Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid editor help/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Controversy as a COI

I’ve taken on an assignment to help McKinsey & Company improve their Wikipedia article through discussion and collaboration. Much of the content on the article is highly controversial and so I’ve prepared a Talk page note to discuss, provide sources and information. Would anyone be willing to give me a second opinion on my neutrality and whether my suggestions are fair before I share it? See my draft here. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 20:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

TargetProcess

I'm wondering if any cooperating people want to help User:Mdubakov out. He wants an article about his software, TargetProcess. I CSDed it and then Malik Shabazz deleted it. I haven't really got time to advise on COI stuff, so I leave it in your collective capable hands. See User talk:Tom Morris#TargetProcess page deletion for more details. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I've added a page User:Mdubakov/TargetProcess. Please check it and let me know what can be fixed/improved. Thanks! --Mdubakov (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you have a chance to review the page? Thanks! --Mdubakov (talk) 13:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I had a quick look. The Dr. Dobbs citation is promisingly reliable. Any more like that? You can reference your own site but third party cites are preferred WP:3PARTY. The article itself needs work. It looks like a marketing datasheet of bullet list features not an encyclopedia article. Take a look at some articles marked "good" or (a notch up) "featured" to get the idea. Also put the {{Request edit}} template on the talk page of your sand box. It might get more eyeballs on your draft. Good luck! hth Woz2 (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Jack Welch Management Institute

I've previously posted on this page to ask for help with the Strayer University article, and would now like to request assistance with a new draft I have prepared for the Jack Welch Management Institute. JWMI is an online business program, founded by Jack Welch and now owned by Strayer University. The institute does not currently have its own article, although I believe that it meets the GNG: there are multiple reliable sources that feature the institute and provide enough detail for an overview of its history and academic programs. Also, searching for "Jack Welch Institute" incorrectly directs readers to the Chancellor University article. While the institute was founded at Chancellor, it was acquired by Strayer University in November 2011. With advice and support from William Beutler (WWB), I've created a new draft article and added this to my userspace. Due to Strayer's connection with the institute, I'd rather not move the article into live space myself and I hope that editors here are able to help. It should be noted that this draft is not an exhaustive article on the institute but rather an overview, providing key, encyclopedic details. I think it is mostly complete, but other editors may want to add more information once the article is live. The draft has 2 main sections, plus an introduction, references, and external links:

• Per other articles on institutes / schools, such as the Kennedy School, the introduction states: "Jack Welch Management Institute at Strayer University"
• The "History" section includes details of the founding of the institute in 2009, and a subsection focusing on its acquisition by Strayer in 2011.
• The "Programs" section provides information about the courses offered, Jack Welch's involvement in the institute and reported information about the program's tuition.

I look forward to editors' feedback on the draft. I have this page on my watchlist and I'll respond to questions as soon as I can. Thanks. --Hamilton83 (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Initial feedback: looks good! I'll look in more detail later. One immediate suggestion is to put the {{Request edit}} template on the (presently blank and redlinked) talk page of the sandbox. It might catch more eyes at the Category:Requested edits page. Good luck! Woz2 (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm looking forward to whatever feedback you can give me. I have also followed your suggestion and created the talk page, including a request and a template for WikiProject Universities. Thanks. --Hamilton83 (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

There's no mention of price in the Scott Smith ref In any case WP:NOPRICES#5 allows prices only under limited circumstances. Would you be OK with deleting that bit? Woz2 (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding Woz2. I saw your post on my page and have responded to you there. As requested, I’ve removed the mention of the cost of the program. Also, there are a few changes that I'd like to make to this draft, so for the moment I've removed the request edit from the draft's Talk page in my user space and would ask that other editors wait to review the article. I'll replace the template once my edits are complete and will let editors here know when the draft is ready for their review. Thanks, --Hamilton83 (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

For review again: Jack Welch Management Institute

Per my note above, I recently prepared a new draft article for the Jack Welch Management Institute, but after an initial review realized there were some edits I needed to make before it was ready. I've now made the changes to the draft article that I had in mind and it is ready for editors to review again. Please can you take a look at the current version of the draft and let me know if there are any edits needed or if it is ready to be moved live? Your comments are welcome here, or in the thread above. Thanks, Hamilton83 (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Done! Thanks! Woz2 (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Woz2. Your help has been invaluable. I also noticed that you've prepared a "Did You Know" nomination for the article, which is fantastic. Could you let me know when that is due to go on the front page? Thanks again, Hamilton83 (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. The DYK queue is backlogged so it's very hard to predict. The only way I know of is to put Template:Did you know nominations/Jack Welch Management Institute on your watchlist. Also read these FAQs (and answers) Template:Did you know nominations#Frequently asked questions. Woz2 (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST - INFRONT SPORTS & MEDIA PAGE

PROPOSED UPDATE

{{edit request}}

Dear Wikipedia colleagues,

I would like to propose a number of changes to this article as many of the facts within are now currently out of date. I represent the company in a communications capacity and I am therefore a trustworthy source of information for this page. Links and references to articles to validate all the amendments I'm proposing are also enclosed.

I have provided the link to all recommended revisions and would be grateful of assistance with this matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Infront_Sports_%26_Media&diff=476127845&oldid=475589201

To summarise the changes I am proposing cover the following:

• Correct information about company ownership - following acquisition
• Changed information about management structure
• Provided links and references to support information on services
• Updated information on company portfolio and business areas with references

Thanks for your assistance.

HablasESport!121 (talk)

Thanks! I tld'd the template here because it's a duplicate of the one on Talk:Infront Sports & Media. It's best to put the template on the article talk page (only) because then it doesn't clutter the list at Category:Requested edits. Woz2 (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Help with revisions to Jack Welch article

I've posted here before, asking for help with the article for the Jack Welch Management Institute, and I'm now working on suggestions to improve the article for the institute's founder Jack Welch, which I'd like to ask for some help with. I've recently made some suggestions on the article's Talk page to address issues such as outdated information in the article's introduction and infobox, and the lack of information on his post-GE career. I'd appreciate if editors here could review these suggestions and make the edits if you're able to do so. Thanks, Hamilton83 (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I finished this one. Silverseren^C 23:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Logo for Jack Welch Management Institute

Thanks so much again to Woz2 for helping me with the Jack Welch Management Institute article. I've just uploaded a logo to be added to the infobox: File:Jack Welch Management Institute Logo.png. Could someone here please add this to the article for me? Thanks, Hamilton83 (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Easy to fix. Silverseren^C 01:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Photo for Jesse Thomas article

Back in March, WWB Too and Silverseren collaborated on a new article for Jesse Thomas here. Following on from that, I'd like to ask for some help updating the article with a photo for the infobox and fixing a few little typos that happened later due to copyediting by other editors. Just to clarify, this request is on behalf of JESS3, so I'd rather not make any direct edits myself. I've added an edit request on the talk page with a list of the typos and link to the photo to add to the infobox. Any help would be gratefully received. Thanks in advance, 16912 Rhiannon (talk) 21:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Completed. Silverseren^C 23:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Further revisions to Jack Welch article

Thank you Silverseren for your help with my previous requests. Since my last post on this page, I've made some more suggestions on the Talk page for Jack Welch's article regarding changes to help improve its content. The new suggestions include adding material to the new "Post-GE career" section and removal of unsourced criticisms. If any editors here are able to review the edits I've suggested and make them edits if they agree, I would be grateful. Thanks, Hamilton83 (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it was completed. Silverseren^C 01:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Drafts for review: Commodity Pool Operator + 2 related topics

Hi all, new project here. On behalf of the Managed Funds Association, an association representing the alternative investment industry, I've recently researched and written three new drafts of existing articles on financial topics. Each of these drafts is proposed as a replacement for an existing but underdeveloped, poorly written article, with few (if any) citations.

All three drafts are in my user space:

• User:WWB Too/Commodity Pool Operator
• User:WWB Too/Commodity trading advisor
• User:WWB Too/Managed futures account

Since these three topics are very closely linked, with overlapping histories and regulation, I've worked on them at the same time. Some of the same sources are used in all three drafts and some of the material is very similar if not largely the same. It might make sense for editors who review the articles to look at them together, but if you would prefer not to, I'd recommend reviewing the draft for Commodity Pool Operator first.

About Commodity Pool Operator

Out of the three articles, the current article for Commodity Pool Operator is the worst. The entire article is just five sentences long, and it begins with a quote from the National Futures Association's official definition of a CPO. The definition is not easy for a layperson to understand, and there are no wikilinks to concepts mentioned such as "commodity pool" or "futures contracts" that would help someone understand them.

The draft I've prepared is very simple and aims to provide a general overview of what a CPO is and how this entity has developed. (The structure and content is similar in the CTA and Managed futures account drafts.) Below, I've explained in a little detail what is now included in the CPO draft:

• The introduction provides a definition for the term "Commodity Pool Operator"

• The History section is a broad overview of the history of CPOs, explaining briefly the history of commodities trading and the emergence and recognition of CPOs as an entity

• The Regulation section is the most developed, as this is the area where there is the most information available. The section outlines the historical regulation, current regulation and oversight and the changes leading to increased regulation, following the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act.

• Also added to this article is an infobox for Financial market participants, a See also section with links to the articles for Commodity trading advisor and Managed futures account and an External links section with links to the two regulatory bodies: the National Futures Association and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission

• As usual, I've disabled the categories, so those will need to be re-enabled upon approval.

I appreciate this is a complicated topic, so I'm also going to post a note to the Talk page at WikiProject Finance to see if anyone there is able to help review. However, that WikiProject is not quite as active as this, so I hope that editors can help here, even if not experts in the field. If you have any questions at all, please reply here and I'll respond as soon as I'm able. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support replacing all three articles with these drafts. The writing and layout are much improved, content is fleshed out, and I didn't spot any particular POV concerns. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I saw the note on this on WikiProject Finance. I'm not an expert in the subjects that these articles cover, but I can say that the drafts seem appropriately neutral and offer some reliable sources. Pine^✉ 08:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to you both—glad you agree the articles are ready to move over. Someone will still have to do it, i.e. someone who isn't me. If any other regulars here are watching and willing to make the move, I'd appreciate it. If there's no movement by Tuesday, I'll probably go tap some shoulders, looking to editors who have been active on this front before. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 04:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Decline Commodity Pool Operator: Lexology appears to exercise no editorial control over its content; plagiarism of the USCFTC (and not an adequate source for business history); citations 9 and 10 are exegesis of law which looks like original legal research to me. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• Decline the other two for plagiarism too. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, interesting. Fifelfoo, can you give a specific example of why you think Lexology to be an unreliable source? It's certainly my goal to provide accurate information, and I've found this information from Lexology to be that. That said, I'm certainly not averse to providing a better source for this or any information. And FWIW Lexology supports just a few details overall. I hope you'd agree these drafts represent a substantial improvement overall? Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 05:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It is user generated content without an editorial policy. We don't allow it for Jane's blog, nor do we allow it for Bruce's law firm. Given that the drafts I reviewed contain plagiarism and unreliable sourcing, they're not an improvement. A fair amount of content is off topic and sourced to poor (or unreliable) FUTON sources. The first hit for Google Scholar on the history of commodity trading in the US generated this: [1]. The content structure is good though. You need to work on your sourcing, and your understanding of plagiarism. For the first there's WP:RS/N as a noticeboard. For the second there are a variety of hints contained in quite famous articles in both the Signpost and the Bugle: internal wikipedian newspapers. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

As to Lexology, I checked the WP:RS/N archives, and didn't find any mention of it, although I've noticed it is used as a source for numerous other Wikipedia articles. Out of curiosity, do you disagree with the statements attributed to it? I'm glad you appreciate the content structure—I've endeavored to represent the information from sources proportionately and accurately, and without undue copying; could you provide an example of what you consider plagiarism? I used the Washington and Lee Law Review in the CPO article, but I certainly don't believe I've plagiarized it. Examples would be welcome. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 06:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

CFTC wording

You plagiarised USCFTC. Recheck your articles where you cite USCFTC, in particular, the sentence regarding the length of time commodities have been traded is direct plagiarism.

I've outdented and sub-headed this section of the thread (including the above comment) because it requires a little more space. Also, for comprehension, the comment above is by Fifelfoo. Anyhow, we wouldn't be talking about WP:PLAGIARISM here, becuase credit is given. Second, the CFTC is a U.S. federal government agency, meaning its work is public domain, therefore WP:COPYVIO should not be the same issue. Anyway, I certainly won't deny there are similarities between my text and the CFTC's; my intent here is to convey the information within it faithfully, but not slavishly. Here is text from the History section of my CPO draft; note that the CFTC is [3]:

In the United States, futures contracts for agricultural commodities have been traded for over 150 years. In the 1920s, the federal government began regulating these types of trades.[3] However, it was not until 1974, when the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) was established under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Act, that the "commodity pool operator" was recognized in legislation.[4] At that time the majority of futures trading occurred in the agricultural sector, but later the variety and complexity of such trading increased.[3]

Here is what the CFTC website says:

Futures contracts for agricultural commodities have been traded in the United States for more than 150 years and have been under Federal regulation since the 1920s. When the CFTC was created in 1974 with the enactment of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Act, most futures trading took place in the agricultural sector. Over the years, the futures industry has become increasingly varied and complex.

Readers will note that I've rephrased most clauses, moved sentence breaks, and interpolated another source, so it doesn't depend entirely on the CFTC. Now there are couple of key phrases such as "futures contracts for agricultural commodities", which remain intact. And while I've changed "varied and complex" to "variety and complexity", the core words are the same. Here lies the difficulty of sticking to information from sources while not unduly copying. I believe I'm on the right side of this divide, but I'm interested to hear what others think. WWB Too (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

...why don't you just use direct quotes? As long as you're not quoting the entire section, it's fine. And that would solve the issue and allow the important part (ie, the last sentence as an example) to stay precisely accurate. Silverseren^C 17:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. I can work on rewriting with direct quotations attributed to the CFTC. WWB Too (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing

Fifelfoo: Legal articles in student law journals are allowed, and can be cited by a United States court as authoritative in the opinion of the judge. Why wouldn't we on Wikipedia allow a similar legal publication to be used as a source? Pine^✉ 06:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is neither a student law review, nor a United States court. We do not generate original legal opinion, nor the exegesis of legal opinion, because we do not allow original research. If student law journals have peer review, we can accept the exegesis of the articles in those journals.WP:IRS is your guide, in this case the issue is that Lexology does not engage in editorial control over the works it publishes. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The distinction appears to be whether something is peer reviewed. WWB Too, can you find a peer reviewed source to replace what you were sourcing from Lexicology? Pine^✉ 08:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

In the CPO article, the Lexology citation is used twice; once as a second supporting source in the introduction, and again to support the following sentence:

In particular, funds that use swaps or other commodity interests may be defined as commodity pools and subject to registration with the CFTC, where previously they would not have been.

A variation of this sentence appears in my other drafts, as well. Obviously, the redundant citation from CPO can go, if it must. As to its use otherwise, there are certainly other sources for this information. Most of these are law firms and legal services websites, and all represent commentary (not original research) regarding the CFTC rule changes. All are in agreement on the fairly simple fact that swaps are now considered commodity pools and hence regulated by the CFTC. Is there one of these sources in particular which would work best for this? WWB Too (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Just take it to RSN, get it decided once and for all. Silverseren^C 17:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, I'm inclined to do that. If Lexology is deemed non-RS, one of the several other sources covering the same material could be work just as well. WWB Too (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Note

I just wanted to note this discussion as to why Fifelfoo is here. I am not making a bearing on whether his comments above are legitimate (some look like they are, some look like they aren't), but I am noting that there seems to be a bias in dealing with this page. Silverseren^C 17:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up on article drafts

Thanks again for everyone's input here, it's great to get varied points of view on my drafts. Further to the discussion above, I've now placed a note at WP:RS/N to Seek additional opinions about whether Lexology.com can be used as a source. Pending a reply, I've left the source in my drafts and will take whatever action the editors there suggest. One possible option is to replace Lexology with an article in the Wall Street Journal and possibly also an article from Hedgeweek that describe the CFTC rules change, albeit not as clearly.

The updates I've made, including diffs to illustrate:

• I've rephrased and used quotes for the information taken from the CFTC website in each of the History sections — Change to CPO, change to CTA and change to Managed futures account
• I've also added to all three History sections the journal article that Fifelfoo linked to as a new source (see above diffs)
• The sourcing for the CTA History has been strengthened by adding the Handbook of Hedge Funds as a reference (see above diffs)
• In the Managed futures account draft, I've also amended the wording of the first line of the article that was sourced to the CFTC website — diff showing change to intro
• In the Commodity Pool Operator Current regulation and exemptions section, I have replaced cites 9 and 10 with a new source, a guide by the American Bar Association to U.S. Regulation of Hedge Funds. — diff showing addition of new source

Here are links to the three updated History sections:

• User:WWB_Too/Commodity_Pool_Operator#History
• User:WWB_Too/Commodity_trading_advisor#History
• User:WWB_Too/Managed_futures_account#History

If you'd like to look at these again now and let me know if this has solved the issues raised by Fifelfoo above, I would be grateful. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

With helpful feedback from User:Despayre at RS/N, I've replaced the Lexology.com cite with the Hedgeweek one I found, and another Despayre recommended. With that, I'd like to ask for reconsideration of these drafts. Ae they now appropriately written and sourced, for the purposes of moving into the mainspace? Any and all constructive feedback welcome. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Note, I may look at this at some point but I'm pretty busy with other WP projects at the moment, so I hope that other editors review this. Pine^✉ 06:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The revised versions are incrementally better than the present articles but still are only stub or, at best, start class. I noted some thoughts on sourcing and an error at WP:RS/N. In addition: I believe the statement in the CTA article, that no fees are charged if the CTA does not generate a profit, is incorrect, and the Gale Group source is not RS. The statement in the CPO article, that CPOs exempt from registration must still follow certain limited requirements for disclosure and reporting, is not true for all exemptions. Each article links to a CFTC release that substantially narrows the exemptions for CPOs, but the discussion in the articles and footnotes refer instead to the proposing release and inaccurately describes it as a joint proposal with the SEC. The narrowing of the exemptions was not under the Dodd-Frank Act (as the articles suggest), although they were made in conjunction with Dodd-Frank Act changes. A lawsuit has been brought to challenge some of these rule changes, see the description here. John M Baker (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a closer look at it, John. I may need a couple of days to re-research the issues you've raised, but I'll try to turn around some answers as soon as possible. And if you have a suggested alternate source instead of Gale Group, or alternate wording, that would be welcome, too. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I was too hard on the Gale Group source; it's not great, but it's hard to find good sources on fees. Also, it's my understanding that no incentive fees are charged if the CTA does not generate a profit, not that no fees are charged at all. However, your clients at the MFA probably have a better idea of current fee practices. John M Baker (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep, definitely taking your questions back to them, including the question about how to accurately describe the CTA fees. You're right about the difficulty of finding sources for this—speaking of which, thanks for your further discussion of the Sutherland source at WP:RS/N. I'll plan to use that. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Second round of changes

Hi again, John and any others following this discussion. Short version of the below: based on further research, and feedback from my clients, I agree the suggested changes are reasonable, and I've updated all three drafts accordingly. You can see all the changes in the diffs I've linked below:

• Diff representing Commodity Pool Operator updates
• Diff representing Commodity trading advisor updates
• Diff representing Managed futures account updates

The specific changes I've made to the drafts in my userspace are as follows:

1. In all three articles, I've updated the source for the CFTC rules change to Sutherland specifically, as opposed to the Lexology version I had used before.
2. Also, in all three articles, I've changed the wording regarding the CFTC rules to be more clear that the changes were made, not just proposed.
3. In the CPO and CTA articles, I've changed the heading of the Dodd-Frank subsections to Changes following Dodd-Frank to clarify that the rule changes were not under Dodd-Frank but followed the Act.
4. In the CPO and Managed futures account articles, I've amended the wording regarding registration changes so that it is clear registration applies to the operators of funds.
5. In the CPO article, I've added "may have to" to the sentence regarding requirements if the CPO is exempted from registration with the CFTC.
6. In the CTA article, I've added a new source (a working paper from the University of Massachusetts) and updated the wording of the Compensation section in the CTA article to note that it is the CTA's incentive fees that are affected by whether the fund makes a profit. I've kept the Gale Group cite for this section also, since this was the best source I've been able to find for a general overview on fees for CTAs.
7. Finally, in all three articles, I've added a sentence on the legal challenge to the CFTC's rules change.

While I've added the detail about the lawsuit (using this Bloomberg article as a citation), I'm curious as to what others think about including this. Compared to the other information in the drafts, which take a broader historical view, information about the lawsuit is likely to become dated very quickly and need to be updated.

For added convenience, some additional relevant links:

• Full latest versions of my drafts:
  • User:WWB Too/Commodity Pool Operator
  • User:WWB Too/Commodity trading advisor
  • User:WWB Too/Managed futures account
• Current version of these articles, as of 5 June 2012:
  • Commodity Pool Operator
  • Commodity trading advisor
  • Managed futures account

I'm open to more feedback if there is any, or, if there is consensus for moving the drafts into article space, I'm more than open to that as well. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support, again, replacing all three articles with these drafts, as per my initial opinion. Edits in response to constructive criticism have improved the drafts. I am quite sympathetic to Fifelfoo's concerns about paid editors polluting the WP project, but I'm resigned to it happening, whether or not officially sanctioned, so I'd much prefer it happening in this above-board fashion. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I want to emphasize that these drafts are substantial improvements over the current articles and are also noticeably better than the earlier drafts. In addition, they are in no way slanted in favor of the interests of the paid editor's employer, the Managed Funds Association. That said, the current articles are in pretty poor shape, and there are still some areas where these drafts could benefit from work. In the CPO article, the definition of a CPO is the pre-Dodd-Frank Act definition and does not reflect the new definition in Section 1a(11) of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 1a(11), as amended by Section 721 of the Dodd-Frank Act, effective July 16, 2011. A central but by no means only change made by Dodd-Frank was to include swaps in these definitions. There probably should be some historical discussion of the Dodd-Frank inclusion of swaps. For the recent rule change, the Federal Register citation is preferred. That rule change will require many investment advisers to mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, and hedge funds to register as CPOs and, in some cases, as CTAs; they previously were able to rely upon an exemption from the definition of CPO. As the article notes, currently pending litigation challenges the rule change with respect to advisers to mutual funds and ETFs, but not hedge fund advisers. I would also include the Dodd-Frank updated definitions of CTA, also in Section 1a of the CEA, in the CTA article. John M Baker (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, John, your expert review here is very appreciated. Per your notes above, I've now updated the CPO and CTA drafts in my userspace. With the CPO definition, I had already included swaps but I have now carefully aligned the wording with the legal definition, using the Cornell University cite you provided. To CTA, I have added "swaps" to the definition. Both draft articles' introductions now include a sentence to explain that investment advisors from hedge funds and other private funds may fall under the CTA / CPO definition.

• Diff showing changes to CPO draft
• Diff showing changes to CTA draft

With regard to your suggestion about a historical discussion of Dodd-Frank, I'm afraid I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Perhaps this is something that we could work on once the drafts are live? FWIW, it's not my intention to simply to gain placement for my drafts and disappear, and surely any remaining issues with these drafts are also deficiencies of the current versions of these articles.

Given your agreement that these drafts represent a signficant improvement over the current articles, that they are NPOV, and considering that Wikipedia is a work-in-progress and, of course, that there is no such thing as a perfect article, I would like to request for someone to move these into article space. Once live, other editors may be able to assist with improvements, and I can look more closely at the Dodd-Frank question, contributing from the Talk page. Does that sound like a good way forward? WWB Too (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it does make sense to go ahead and move these articles. I'm going to have to turn away from this for a little bit, but perhaps someone can do that. As for the Dodd-Frank historical discussion, I simply meant that the CPO and CTA articles should mention that swaps historically were not included in the CPO and CTA definitions, but were added to those definitions as part of the general extension of the Commodity Exchange Act to swaps under the amendments made by the Dodd-Frank Act. John M Baker (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

After a request on my talk page from WWB Too, I have completed a history merge of all three articles. However, after I did that, I started to wonder whether Commodity Pool Operator is correctly titled. The other 2 use standard capitalization (first word capped, second and third lower case). As far as I can tell a commodity pool operator is a regular noun, not a proper noun, so that would mean the article should be at Commodity pool operator. But I was afraid I'm missing something. If my logic is correct, anyone can move the article to the new correct title (it won't require an admin). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Commodity pool operator would be correct. John M Baker (talk) 01:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I've moved it. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much to you both—John for the close read, and Qwyrxian for the histmerge. Also, that's interesting question about capitalization on the CPO article; I'd seen it both ways, but wasn't sure. For consistency, it would probably make sense now to update to un-capitalize the bolded title in that article's intro. Meanwhile, I did some looking into clarifying the definition changes under Dodd-Frank on Friday, and I'll hope to have a proposed update this coming week. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Updates to articles re: Dodd-Frank

Thanks again for all the thorough reviews and assistance in taking these three articles live. John M Baker suggested above that the articles for Commodity pool operator and Commodity trading advisor should mention that their definitions changed under Dodd-Frank amendments to the Commodity Exchange Act. To follow up on this, I've done some research to find sources for this information and prepared new wording to add in each article's History section, as a new ending to the single paragraph:

For the CPO article:

In July 2010, the definition of commodity pool operator under the Commodity Exchange Act was expanded by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to include "persons operating collective investment vehicles that trade swaps". Prior to this, swaps were not included in the CPO definition.

For the CTA article:

In July 2010, the definition of commodity trading advisor under the Commodity Exchange Act was expanded by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to include "persons who provide advice on swap transactions". Prior to this, swaps were not included in the CTA definition.

References

Finding a source with commentary on this particular change was a challenge—due to the number of changes under the Dodd-Frank Act, not every change was the subject of clear and concise commentary. The CFTC release I've cited here was the clearest source I could find that described the change to the historical definitions, however it is undated. In order to be specific about the date the Dodd-Frank changes occurred, I have included the Dodd-Frank Act as a citation. It is only used for the date of the change; all the details, including the quotes, are from the CFTC.

As noted above, I think these would work best as a new conclusion to the History section in each article. If others agree, I'd appreciate it if someone can make these additions. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal on PG&E discussion page

I posted here last month seeking assistance for some small edits on the Pacific Gas & Electric Company article. I have just added another note to the article's talk page, regarding three subsections of the company's early history to the point it was incorporated under its modern name. I am looking for assistance from a volunteer editor, if anyone is able. Thanks, PParmley (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Can some other people weigh in here, please? Silverseren^C 20:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a short note to say that I've made some wording changes in the draft, following a review by Hobbes Goodyear. You can read the review and my reply on the article's talk page and the updated draft in my userspace: User:PParmley/PG&E History part 1. draft Please can you reply on the PG&E talk page if you're able to assist. Thanks, PParmley (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Revisiting Global Automakers

My latest project is actually an old one revisited: late last year, I created an article on behalf of the Association of Global Automakers, only to have the process go awry. (In fact, I believe the trouble surrounding it is part of what led to the creation of WikiProject Cooperation in the first place—many thanks to Silver in that.) I'd like to see if that issue can be resolved now.

Here's the quick background:

• In November-December, I prepared and posted in my userspace a new draft article about the Association of Global Automakers (AGA). Such an article didn't exist at the time, so I sought feedback at WikiProject Automobiles (archive here).
• I incorporated some changes requested by editors there, and eventually moved it into place myself. (At the time I would edit client articles directly when I believed I had consensus; I no longer do.) However, I wasn't able to completely satisfy one editor, who found it lacking in criticism. Sharing links to Google, I aimed to demonstrate the organization itself hadn't been the subject of any particular criticism in reliable sources.
• This is about when things went very badly: a few more editors arrived, tagging up the article while adding POV and sometimes poorly sourced material to it. I tried to work through this on the Talk page, only to receive sarcastic and un-civil replies. I asked a couple of editors with whom I'd worked before to weigh in; they did, although less insistently. Worse, I was now accused of forum-shopping. (All of this still visible on the article's Talk page.) Before long, some of this discussion found its way to Jimbo's Talk page. And then, just as quickly, these editors ceased all involvement, and moved on.
• Needless to say, I found this experience very discouraging—and you can imagine what my client made of it. However, they've agreed to follow me in seeking to find an acceptable replacement for the current article.

So this is where we're at now.

With feedback from AGA, I've prepared another proposed draft. It makes a sincere effort to preserve as much as possible from the current, disputed version. Many of the recent changes described above relate to legitimate public policy topics on which AGA has been involved, albeit written in an unduly negative tone; I've aimed to bring these subjects to neutral.

In order to facilitate this process, and allow editors who are looking at this for the first time to easily compare previous versions of these articles, I've updated my user space to include: a) the last pre-dispute version, b) the current, disputed version of the article, and c) my new draft, the proposed replacement. I've also included the diffs between them, all accessible here:

1. My original draft
   1. Diff between original draft and disputed version
2. Current, disputed version
   1. Current mainspace version, as of June 15
   2. Diff between disputed and proposed version
3. Newly proposed version

Since this was a tricky process in the first place, I'm not necessarily looking for speedy resolution—I'm looking for a durable one. Worth noting, I'm also disinclined to seek out the editors involved before. I don't believe they acted in good faith then, and I wouldn't expect them to now. I had considered taking this through peer review, but this seemed like the better forum to explain the situation. Any feedback on the draft, or advice on how best to handle this would be very appreciated. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Further note on changes made

Since this one is a bit complicated, and seeing as how I didn't explain specific differences between versions above, I've gone back and accounted for all of the key differences between versions, listed below with links to specific sections, old and new. Overall, my approach was not to remove anything unless it was unsourced or absolutely incorrect based on the source. Where possible, I have kept wording per the current version. In all other cases, I followed the sources to present a neutral version of events, and checked with AGA to ensure that the information is accurate. The section that has changed the most is the one focusing on Fuel economy and emissions as this did not accurately reflect the events and the details of the lawsuits. Here are the details, organized by top-level heading:

Introduction

• Changed "lobby group" back to "trade association" in the introduction and infobox: the group is a trade association that includes lobbying as a focus, consistent with secondary sources. Most often, the group is simply listed by name. However, examples of "trade association" include this Tom Friedman column and this Chicago Tribune story. Others, like Just Auto call it a "trade group". A search for the AGA's name with the phrase "lobby group" returns the Wikipedia article and mirrors.
• Added the name of the president to the infobox.
• Added the group's logo to same (note: disabled in my latest draft).
• Rewrote the introduction slightly to include an explanation of the historical names and moved these out of the first line; corrected number of members (14 not 15).

Organization

• Added a section titled Organization to cover information on membership, current and past presidents; formerly this was in a section called Current era, though this was changed by others. This represents a compromise to put the organizational info about members in its own section, and give info about leadership its own place.

Activities

• Renamed Advocacy, lobbying and litigation to Activities; the former heading was repetitive and didn't include other activities the association carries out.
• Rewrote the first graf of the section to include other activities than lobbying and litigation, specifically the provision of research and materials for its members.
• Moved the section on Fuel formation further down in the Activities section; it makes more sense chronologically this way, likewise to keep it closer with the discussion of fuel economy.
• Rewrote section on Fuel economy and emissions to clarify the details of the lawsuit involving California, in particular AGA's argument that the California law is preempted by federal law.
• Added details of other complainants in the Fuel formation section, where previously it appeared they were alone in their argument.
• Removed the Mobile phones section and moved the detail that AGA advocates against use of handheld devices to Safety and consumer protection section. Additionally, I removed the detail about AGA remaining silent on use of hands-free phones, simply because the sources here did not mention AGA at all.
• In the same section, added detail to explain AGA's opposition to the Motor Vehicle Owners' Right to Repair Act; this was originally added by others, but without any context.
• Also in that section, included the information on AGA's opinion on harmonization of safety standards and removed the following sentence which was not supported by the source: "The Association has advocated a slow, "cautious" approach to making safety standards more stringent or adding new ones"—the source here actually quoted AGA's president saying that the Obama administration was taking a cautious approach to such harmonization. This simply wasn't about their views at all.

I hope that helps, and I wish there was a way to make it simpler. Any feedback on all of this would be very welcome. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh right, I remember this. *facepalms* Where YRC continually had to ask them what needed to be fixed in the article and they absolutely refused to explain and then started attacking him for being "belligerent". It's sad, because i've found Jenova to be quite even-minded in other topic areas. I just read over both the article as it is now and your draft version and it's quite clear that you kept the original version and just expanded on it with more info. You did a good job too. At least one benefit is that you're much better at article writing now than you were way back when. I'll go tap some other members to come take a look, but it looks great to me. Silverseren^C 21:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I am going to be watching this. If there is any user misbehavior -- on either side -- I will give the appropriate warnings and, if needed, escalate the issue to the appropriate noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Having finally found time to digest this (sorry for the delay), I think the summary above is reasonable, and that the proposed version would be an improvement (and relatively neutral). WWB Too, do you plan to take this live or would you like me to move it for you? There's certainly room for a couple more tweaks, but this can be done in the course of normal editing in article-space. I've added it to my watchlist, of course... bobrayner (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

While I can't actually speak for him, I can pretty much tell you 100% that he would prefer if you did it for him, as he's trying to follow Jimbo's preferred "Never edit mainspace" thing. Silverseren^C 23:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Silver's right—I've refrained from mainspace edits since, well, since the development of this particular article went so badly awry. Bobrayner, if you're comfortable moving it as is, that would be awesome. And if you have any content-related questions, I'm happy to answer. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Silver asked for my input on this. I've done a quick read this morning, and it also looks better to me. Part of this is a case of sourcing--even though, for example, I would bet my bottom dollar that the organization's primary job is lobbying (purchasing government influence), we are at the mercy of the euphemisms our sources use. I add this personal feeling (which I would always try to avoid when actually editing) to add on record here that our job as WP editors is to write what can be verified, not to write in a way to further our own political commitments.

At this point, a history merge is impossible because of overlapping histories. I think that the best approach is an attributed copy and paste merge--copy out of WWB Too's draft, in the edit summary include a link to the draft, and then tag WWB Too's draft as being undeletable.

But I just went and checked the article talk page, and I see that no link to this discussion was included there. For me, that's a problem, because any remaining watchers there can legitimately object that discussion of the article was occurring in a place that they were unaware of, and said watchers could legitimately revert back immediately. I'm going to add a link to this discussion on that talk page, and recommend that we wait a week or so before moving forward with the actual move. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

A week is rather long, wouldn't 48 hours make more sense? If no one responds by then, it's going to soon drop off their watchlist (more or less unless they have a really small one). Silverseren^C 09:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Qwyrxian has a good point but I do agree that a shorter period would be better - I'd be happy to make the transition after 48h. The page has extra watchers now and I don't think kneejerk reverting will be looked on kindly; of course if there are incremental improvements that could be made, it can be done in the course of normal editing. bobrayner (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

An aside: For the purposes of attribution, is it strictly necessary to keep the draft and mark it as undeletable? The main article would still have its own history and the edit summary for the merge gives additional credit to WWB Too... or is that insufficient, legally? My understanding was that we need to be able to identify each contributor rather than each historic edit. Of course I've been wrong before. bobrayner (talk) 10:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with the shortened time, I suppose. For attribution purposes...hmmm, I guess that technically what needs to be acknowledged is the contributor, and WWB Too is the only contibutor, but then you'd have to mention in the edit summary WWB Too's name, rather than a link to his user page; that would seem to contradict WP:MERGE. In any event, I don't think the WMF is running out of disk space, so we can just leave the draft around. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Groovy. bobrayner (talk) 10:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm OK with either time frame, and I'm also cool with leaving an undeletable draft in my userspace; my standard practice already is to keep old drafts around, unless turned into a redirect when going live. And thanks for posting that notice on the Global Automakers Talk page, Qwyrxian. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. Sttill watchlisted, of course. Have fun! bobrayner (talk) 02:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks! One last thing: the association's logo is still disabled in the infobox. If someone here can update that, I think this is done. WWB Too (talk) 12:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done bobrayner (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion: that a log be kept of poorly behaving paid editors who become subject to administrative action

I have proposed that a log be kept of poorly behaving paid editors who become subject to administrative actions, such that the community can identify common off-site origins of poor editing behaviour by paid editors: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Log_of_sources_of_poor_paid_advocacy_editing. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

William Whitecloud

{{Request edit}}

I have been requested to create a new article as a paid editor for William Whitecloud. Having explored the pages on Biographies of Living Persons and Notability, I'm not sure the proposed article would pass muster for inclusion. Before I even start tackling the article itself (which would need major reworking from the proposed version to get NPOV), I'd like to get some feedback on whether the subject meets Notability guidelines. I'm including the first paragraph of the proposed article and some links. If the consensus is no, any concrete reasoning that I could relay to the client would be greatly appreciated.

William Whitecloud is an African born Australian author and self transformation facilitator dedicated to empowering others in living soul-inspired lives. His first book The Magician's Way is an Australian #1 metaphysical best seller and his Living From Greatness year long trainings from 2000 to 2010 were the most successful self transformation programs of their time.

Thank you!Alexwillis (talk) 14:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I've made a user subpage for you at User:Alexwillis/William Whitecloud. I think the article could definitely use some work. More references from sources like newspaper articles and the like would be much better. And i'm fairly certain that Intuitive Soul isn't a reliable source. Silverseren^C 21:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I just uploaded the entire article as the client sent it to me. I think it obviously needs some major work.Alexwillis (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

On a side note: the same client has requested some VERY minor changes to the pages for MySpace and Chris DeWolfe--six sentences added altogether, all factual and documented. If you wouldn't mind, could you create user subpages for these--or maybe since they're so minor, it would be more efficient for me to make the changes directly to those pages....Alexwillis (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Just post the wanted changes below here. I would like to take a look at them first. And, yeah, that article does need quite a bit of work. For one, i'm going to take out the extensive quote. Silverseren^C 22:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

For Chris DeWolfe: (add to first paragraph) Currently, DeWolfe is the CEO of Social Gaming Network (SGN).

(add to fourth paragraph) In February 2012, Mindjolt officially changed its name to SGN.

(add to fifth paragraph) DeWolfe also has an MBA from the University of Southern California. He was honored by his alma mater USC as Alumni Entrepreneur of the year in 2006.

(add to last paragraph)In 2006, DeWolfe was named one of TIME’s 100 most influential people in the world. In 2007, he was chosen by Barbara Walters as one of her 10 most fascinating people. DeWolfe also served on the board of directors of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art.

For MySpace (they were not specific as to placement, but I can work that out):

MySpace had a significant influence in pop culture and music.

MySpace created a gaming platform that launched the successes of Zynga and Rock You, among others.

MySpace started the trend of creating unique URLS for companies and artists.

MySpace generated $800 million in fiscal year 2008.Alexwillis (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Any feedback for the proposed changes for MySpace and Chris DeWolfe?

Also, I'd appreciate any specific pointers on how I can improve the William Whitecloud article....

Thanks! 71.166.104.220 (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to get to this, Alex. I've updated the Chris DeWolfe and Myspace articles with said sentences and references (added a few references of my own and also reformatted some of your sentences). As for the Whitecloud article, it desperately needs to be wikified since it only has one link in it. But, more importantly, a few more news references would be nice, I think. Silverseren^C 01:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

It's fine--And thanks for updating those two pages! I'm not sure what to do about William Whitecloud--all references that the client sent me are at the end of the article of in my userspace. I asked for more, especially news references and the client had none, and web searches have turned up nothing new..... 71.179.113.59 (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I fixed up the draft a bit. Another issue is that the wording of the article is still kinda POV, like an autobiography. But as for sources, where did you search? Wasn't too hard to find these: [2] [3] Doesn't help all that much though. We definitely need more reliable sources, since only the Brisbane Times and Coast to Coast ones in there now are reliable. And only the Coast to Coast one is actually usable.

You'll just have to see if your client can drum up some news coverage. Kinda thin right now and definitely wouldn't survive an AfD. Silverseren^C 01:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll work on POV.....Here's an interview:

Not sure how much that helps either.... Alexwillis (talk) 02:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It helps, at least. But, for now, i'm going to mark this as closed, since i'm not comfortable with putting it into mainspace with the current level of sourcing. It's way too likely to get deleted. If your client is able to get some more coverage of Whitecloud, then feel free to make a new section about it on this noticeboard. Silverseren^C 20:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Totally understandable. I'll reopen the issue when we get more substantial references. I really appreciate all your help. Thank you!Alexwillis (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

References

Corrections to Golden Plate list

I have four simple requests to make on this article, which I created on behalf of the awarding organization earlier this year: at the time, I accidentally omitted three names in the source list, and put one in the wrong place. Earlier in the week I posted a concise explanation and request tag on that article's Talk page, but have not yet had any replies. If anyone here is willing to review the changes and implement them, I'd be most grateful. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 12:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. Silverseren^C 23:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Silvina Moschini

Hi folks. I've placed a {{request edit}} on User talk:Eclipsed/Silvina Moschini for review for mainspace-readiness. Please note I'm a connected contributor to the subject. Thanks! -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 11:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the review and assistance. Silvina Moschini article is now in mainspace. Cheers. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 05:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Re-Instatement of The RIDE as page stub, or article?

{{Request edit}} Dear Editors... I'm also not exactly clear on whether I should place this request on the Paid Editor help page, or on the actual article stub page. So I'll place it on both, and treat this as a learning experience.

I am an employee at DragonSearch, helping The RIDE (unique tour experience in New York City in that the theatrical company stages spontaneous performances on the city streets without stopping the vehicle, entertaining passersby along with tour passengers). I'm investigating how we can update the page stub that existed for The RIDE, but is gone now. There have been numerous articles regarding The RIDE in NYC, as well as a partnership with Madame Tussauds at Times Square. The official website is [www.experiencetheride.com here]. I know according to the COI guidelines I should bring this suggested update to you as a "paid editor" to proceed with edits to the stub. Can you help?

Stub as it was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ride_%28bus_tour%29

Stub as it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Ride_(bus_tour)&action=edit&redlink=1

I've included the contents of the page which was erased recently. Is there a way We can improve on this information?

Hi Jilliance. Welcome to Wikipedia. Probably the best way to do a new draft is with a page inside your userspace. For example like User:Jilliance/THE RIDE (bus tour). And it's always a good idea to collect references first, especially ones from independent, major media sources that significantly mention THE RIDE. For example: this New York Times and this USA Today mentions are a good start. Cheers. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 17:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved the draft below into the user subpage you linked. Jilliance, if you ever come back, you can work on it there. Adding more news sources is a necessity, so take the ones Eclipsed link above and also find a few others, please. Then the article will be good to go. If you need any assistance, feel free to ask. Silverseren^C 22:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Article Draft

THE RIDE is an operator of guided tour buses that acts a tourist attraction in New York City. The 4.2-mile midtown route Tour takes approximately 75 minutes, but will fluctuate based on the current Midtown traffic conditions. THE RIDE departs from 46th and Broadway and stays around Times Square, Columbus Circle, and the Theatre District, New York The Ride offers energetic tour guides, street performers and surprises. The experience on any given day may include jugglers performing on the sidewalk or a “businessman” who unexpectedly sings and dances on the street corner. The RIDE also recreates famous scenes of New York, such as Alfred Eisenstaedt famous photograph of V-J Day in Times Square while introducing some new NY favorites like the Columbus Circle ballerina. The first RIDE bus took to the streets on September 16th, 2010 with the first tickets available on August 12th, 2010. Public tickets are available for purchase whether through the RIDE website, Telecharge or at THE RIDE’S Box Office at Madame_Tussauds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madame_Tussauds / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Madame_Tussauds_NYC.jpg. THE RIDE box office is open daily from 10AM to 8PM. ==Technology on THE RIDE== At a cost of $1.3 million dollars, THE RIDE is the tallest mode of transportation allowed on the streets of New York by federal law. The custom-made vehicles feature 49 stadium-style seating that turns riders sideways. One side of the bus is panoramic windows that allow tourists to see all of the activity in Times Square and huge skylights to view the New York City landmarks. The interior of the bus boasts an IMAX theater-worth of surround sound audio equipment and 40 video screens, with 3000 mood-enhancing LED lights, floor shaker technology, a wireless sound system that incorporates the sounds of the street performances. ==Themed RIDES== ===THE Fazzino RIDE=== In addition to the original RIDE, the Fazzino RIDE was introduced on May 3rd 2012 and public tours began on May 4th, 2012. Based on the pop art works of Charles Fazzino, the Fazzino RIDE is covered with a custom made wrapper depicting a vision of Fazzino’s New York City and Swarovski crystals. The Fazzino RIDE is scheduled for a limited run until Labor Day 2012. ==References== References ==External links== [ http://www.experiencetheride.com/] website Atlantic Express New York City commuter schedules Atlantic Express Sprint Nextel Discount Site Atlantic Express Sprint Nextel Discount Site

Zurich Insurance Group

I’ve been updating Zurich Insurance Group’s page to try and ensure that it best represents the company. There is a section on the page entitled ‘Criticism’ which is out of date and is not a fair representation of the company. It was removed, but has now been added again. Wondered what you would suggest as a next step? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GraRey (talk • contribs) 15:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You should propose an updated version on the talk page, with reliable sources backing it. If it is indeed out of date, then you will need to present more recent reliable sources, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, journals, published books, ect, that state the information you want the section to say instead. However, make sure that you present the section neutrally. This means that if there is legitimate criticism represented in reliable sources, you have to represent it as well just as you would anything else. Silverseren^C 04:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Creation of a new page

{{Request edit}} I have been requested to create a Wikipedia entry for a client. The company name is DoneDeal and is mentioned under the Ireland section of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schibsted. I added the Ireland section and the line there while first exploring how to edit in Wikipedia. I believe I have kept to a neutral point of view in what I have put together already - would somebody be willing to create a page for DoneDeal and include the content below? I hope I've followed all the instructions properly, as I'd done some research to ensure I was declaring a conflict of interest properly. If there are any reasons for refusal, feedback welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eklar (talk • contribs)

Article draft

DoneDeal runs DoneDeal.ie, a classifieds website in Ireland. History DoneDeal was set up in Wexford, Ireland in 2005 by husband and wife Fred Karlsson and Geraldine Karlsson . Fred Karlsson and Geraldine Karlsson set up the site so that people could sell items online, like they could in Sweden where they had returned from and where Fred Karlsson also hails from. Schibsted Media Group took a 50.09% stake in the company in 2011. DoneDeal’s revenues for the year ending April 2011 were just over €3 million. The CEO of DoneDeal is John Warburton. Other ‘DoneDeal.ie’ was the fastest rising Google search in Ireland in 2011 . DoneDeal is a member of the Interactive Advertising Bureau in Ireland. DoneDeal is ABC audited . DoneDeal has raised hundreds of thousands of euro for charity by donating a portion of ads to charities . DoneDeal has both iPhone and Android apps . References

Comments

First, thanks for coming to the right place and disclosing your client status. I'm a bit confused -- are you doing an article on DoneDeal (Company), or DoneDeal.ie (website)? I believe they could be two separate pages, with two separate determinations of whether they are notable enough for inclusion. I can see the argument for the website, but I don't know that the company necessarily merits its own article (as opposed to a redirect to the DoneDeal.ie website article, which until there is enough to merit a separate page on the company, would contain information on both).

Additionally, I'd like to see more meat to the article, especially in the history section. As well, things like "Is audited by ABC" are not really helpful as individual sentences and should be folded in somehow with more informative and relevant prose. Note: I'm talking stylistically here now, not in terms of conflict. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 12:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Swatjester, thanks for the comprehensive answer. I will get clarification on whether it should be a page on the company and website (I regard both as the one entity) and get a more meaty piece together, I was just keeping it to the bare facts because of the conflict of interest. Apologies in advance if this comment doesn't come through right, I'm still getting to grips with Wikipedia. --Eklar (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem Eklar. I think there's certainly enough sourcing to meet the minimum requirements, and the substance is neutral enough. The thing now is beefing up the amount of information in the article, and figuring out the right balance of focus on the company vs. on the website. It would seem to me that the best way to do it would be to have an article on the website, with a subsection on the company that owns it with relatively limited information. Basically the majority of the notability is due to the product (the website) rather than the company itself. But that's just my subjective viewpoint and is certainly open to interpretation. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This should probably be done on a user subpage. Easier to work on one of those. Silverseren^C 01:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 11:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I have created the subpage at User:Eklar/DoneDeal. Silverseren^C 04:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Stevens Institute of Technology article updates according to guidelines for college and university articles

I have gone through several rounds of edits with an editor who was assisting me in reviewing a draft page in my user space for an article on Stevens Institute of Technology which I updated to include more references and be more consistent with the guidelines for college and university articles than the article now live on Wikipedia (I have a COI).

I reached what seemed to be a final round of edits a few months back, making the draft article ready for the editor's final review. However, the editor has not had an opportunity to do that final review, so I am seeking assistance from someone else.

The full dialogue about the edits can be found here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stevens_Institute_of_Technology#Updating_page_along_guidelines_for_college_and_university_articles. The draft article in my user space can be found here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:QueenCity11/Stevens_Institute_of_Technology.

One additional note - I used the general Help tag to draw the attention of an editor who gave a quick review but was not comfortable doing more because he/she was not familiar with the guidelines for college and university articles. The editor did make one change, moving information about a lawsuit to its own section. Based on the Wikipedia guidelines for college and university articles, I am not sure if the lawsuit should be its own section or instead a subsection within a different section, and I ask that that question be given consideration. Thank you for the help. QueenCity11 (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fine being in its own section, since it's such an important part of the history, even if it's recent. For the most part, I see that you just made the article better organized in terms of sectioning and where certain information goes. It's pretty amazing how just doing that makes an article look several times better. Your improvement of the athletics section is especially nice. I'm fine with having this draft be implemented. I'll go scout around for a second opinion. Silverseren^C 21:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing. Please keep me posted on finding someone else to review/get this implemented as best as possible. Thank you again for your assistance. QueenCity11 (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The other user I contacted never responded, so i've left a message with Causa sui instead here. Silverseren^C 01:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This is apparently the week of no one responding. :/ Silverseren^C 07:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the follow up. It's understandable - it is vacation season. I'll check back at the end of the week to see if anyone responded by then. Thank you again. QueenCity11 (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I have now left Qwyrxian a message here. I'm really sorry for the wait. Silverseren^C 04:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the follow up and the update - I really appreciate it! QueenCity11 (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

All done. While I don't mind helping, Silver seren, if your concern was just a need for admin tools, here they weren't necessary. Per WP:MERGE, in cases where the history is overlapping (as they were here), we can't do a history merge. Instead, we just have to make do with a copy-and-paste with attribution in edit summaries and both article's talk pages (and making sure the draft isn't deleted). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Simple request about Huawei and Ren Zhengfei

I work with Huawei and am looking for help for help in removing some unverified claims from the Huawei article as well as the article for Ren Zhengfei, the company's founder. In both articles an editor has inserted statements claiming Ren Zhengfei has affiliation with the Chinese Communist Party, though no sources verifying this are provided. Huawei and Ren Zhengfei were reported on in The Economist and no such statement was made there. No reliable source has made this claim, and these should be removed. Please see my original request on the Huawei talk page which has been unanswered for more than 48 hours. I have also left a request on Ren Zhengfei's talk page. Thank you, --Bouteloua (talk) 01:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Done. Silverseren^C 01:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

John Sullivan: help with biography

Hello, I'm looking for help addressing a serious issue in Oklahoma Representative John Sullivan's article. Currently the article contains a section titled "Criminal record" that details allegations regarding his arrest record. This section is given undue attention by appearing in the table of contents and contains unnecessary information.

While I understand that the allegation by his opponent and its coverage in news sources makes this information notable, I would like to request that it be moved to the "Elections" section of the article, because the issue first arose during his election in 2004. It is only in the context of the campaign and election that the arrest record is notable.

I would also like to request that the section be revised to remove the specific details it currently contains. The incidents were a long time ago, and have not received major coverage since, apart from in the context explained above. I think it would make most sense to summarize the section.

I am asking for help here, rather than editing the article, because I work for Representative Sullivan. I have also left a request on the article talk page which can be seen here and on the BLP Noticeboard page, which can be seen here, where discussion has unfortunately dried up. I would appreciate if editors here could review this section and make the necessary changes. Let me know if you have any questions. I will respond here. Thanks, EdwardDC (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is left to be done here. Silverseren^C 23:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Silverseren, although the material from the "Criminal record" section has been moved to the first paragraph of the section titled "Tenure" and some changes to the wording have been made, I believe that it is still misleading. The follow up request on the article talk page here includes my suggestion for the wording that could be used instead. The edit request is for editors to consider the points I have raised and consider replacing the wording now in the article with that I have suggested. Thanks in advance. --EdwardDC (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Request to fix errors in JWMI article

I've posted here before to ask for help reviewing new material and changes to articles related to my employer, Strayer University, and I hope someone here can help again. I've noticed that recent changes to the Jack Welch Management Institute article have introduced some errors into the article. There are issues with grammar, formatting and also an error in description of timeline of the institute's acquisition by Strayer. I've listed all the issues I can see in an edit request on the article's Talk page. Can someone please review the errors and make the necessary changes? Thanks, Hamilton83 (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Silverseren^C 23:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Silverseren - Thanks again. Your help was very much appreciated. Cheers, Hamilton83 —Preceding undated comment added 12:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Help with Bob Corker - incorrect date

{{request edit}}

I'm looking for help in correcting an inaccurate date in the article about Bob Corker. In the Early life and family section, Sen. Corker's wedding date is inaccurately listed as May 18, 1987. This biography from his website shows the correct date of January 10, 1987. I am seeking to avoid making direct edits to the article because I am with the Senator's campaign. I hope that someone here can fix this, and also consider implementing the new information on the discussion page that has been approved by another editor (but not yet added). Thanks. Mark from tn (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed the wedding date and implemented the proposed changes on the talk page. Silverseren^C 03:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Aber Whitcomb

{{request edit}}

I have been hired to make changes to Aber Whitcomb's page.

The proposed new text is as follows:

As CTO of Social Gaming Network (SGN), a multiplatform game developer and distributor, Aber Whitcomb oversees the cross-platform technology strategy and plays an important role in developing and operating SGN titles on a global scale. Whitcomb is a recognized expert in large scale computing, networking and storage and frequently speaks on these topics at industry events.

Prior to SGN, Whitcomb’s most recent role was CTO and co-founder of MySpace where he was responsible for the engineering and technical operations groups. InfoWorld named Whitcomb as one of the “Top 25 CTOs of 2009.”

Whitcomb is a co-founder of i/o Ventures, an early stage startup program that focuses heavily on mentorship. He graduated from the University of Washington and was born and raised in Bellingham, WA.

I think the references in the current article cover this pretty well, but let me know if we need more.

Thanks in advance! Alexwillis (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to make it easier, can you indicate which references would cover which part of the text in your proposed changes? Silverseren^C 03:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure! See above.Alexwillis (talk) 13:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I'd like to also ask your advice about another page Cade McNown. He's hired me to make changes (he feels some statements may be misleading or false), but has yet to be specific...but one place he has been specific is that he'd prefer the lead photo to be something more specific to his career than a photo from a team he never really played for. He'd prefer this one: http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&sa=X&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS455US455&biw=1024&bih=509&tbm=isch&prmd=imvnso&tbnid=9x8ZvGLzFlybDM:&imgrefurl=http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1114251-50-star-players-that-peaked-in-college-football&docid=nXhwxhjnnNxohM&imgurl=http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/002/052/059/396753_display_image.jpg%253F1332389905&w=263&h=400&ei=UdEuUJe1IIGM6QGLyYHYAg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=94&vpy=100&dur=36&hovh=277&hovw=182&tx=108&ty=206&sig=104162640990892616719&page=2&tbnh=142&tbnw=90&start=12&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:12,i:132

Or should I just wait until he get the rest of his...stuff...together. Alexwillis (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The thing with images is that, if he wants us to use a different one, then he needs to own the copyright for said image and has to change the status of the image to be either CC-BY-SA or public domain. As long as he owns the copyright, he can license it for CC-BY-SA by uploading it to Wikipedia himself and putting that license on it. However, he has to do that himself with his own account, you can't do it for him, as you are not the copyright holder and we can't have things be licensed by proxy. If you have any further questions on how to do that, i'd suggest you go talk to User:Moonriddengirl, as i'm not the most knowledgeable on how exactly our copyright rules work. Silverseren^C 04:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I think your changes to Aber Whitcomb are fine, so if you could implement that, I'd be appreciative. As for the Cade McNown image, from what I've read here, fair use would apply since he's retired....but I'm probably much less of an expert on this than you are. Thanks for the referral! I'll follow my original instincts and wait until I get concrete changes to the article itself, and then pull in User:Moonriddengirl if needed. Thanks!Alexwillis (talk) 06:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. Good luck with the Cade McNown thing. Silverseren^C 02:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You're awesome. You'll probably see me again when I get text changes for Cade McNown...:) Thanks! Alex. Alexwillis (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)