouGov article to include the latest financials and was hoping you’d be happy to also look at my suggested edit on the talkpage for updating the information on the company’s new CEO?

Further details on the article’s talk page Talk:YouGov - let me know what you think.

Thanks! - asfarmer 10:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thoma Bravo article updates

Hi Ptrnext, I would appreciate your taking a look at my proposed updates at Talk:Thoma Bravo#Updates to the article, given your previous work on the article. I look forward to your thoughts. Thank you! JBarTB (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ptrnext. Would you mind weighing in once more, at Talk:Thoma Bravo#Next few requests? Specifically, I had requested the addition of a line about Thoma Bravo's private credit funds, which is a significant omission in the article. Also, several well-sourced pieces of information were removed from the article (including some that you added a few weeks ago in response to my initial edit request). I suggested that some of the removed content should be restored, but the other editor has not continued the conversation. Thank you! JBarTB (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JBarTB, I think some omissions were warranted/require some rework, but probably not some others. Sorry, I won't be active here for a while, and may not get to it for another month or so. You might want to try to dropping them a note on their Talk page to check out your response on the article's talk page. Best, Ptrnext (talk) 06:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SoFi Sub-headings

Hi Ptrnext. This is a gentle reminder that I pinged you concerning an edit request to make some changes to the sub-headings of the History section on the SoFi page. The ER can be found here: Talk:SoFi#History_subheadings. Thanks so much. Rachelatsofi (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

G42 (company)

Hi Ptrnext, you were previously very helpful on a request I made to the G42 Talk page. Spintendo has reviewed the request but said that they'd like other editors' input. They also have some concerns about how the article is formatted, but frankly the bullet point set-up predates my requests by a long while, and as someone who is familiar with the topic I'm not sure I'd agree that it would be simpler to understand the subject in any other format.

Anyway, as you had previously added the Cerebras partnership to the article I figured you might be a good person to ask if you support inclusion for the other portfolio companies or partnerships. The request should be a bit simpler to navigate now that I have implemented Spintendo's recommendations for reformatting.

If you know other editors who have an interest in the AI space, or even just familiarity with tech holding companies, who can make an informed, Wikipedia-appropriate call on the proposed additions please feel free to ping them. It might be easier for multiple people to take a look but I'm not well placed to ask individual editors due to my COI. Thanks again for your work on the article so far! Oddoso (talk) 12:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oddoso, you could try posting on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United Arab Emirates. In between travel and vacation, I won't be active here until mid-Jan. I'll take a look if it remains unanswered. Best, Ptrnext (talk) 06:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, I have identified some other recent editors to reach out to in the meantime and might get in touch if they or the WikiProjects you mentioned can't be of assistance. Happy new year till then! Oddoso (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ptrnext I'm afraid I had no luck with contacting individual editors on their talk pages so I thought I'd get in touch again to ask if you could review the request as I see you made some changes again recently.

The article content is quite different structurally from before Christmas but I hope that the bullet point format of the request in this iteration makes it easy enough to assess the portfolio companies and partneships. I went through the wringer a bit in terms of having to reformat the request so I hope everything makes sense but please just reach out on my Talk page if you have any questions.Oddoso (talk) 09:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SoFi history section

Hi again Ptrnext. I recently posted another edit request, this time concerning additions to the History section of the SoFi article. This is just a gentle request if you can please take a look at my suggested updates, and if you could add them to the page. Thanks so much. Rachelatsofi (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rachelatsofi, I see that your request is now implemented. I don't expect to be active here until mid-Jan, but happy to look at any requests you may have after that. Best, Ptrnext (talk) 06:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the YouGov article

Hi Ptrnext, Happy New Year!

As you have previously been helpful in reviewing my suggested updates to the YouGov article, I wanted to ask if you would be happy to have a look at some updates I have drafted and suggested on the talk page - Talk:YouGov (titled Updated History section v.2 )

As asked by you previously, I initially used the COI template and was given some very helpful feedback by an experienced editor. I have since addressed these concerns in a revised version on the talk page but it would seem the editor is caught up in other work to further review. Would you be happy to please jump in and share your thoughts/make updates you feel suitable.

I think the latest revision goes a long way to improving the article, keeping it neutral and ensuring it contains relevant, notable, up-to-date information.

Excited to hear your views and work together again.

Thanks in advance for your time. asfarmer 14:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ptrnext,

I hope you are well.

I wanted to see if you had had any time to review my suggested changes on Talk:YouGov?

As you have been so helpful previously I’d really appreciate any guidance or feedback you could share.

Thanks Asfarmer (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Feedback - Finance Wikipedia Article

Hi Ptrnext- I'm LizziePEP(New), a COI/paid editor slowly making renovations to the Pacific Equity Partners Wiki page. I noticed you in the backlogs of other Aussie Wikipedia articles, and would like to ask if you might be able to give me some pointers on proposed changes I've put forward to other editors (from whom I haven't heard back for some time). Any help you could provide would be much appreciated! See the first topic in my Sandbox for the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LizziePEP(New)/sandbox. Cheers LizziePEP(New) (talk) 06:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth C. Griffin

Hi Ptrnext. I wonder if you don’t mind taking a look at my most recent edit request for Kenneth C. Griffin here: Talk:Kenneth C. Griffin#Add to Philanthropy. Thanks so much for your help. Cduffymul (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join New pages patrol

Hello Ptrnext!

The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viatris

Hello Ptrnext. Since you have helped out with edits for Viatris in the past, perhaps you would like to participate in a discussion concerning an edit request I posted at Talk:Viatris#Update_History_section. You need to scroll down a bit to see the issue, because when I posted the edit request, I forgot to include the 'Subject'. The request has three bullet points. The first concerns updating awards, the second is an update to the History section, but the most important is an update to the Products section. Looking forward to your input. PittGuy123ABC (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of public corporations by market capitalization

Hello @Ptrnext. Would you mind removing the "up to date" phrase from the sentence above each table. To be accurate, I suppose, that phrase will be suited only to the most recent table. Let me know if you have any requests in the future. I am also as interested in firms and pages related to them. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MSincccc, I've only worked on the first section in that article. Looking at those other sections, I would probably go one step further and remove the entire sentence This list is up to date as of 31 December 20xx. since those tables are self-explanatory, and then move out the repetitive Indicated changes in market value are relative to the previous quarter. to the top of that section. Like you mentioned, the up to date as of phrase could be limited to the most recent table (in this case, once the 2024 table is up for the Q1 / March 31 update). Feel free to implement the changes you have in mind. Thanks, Ptrnext (talk) 07:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ptrnext Well would you mind taking up the article Mark Zuckerberg, which I have nominated, for GA review? You could assess the article's quality and then make suitable recommendations. It would be great to see it as a Good Article given I have worked on it for quite long now. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 06:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry MSincccc, I would rather not spend my time here doing content assessment. Best, Ptrnext (talk) 08:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ptrnext I am very much familiar with WP:NAMEDREFS. But when you will preview the "Career" section of Michelle Zatlyn's article in its current state you will most probably see this message under the "References" column for that section-Cite warning: <ref> tag with name forbes cannot be previewed because it is defined outside the current section or not defined in this article at all. Also the other articles I edit do not face a similar situation. Really hope you have not been doing the same thing removing refs from other pages. I am not doing so. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 09:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey MSincccc, the warning message is self-explanatory. The named ref is defined outside the section that you are previewing (lead paragraph in this case). If the named ref was not defined, you would instead be seeing a cite error in red (something like Cite error: The named reference forbes was invoked but never defined (see the help page).). If you are not in editing mode and simply viewing the page, do you see any warnings or errors on the page? Thanks, Ptrnext (talk) 09:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the citation now so that it can be called in any other part of the article. Hope you preview the version of the page before publishing your edits. Also content assessment does not take that long as such. You can do that in a few days also if the article is properly cited and written (as is the case with Zuck's article). Have a great day ahead. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 09:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's just that I don't fancy doing it.

edited to add: Your fix to add double quotes around the refname which contains no spaces in it, has no effect. On mobile, you can edit and preview the entire page, instead of a single section. May be you should try that to avoid any confusion with citation reuse. Ptrnext (talk) 09:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo Global Management

Hi PtrNext, I see that you've made edits to the Apollo Global Management page. Would you please take a look at the edit request I've posted for them here? I provided clarification after a different editor asked a question about this request, but that editor has not responded in over 2 weeks. I hope you'll consider implementing the edit. Thanks, Chamanch123 (talk) 14:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando Bravo and Thoma Bravo

Hi Ptrnext, I saw that you reverted this edit at the Orlando Bravo article due to "WP:POV WP:CHERRYPICKING." Would you mind doing the same for this edit at Thoma Bravo, which was made by the same IP? Thank you, JBarTB (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @JBarTB, I removed it from Orlando Bravo's page because WP:BLP pages are stricter. I recall the Fortune reference in itself was good, but the editor chose the cherrypick contents from it. I think balancing it out with further details from Fortune's analysis and correcting their somewhat misrepresentation might be OK, instead of outright removal on Thoma Bravo's page. When I get the time, I can do that. Best, Ptrnext (talk) 03:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ptrnext, thank you for offering to look into this. My thinking is that without the misleading and WP:OR analysis added by the IP ("These were among the lowest performing funds in Fortune's list"), there is no real encyclopedic information from the Fortune reference left to add to the Thoma Bravo Wikipedia article. But I'll leave it to your discretion. Thanks, JBarTB (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JBarTB, I made an attempt to try fix the POV issue. I don't think "among the lowest performing funds" qualifies as WP:OR, considering we have WP:CALC (those 2 funds are in the bottom 3 in that table). In any case, feel free to make a proposal on the company's Talk page if you still find it problematic. Thanks, Ptrnext (talk) 07:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Polovets page edits

Hi Ptrnext, I noticed that you made edits to Stan Polovets' page, cropping Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg out of the image and updating the caption. This photo, with Justice Ginsburg included, illustrates one of the most important moments in Mr. Polovets' history of philanthropic leadership, demonstrating the significance of Stan's contributions and that of the Prize he co-founded. I would be interested to understand your rationale for making the change and would like to work to seek a mutually agreeable next step. Thank you. Alirose115 (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Alirose115, it is preferred to have a picture that focuses just on the subject, if available, and to have a short caption in the infobox. If his picture with RBG is significant enough, the uncropped version along with the lengthy caption could go in the corresponding section where the significance is described in prose. In any case, I don't mind if you reverted to the version prior to my infobox changes. Best, Ptrnext (talk) 03:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Ptrnext for the quick and informative response. In this case, I will go ahead and revert to the prior version. Thank you for your time. 40.138.137.183 (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin Political views

Hi Ptrnext. I wonder if you would kindly have a look at my most recent edit request at "Talk:Kenneth C. Griffin#Political views and contributions sections". There has been a short back and forth with another editor, but they have not since engaged, so I am hoping you won't mind taking up the request. Thanks so much, Cduffymul (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Cduffymul, I agree, surely WP:NOTDATABASE applies; also OpenSecrets is a primary source. Some of those listed in the last column can be considered WP:OR due to this (e.g. OpenSecrets only says "Conservative Solutions PAC" without specifying "Marco Rubio 2016 presidential campaign".) The prose already appears to have the bigger ones mentioned and for the most part use WP:SECONDARY sources. I'll still need to look into it closer before attempting to remove it—will do so when I get the chance. Thanks, Ptrnext (talk) 07:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for your reply. I agree with your thoughts here and would be grateful if you could move ahead with implementing the changes when you are ready. Best, Cduffymul (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ptrnext. Since it has been a couple of weeks without any objections, it would be great if you could take the two sections about Politics out of Ken Griffin's Personal life section and make a new section as requested on the Talk page. Thanks so much. Cduffymul (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ptrnext. Again, thanks so much for your edits to the Kenneth C. Griffin page. Your work is greatly appreciated. If you have the time (and patience), would you consider having a look at a new suggestion at Talk:Kenneth C. Griffin#Additions to Political views to add new information to the Political views section? Thanks again, Cduffymul (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Cduffymul, sorry, I will have to pass this one. I find most of those additions to be promotional and undue to my liking. It also has a bunch of WP:QUOTEFARMing which could be avoided. I'll let others weigh in at the talk page. Best, Ptrnext (talk) 04:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Eberhard

Hi Ptrnext thank you for your edits to the page for Martin Eberhard. Thanks for pointing out the copy write violation, I fixed it. I am new to this and I thought a direct quote, when cited was not a violation. But I have fixed it. Regarding the birthdate, I am glad we can limit using the exact birthdate. Regarding the place of birth. Ok, yes it is widely available but the subject is working to reverse this. As mentioned he is repeatedly (several times per year). Can we agree to leave his city of birth off of his page? Many thanks PamKayJohnson

@PamKayJohnson: OK, I have removed it. btw, I'm not sure if others have already said this: as a connected contributor, you are supposed to make edit requests on Eberhard's talk page (using the {{edit COI}} template) instead of directly editing the page—unless you're reverting obvious vandalism or fixing typos and such. Adding content based on the Chicago Tribune opinion piece like the one you just did is not allowed. Opinion pieces should be treated carefully, as it could lend undue weight; it might require attribution as well, instead of writing it in Wikivoice. What is more concerning is that I see you have reverted and reinserted your preferred version without discussing on the Talk page. e.g. as one editor did, inventor should be dropped in the opening sentence, see WP:POLYMATH and MOS:FIRSTBIO. You reinserted a claim that Eberhard was the original chairman citing a WP:PRIMARY source (it may well be true—but those bio pages are usually provided by the subject themselves; so it is self-serving and cannot be used an acceptable source). The first half of the Tesla section reads a bit promotional for a BLP page. This is why we require uninvolved editors to review requests from connected contributors. Thanks, Ptrnext (talk) 05:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ptrnext Hi, thanks for your response and careful review of my edits. First of all thank you very much for agreeing to remove the pob. I do know that I am supposed to ask for edits to be made. I had direct contact with someone (whose name I have forgotten, Scottish something) who stopped responding to me after a couple of years. I did not know where else to ask, so I just did it. I considered the removal of Chairman and Invetor to be vandalism. I apologize for that. Yes I agree, I guess the first bit of the Tesla section does read a bit too promotional. In the end, my hope is to help provide a counter-weight to the Musk anti-Eberhard propaganda machine. I do realize that Wiki is not really the place for that. I appreciate your help in finding the right balance.

Regarding the "Chairman" claim - two people founded the company, Tarpenning and Eberhard. by law, someone has to be Chairman (their lawyer served as secretary). Tarpenning was CFO, Martin was Chairman This is reflected in the original founding documents. (I note that no one complains about Tarpenning claiming to be the first CFO of Tesla in his Wiki page, although the reference used on his page is exactly the same as Eberhard's page(the CNBC interview)...). Is it possible to upload a photo of the founding document to Eberhard's page? Or, would this link be satisfactory: powerhouse.fund/martin It is a podcost with a transcript and the people who produced the podcast personally viewed the founding documents.

Regarding the point about "inventor" - Eberhard is named on about 26 patents - including the rocket e-book and the Wyse terminal. Does that count as being an inventor, if I can find a reference?

Thanks again for your help and patience. I'll refrain from making any edits myself and so if you agree with the Chairman link, would you please add it to Eberhard's page and to the Tesla link you referred to in your change comment? Or, should I do it? Thanks again PamKayJohnson

Hello PamKayJohnson, independent secondary sources primarily only use the terms engineer and entrepreneur while mentioning Eberhard (per MOS:FIRSTBIO point 4 and the WP:POLYMATH essay, those two terms describe him adequately). If a person is primarily known for being a prolific inventor (~500+ patents), then adding inventor in the lead sentence is justified. There are people who are listed on the National Inventors Hall of Fame who don't have inventor listed in the first sentence for this reason. However, we could still add inventor in the body of the article (or even further down in the lead paragraph) provided you have more than one independent secondary sources describing him an inventor (the podcast interview doesn't qualify).

Regarding first chairman, my understanding is when a company is incorporated it will list at least one director (not necessarily chairman) and a secretary. Ideally, if you can find any independent secondary sources that call him a Tesla chairman / former chairman (source doesn't even have to say first / original chairman) we can add it in both articles. Calling him a former chairman may be fine based on a primary source, but calling him the first / original chairman requires a secondary source (per WP:PRIMARY, the editor shouldn't be doing the interpretation). Per the CNBC interview, we could only say "According to the original founders, Elon Musk was the second chairman of Tesla" but not ".. Eberhard was the first chairman", even though that is the implication putting two things together. It would have helped if the CNBC chyron (added in post-processing) shown for Eberhard included chairman, but it only had founder and CEO.

If you find and want to address a problematic edit you can engage at the article's Talk page (~70 watchers) or that of the user who made the edit, depending on the type of issue. You might want to ping the user using the {{ping}} template when doing so at the article's Talk page to notify them, where a consensus might emerge. If you don't get (enough) response(s), you can bring it to one of the noticeboards (with 1000+ watchers) such as WP:BLPN, WP:NPOVN, etc. depending on the issue. Best, Ptrnext (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ptrnext thanks very much for your help and ideas. I've tried to find primary sources that mention inventor and/or Chairman, and I've not been able to find anything. The founding documents however do state that. Is there a way to upload a photo of the document itself? Or must it be reported somewhere? I fully understand and respect that all claims in Wiki pages need to be sourced, but what does one do when there are facts which are not reported somewhere? Many thanks again, PamKayJohnson

PamKayJohnson, if there are no suitable sources for inventor, it would be WP:UNDUE to include it in the bio, so better to skip it. Eberhard is best described as an entrepreneur and engineer, so I believe what we currently have in the lead sentence should suffice.

Washington Post's book review of Power Play: Tesla, Elon Musk, and the Bet of the Century says Musk was the first chairman[1]. Since independent sources exist that dispute Eberhard was first chairman, primary sources that claim it was rather Eberhard will not quite work (so even a photo of the document would not help). We will need some reliable independent sources for this (say a photo is doctored to change the names, we instead rely on / need a reliable source to validate that document). It may not seem fair, but it's best to stick to Wiki's guidelines. If you come across sources in future, we can revisit to include it. Thanks, Ptrnext (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tip on wikitext usage of {{circa}} template

I was looking on the Rocket Lab page and saw that the employee count had a "circa" "c." on it and I looked through the history and saw you added it last year in this change [2]. I'm not sure if English is not your first language, but circa is generally only used on dates in English. It's not generally used on numeric counts in any documents I've read. I've gone ahead and removed this. Ergzay (talk) 23:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Ergzay, thanks for your note and letting me know. I am aware that circa is generally only used for dates. While it is uncommon to use it for numeric counts and measurements, it is not incorrect either (not authoritative sources, but some quick examples I found as a reference: [3][4]). I prefer using it over the {{approx.}} template in the infobox since it takes up less space, especially when some editors later unnecessarily include the month in the year field causing the line to wrap. Your edit is fine; in any case, I don't think it matters to mention that the #employees in the infobox is approximate; it should be understood when it's a round figure. Thanks, Ptrnext (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I've seen other sources say that using circa with dollar amounts, as your first example does, is explicitly incorrect. I'm also pretty I've ever seen it with employee counts. But anyway I think it's rare enough now on things that aren't dates that it's probably best not to use it for that purpose. Also MOS:CIRCA and the template help page only mentions usages with dates, even if they don't exclude other usages. Ergzay (talk) 05:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ergzay: I've seen circa used for employee counts in (typically British/European) companies annual reports. e.g. in Vodafone's report page 1 has c. 5k role reductions. In page 100, it is also used for percentages (c. 50%). But yes, I generally agree, since the usage is uncommon outside of dates, if the template is going to confuse our readers rather than help, it is better to not use it. Over the last several months, I've stopped adding it and have even removed some of them while updating the count. But I wouldn't go out of my way to remove them all. Best, Ptrnext (talk) 06:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I've definitely never seen that usage before. I'm American so it is perhaps not used that way here. The page is labeled with the american english template (though maybe it should have the new zealand english template). Ergzay (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brookfield Corporation

Glad to meet you. A paragraph was recently added to the article Brookfield Corporation concerning a flood that happened in Brazil in 1929. I submitted a request to have the paragraph removed, as it is not connected directly to Brookfield, and Brookfield is not mentioned in the sources. Could you examine the request found at Talk:Brookfield Corporation#1929 Flood and see what you think? You have edited on the Brookfield page in the past, that is why I am asking you. Thank you. Mf419 (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Sehat Sutardja

On 24 September 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Sehat Sutardja, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 19:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article for Gregg Lemkau

Hi Ptrnext, I work for BDT & MSD Partners. I'm trying to create a Wikipedia article for co-CEO Gregg Lemkau. I see that you have contributed to the pages of many American business executives, and I'm hoping that you will take a look at the draft I have posted here. Would you consider moving it to main space?

Thank you, Roundtable2023 (talk) 03:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Roundtable2023: if WP:AFC is the prescribed route for WP:COI submissions, I don't wish to bypass that by moving it myself. At a quick glance, this'll likely pass AFC. Ptrnext (talk) 06:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm not sure that the draft is final, I was hoping to get more input from the community before I go further. Be well, Roundtable2023 (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SoFi Technologies

Hi @Ptrnext, I see that you have twice reverted my page move from "SoFi" to "SoFi Technologies, Inc.". You have cited the reason to be WP:NCCORP#Default to the most common name. However, I see that this Wikipedia rule also mentions that the most common exception is disambiguation (WP:Naming_conventions_(companies)#Disambiguation), and I think I had presented the need for disambiguation.

In particular, while moving the page for a second time, I had mentioned that the term "SoFi" is an abbreviation for "Social Finance", as said in the History section of the present article. It is therefore important that "SoFi" from the present article is not confused with the non-profit consultancy organization "Social Finance (consultancy)", as suggested at the start of the article. The requested page move is therefore aligned with the need for disambiguation (WP:Naming_conventions_(companies)#Disambiguation). Please let me know your view or undo your latest action. Vazival (talk) 07:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vazival: SoFi is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. There is no need to disambiguate. If you are still not convinced, feel free to start a thread on Talk:SoFi. Best, Ptrnext (talk) 07:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Have just started a thread there. Vazival (talk) 07:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Citadel Securities Partnerships Edit Request

Hi again. Thanks for all your past work on Citadel-related Wiki articles. I posted a new edit request at Talk:Citadel Securities#Add to Partnerships and History that I hope you will not mind having a look at. Thanks again, Cduffymul (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]