Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid editor help/Archive 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Bob Corker - Early Life and Family

Hi again, I am looking for help in making another edit to Senator Corker's page, also in the Early Life and Family section. I would like to improve the second and third paragraph in this section to add more references and information, particularly around his decision to become involved in his local community and his business background.

The full request is on the article's talk page. As I explained in my earlier request above I work for Sen. Corker so I won't be directly editing his page. I hope someone will be able to help. Thanks. Mark from tn (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Completed by User:DESiegel. SilverserenC 05:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

job listing

http://dailyorange.campusave.com/jobs/wikipedia-edito-36941397.htm

Syracuse Orange football — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.188.18 (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

While I understand why you posted this here, the place you actually should post it to is the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. Here, i'll do it for you. SilverserenC 01:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hedge fund manager pay

{{request edit}} Over the last month or so, I've been involved in a discussion regarding hedge fund managers' pay over at the Hedge fund Talk page. Through discussion with two editors there, Wildfowl and TheSoundAndTheFury, we've arrived at wording on this topic that we're all comfortable with. My last request, which you can see at the end of this section, was to add some detail about how third parties estimate hedge fund managers' pay. Wildfowl had no objection to the wording I suggested, but preferred to have TSATF actually make the addition, however neither have been around to add it into the article. I checked and they've both not made any edits in the last week. I was wondering if someone here can add it into the article? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This request has been resolved; Wildfowl returned to the page and made the edit. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 12:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for PG&E's History section

{{request edit}}

I work for PG&E and have been providing suggestions for improving the History section of PG&E’s article with the help of other editors. I have proposed revisions for two small subsections, Streetcars and North American Company, that are currently underdeveloped. My earlier request about these sections is on the PG&E talk page but it appears that the conversation has tapered off. I hope that an editor here can review my proposed revisions and make these changes if a consensus can be reached. Thanks, PParmley (talk)

Done. SilverserenC 03:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Bob Corker - Sale of Protected Wetlands

Hi, I've prepared another revision for Senator Corker's article, this time for the Sale of protected Wetlands section. I would like to improve this section by correcting invalid links, better detailing the timeline of events and removing a biased quote that is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. I placed a request, which you can see here, on the article's talk page last week but haven't received a response. I hope that someone here will be able to help with this. Thanks. Mark from tn (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. SilverserenC 04:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Laura Mercier Cosmetics

Hello, I've suggested some changes to the Laura Mercier Cosmetics article to improve its content and citations. The article is too brief currently: it consists of only a single sentence and one citation. I have been working with and on behalf of Gurwitch Cosmetics (the parent company of Laura Mercier Cosmetics) to prepare a draft for the article. A couple of editors have provided feedback on the article's talk page, but I'd be interested in input from others, too. Can anyone here provide their opinion on the changes and suggestions from the talk discussion? Minorvariation (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, in the past few weeks I had been advising User:Minorvariation on creating improved drafts for the Laura Mercier Cosmetics and Gurwitch Products articles. I will now be taking over this project: unfortunately this editor had other issues related to misusing other accounts that I was not aware of, leading to them being blocked. I hope that editors who help with the LMC and Gurwitch articles will not judge these articles based on what happened with Minorvariation. But if you have any questions about it, please feel free to ask me on my Talk page.
To move things forward in a positive way, please can editors here check out the drafts, which I've added into my user space just now:
It would be great to get some feedback from editors on both of these. I see that Corporate Minion and DESiegel have commented on the LMC draft and it appears some additional input is needed there. I'd be grateful for any thoughts editors here may have on this, or if it looks ok, help taking this draft live. For Gurwitch Products, so far there have been no comments and I'd appreciate any constructive feedback. If you have any questions, please reply here or on either of the article Talk pages and I'll reply as soon as I can. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 17:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Done. SilverserenC 06:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

New draft for Nina Easton

Hi, I'm looking for editors to review a draft I've prepared to replace the current article on Fortune senior editor Nina Easton. The current article is in need of updating: it's underdeveloped and lacks citations. I've researched and written this draft on behalf of and with input from Ms. Easton and, given this COI, I won't be replacing the article with this new draft myself. Since posting my original request on the article's talk page I have received a positive review from one editor, though I'd feel more comfortable if other editors could review the draft, too. I am hoping that someone here will be able to review the draft, which is in my user space here. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to let editors here know that this request has been answered. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 13:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed revision of PSB article

I've just posted a new request for a substantial rewrite of an article about a client, that being the research and polling firm Penn Schoen Berland, or as the current article calls them, Penn, Schoen & Berland. It's a big update, and my note on that article's Talk page carefully explains a) what's wrong with the current version, and b) how my replacement draft improves on it. I'd like to keep the discussion focused on that discussion page, so anyone who sees this here, please feel free to comment over there. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm really sorry for the wait. I'll deal with this tomorrow and get it completed. SilverserenC 05:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, Silver! Thanks for following up here; I've been a little stumped about where to take the discussion on this one, since the only WikiProject to which it's assigned is the all-but-defunct WP:COMPANIES (I put a note up there anyway). Anyway, I don't mind being patient, and if you have any questions about the new draft, I'll be happy to answer. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Request has been completed. SilverserenC 02:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Silver. I was offline all day yesterday, otherwise I'd have updated this. It's appreciated. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 12:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up request

I've also posted a short question about two small content changes (adding a logo + new interim CEO) on the PSB Talk page. If you can handle, Silver, that would be cool. If you're busy, I can ask around. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. SilverserenC 16:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Eric C. Anderson

I've just posted a new request to expand the article about Eric C. Anderson, founder and chairman of Space Adventures, among numerous other endeavors. The request is at Talk:Eric C. Anderson, and my draft is at User:WWB Too/Eric C. Anderson. I was considering placing another request with WikiProject Aviation, although its Talk page appears to be semi-active at best. I may also take this to WikiProject Biography, and I'm open to suggestions about where else to go as well. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Yay, something was completed without me having to be involved. :D SilverserenC 01:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Heh, I know! You seemed busy, so I didn't want to bother you with this one. I always do try to spread out requests so as not to overburden any one editor. Gotta respect volunteership. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

New proposed article: Apartment Therapy

The well-known lifestyle and design blog Apartment Therapy does not currently have an article and I'd like to propose a draft. I believe that the site more than passes the test for notability. Among available reliable sources, the blog has received coverage in the Washington Post, New York Times and on The Guardian online. I've written a draft for the article with and on behalf of Apartment Therapy and due to my COI with the site, I'd really appreciate it if other editors could review the draft in my user space and take it live in mainspace if it looks ok.

Here's the link to the draft in my user space: User:16912_Rhiannon/Apartment_Therapy

I've also submitted the draft at AfC (see: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Apartment_Therapy), but due to the huge backlog there, I was wondering if any editors from PEH would have time to review the article and take it live?

With the content of the draft, I've aimed to provide as much information as I could find in reliable sources. The article is structured into three main sections, along with an introduction, infobox, references, external links and categories. As there aren't really any great examples of existing Wikipedia articles for blogs, I've based the section headings and structure on what I've seen in good articles for websites:

  • The Site history section covers the whole of the blog's history and is broken into three subsections: Early 2000s, Growth, Consolidation
    • Early 2000s focuses on the foundation of the blog and its origins in a design consultancy run by the site's founder
    • Growth provides details about the launch of companion sites by Apartment Therapy and the site's growing audience
    • Consolidation details the more recent history, including the reorganization of the blog
  • Site features provides an overview of the focus and notable features of the blog and also includes a brief description of its companion site The Kitchn
  • Books notes the three books that Apartment Therapy has published

Any constructive feedback on the draft would be more than welcome and if edits are needed, please feel free to make small edits to the draft and discuss larger ones here or on the draft's Talk page. Both this page and my draft are on my watchlist and I'll reply to your comments as soon as I can. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm, unfortunately, not going to be all that available for a week or two (please see my user page), so if you could go and ask some of the other members of the Wikiproject directly, it would probably be a lot faster than waiting for me to get back to organize that. SilverserenC 06:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Silverseren and sorry to hear you're under the weather - I hope you feel much better soon. Appreciate your advice and I'll reach out to a couple of folks from the WikiProject Cooperation participants list. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 17:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
This has been done: article was reviewed and taken live by User:FreeRangeFrog. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Short (finance)

Over the past few months I have been working with the Managed Funds Association in order to propose improvements to a number of articles related to hedge funds and the larger financial industry. Although this in no way promotes MFA, I've still sought to follow the "bright line" by seeking other editors to approve and implement these changes. And because of the technical nature of these topics, I've looked to editors with expertise in these areas without bringing them here.

However, regarding one—Short (finance)—I have made several (polite) requests asking others to review and possibly implement a small reorganization of sections. It has been nearly a month since I first posted the request, and since then I've received just one mostly-favorable response, but no follow-up and no action. Here's the outstanding request:

I am wondering if someone here would be willing to have a look, and if there are no red flags, boldly implement it? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. SilverserenC 00:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Hey, thank you! Glad to see you're back, hope you're feeling better. And I think your new paragraph breaks are fine, and some a clear improvement. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 12:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hedge fund

Similar to Short (finance), I've been working recently with the Managed Funds Association to improve the Hedge fund article. There's a great deal of inertia regarding this article, though I'm glad to have had a good deal of editor feedback. Just a few minutes ago I got approval for the replacement of one section (see here) except I was encouraged to implement it myself. Although this is another case where I might see myself as more "paid editor" than "paid advocate" I'd still like to be careful. If one of those editors doesn't make the update sometime today, would Silver or another editor be willing? I've got more suggestions ahead, so it would be nice to get some momentum going. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

This one has been done, though there will be several more requests to come. For anyone who happens to see this, why not stop by and see what's up? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 23:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Outdated information in Westinghouse entry

Yesterday I posted a request on the Talk page related to the Westinghouse Electric Company, on the company's behalf, seeking to update some information in the infobox. The company's CEO and ownership structure have changed; I've provided new information and citations to verify these in my comment there. I hope someone here will have a chance to review and update that soon. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 01:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

All done. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for help with revisions to MindManager article

Hello, I've recently been working on behalf of the company Mindjet to make updates to the article for their main software offering, MindManager. My proposed revisions, along with an explanation of what I've changed and why, can be viewed at Talk:MindManager. One volunteer editor, User:Ronz has looked at these changes and seems to be okay with them, but it appears that he will not have time to actually make the changes. I'm thus hoping that someone here might be able to take a look at the changes I've proposed and, if they seem acceptable, move them into the article. Thanks! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 16:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Done! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 16:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

New text for Social and environmental impact of palm oil

Hello, I am looking for help with an edit to the Social and environmental impact of palm oil article. This request was prepared on behalf of the Malaysian Palm Oil Council, whom I have been working with to improve and update articles related to palm oil. To be clear, my involvement on Wikipedia has been strictly on talk pages.

I placed this most recent revision to the Sustainability section on the article's talk page a short while ago. Since then the request has been reviewed by Sminthopsis84 who has indicated his approval. However, he also mentioned that he has limited Internet access lately, that is why I have brought this request here. Is there an editor here who could quickly review the revision and help make the change to the article?

Thanks in advance. I'll be checking this page as well as the article talk page for any questions. YellowOwl (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like this was completed already. SilverserenC 04:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Silverseren, thank you for your assistance with my other request on this article. If you wouldn't mind helping with one other small request, I have posted a comment on the talk page about an inaccuracy in the final paragraph of the article. The Persuading governments section inaccurately connects The Nature Conservancy with a report on tropical deforestation that proposes the use of protectionist legislation to help prevent deforestation. However, as this article explains, The Nature Conservancy is not affiliated with the publication and has in fact expressed criticism of arguments for protectionism that are put forward in the report. The report mentioned was actually commissioned by Avoided Deforestation Partners and the National Farmers Union. Would you be able to make this correction? Thanks in advance. YellowOwl (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I've reworded the section to be more in line with what the reference says. I hope it reads better now. SilverserenC 07:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Cracker Barrel

I've been discussing some small changes to a newly-created section of the Cracker Barrel entry, called Licensed products, in a thread on the article's Talk page. The other editor has agreed to the changes, but said I should go ahead and do it, although I think it would be better that another editor actually make the update. If Silver or another editor watching here would be willing to review, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I made the consensus-based changes. SilverserenC 07:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

BP financial data updates

Hello, as you might guess from my username, I work for BP and I have been making suggestions and providing information to improve accuracy and depth of information about the company on Wikipedia since last summer. Last week the company's Quarter 4 and full year 2012 financial results were published, which provide new figures for some of the items listed in the BP article's infobox. Although I've made a request on the BP Talk page, that page has been very quiet and I wanted to ask here if anyone could make the requested updates. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like User:Drm310 made the changes. SilverserenC 07:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Addition of content to Pret a Manger page

Hello,

I would like to be able to add further information (that has been verified by news reports) to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pret_a_Manger

I'm currently in contact with Pret re: exactly what we want to add, but in the mean time it would be great to get a sense of costs for this activity.

I am of course aware of disclosing that I have conflict of interest as I am from Pret's PR company.

Thanks and looking forward to feedback,

Heleana — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heleana731 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Heleana. My first piece of advice would be to suggest you make a new section on the article's talk page, specifically detailing the changes you think should be made and including links to the references that verify the information. You just need to make sure that the information is neutral. If you can go ahead and make that talk page section, I can go and take a look at it. SilverserenC 07:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Company name inclusion for Backend as a service article

Last October, I worked with Kinvey, a backend-as-a-service (BaaS) provider, to update the Backend as a service article. The article previously existed, but was quite poor. My changes were vetted by volunteer editors, and moved into the mainspace.

Following this, anonymous editors added two relatively minor BaaS providers to the list of providers in the article. This generated a bit of discussion on Talk:Backend as a service about how best to handle the inclusion of specific providers by name, although no consensus was reached. In the latest iteration of the page, one of these volunteer editors decided the simplest thing would be to remove all mention of BaaS providers from the article.

While I understand that Wikipedia articles like this can be attractive for self-promotional editors, and I acknowledge that my own relationship with Kinvey muddies the water a bit, I do think that a useful encyclopedia article should name the major providers, so long as they are verified by reliable, third-party sources. The Cloud computing article does this, for example. On the BaaS Talk page I suggested articles by three tech industry observers, along with proposed text accurately describing the market of BaaS providers.

Wikipedia's guidelines about including sources seems to me to be all we need here—unsourced claims should be removed, sourced claims should be allowed to stay.

I'm posting this here, as well as to WP:Companies, in an effort to get others' thoughts about this. Please feel free to join the discussion over at Talk:Backend as a service. Thanks! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 15:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

What's the status of this as this time? I didn't get involved in this one because I saw a number of other users already responding. SilverserenC 07:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey SilverSeren, Thanks for checking in on this. In brief, nothing's been done yet. There's been a lot of discussion over at Talk:Backend as a service about how to decide what company names, if any, should be included.
I feel like the discussion has led us to a point where the solution that I've proposed ought to work for everyone—namely, if company names go into the article as important providers, we need a singular, third-party source that says they're such. I haven't heard back from any of the other folks who've been involved in the discussion so far, but as I said, I do think this is the right solution.
If you wouldn't mind taking a look and seeing what you think—and maybe even moving the sentence over into the article if the solution I've proposed seems appropriate—I'd certainly appreciate your input. Thanks! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 13:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Done. ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 13:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

C.J. Sansom

{{Request edit}}

Hi, I work for CJ Sansom's agent, and we have noticed that his page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._J._Sansom "Work" section) only includes one side of an argument concerning the representation of Enoch Powell in Mr Sansom's most recent novel, Dominion. A counter argument was presented in The Telegraph. I wondered if it would be possible for the section to be updated to read:

Sansom's book 'Dominion' was criticised for its portrayal of Enoch Powell as a Nazi collaborator.[2] Journalist Peter Hitchens called it a "babyish, historically illiterate slur" and called on Sansom to apologise to Powell's family.[3] Alan Massie in The Telegraph defended the novel by arguing that “in the make-believe world of counter-factual history, a novelist is entitled to take a different line” and noted that the portrayal is “not inherently improbable”.

Source: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/allanmassie/100067695/enoch-powell-was-no-fascist-but-its-not-ridiculous-for-an-author-to-imagine-him-in-a-pro-nazi-government/

Many thanks.

Sorry for the wait. I've made the change, though I worded it slightly differently, but more or less the same.SilverserenC 05:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Trilantic Capital Partners article

{{Request edit}}

Dear all, my name is Kat and I work as a digital consultant at a London based PR agency that represents Trilantic Capital Partners here in the UK. I've been working on behalf of Trilantic to improve the current Wikipedia entry and update it with information on their UK headquarter, significant investments and key people. I've posted the proposed revisions on the Talk section of the article some time ago, expecting feedback from the community. But I've had no luck so far… I've also tried contacting the article editor Urbanrenewal but it appears he's on a Wikibreak at the moment.

I feel confident I can update the article myself but don't want to break the community rules. Please let me know what should I do now..

Many thanks! Kt1502 (talk) 09:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for not having gotten to this yet. The past week has been extremely busy for me and this coming week seems like it's going to be the same. I would suggest, if no one had gotten involved yet on the talk page, for you to go and contact other members of this Wikiproject directly. SilverserenC 06:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
There were complications with this one and it was unfortunately not able to be completed. SilverserenC 20:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

BP Caspian Sea POV wording

Hello, as explained above, I work for BP and I'd like to ask if editors here would be able to help with a request I've made regarding some POV wording in the company's article. Specifically, I'm looking for an editor to review some recently added wording in the article's section on the Caspian Sea gas leak, which I believe does not follow WP:NPOV. The request on the BP Talk page has not had a reply since I believe most editors usually involved there are currently busy working on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article. Can someone here look at my request on the Talk page and reply there? Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Completed. SilverserenC 20:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for Palm oil

Hello, I am looking for an editor to review a new request I posted last week on the Palm oil talk page. This request addresses the Social and Environmental sections of the Palm oil article, both of which are in need of cleanup to remove dead links and unsupported information and rewriting so that they provide an overview of the Social and environmental impact of palm oil article to which they redirect. The request on the talk page provides more detail.

As with my earlier request above, I am here on behalf of the Malaysian Palm Oil Council. I would greatly appreciate any feedback or help. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about what I've prepared. Thanks in advance. YellowOwl (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Completed. SilverserenC 20:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Silverseren, thank you for helping with another request of mine. I appreciate you taking the time to review this as I have had difficulty attracting interested editors to these pages. If you are interested in helping further I'll be posting a new request in just a minute to clean up the Blood lipid and cholesterol effects and Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil sections. I'm concerned about the quality and lack of references in both of these sections. Thanks again. YellowOwl (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

New proposed article: Guide

Hi, I have a short new article draft that I'd like to have other editors review (and hopefully move into live article space) for the software company, Guide. In the interest of full disclosure: I've written the draft on behalf of the company, which is led by Leslie Bradshaw, for whom I've made requests here before.

Although the company is fairly new, it has received a decent amount of coverage in reliable sources including Mashable, TechCrunch and The Miami Herald, so I believe its notability is not an issue. While I've aimed to write the draft neutrally, I'd really appreciate if other editors can read through and make sure it all sounds ok. And if it's ready, move it live.

Here's the link to the draft in my user space: User:16912_Rhiannon/Guide (software company)

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask here or on my Talk page. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

references, external links, information. Looks good to go. Unfortunately though i'm not confident in the 'moving articles into livespace' department so i'll look around and see who's around and can do it. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 23:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

That's great, thanks MIVP! Let me know if you're having trouble finding someone to make the move, and I'll see if I can help track down another editor to assist. Thanks again! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, quick update for anyone watching this page: Bluerasberry has also reviewed the draft (see his comments on the draft Talk page) and has given it the thumbs up, suggesting that anyone can move it live. Since I stick to the "bright line" proposed by Jimbo Wales (ie. only making requests and no edits to articles), I'd prefer if an editor can make this move for me. Please reply here if you can help. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Moved to mainspace. SilverserenC 20:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Wonderful, thank you so much! And I see you added Guide to the Guide (disambiguation) page, so thanks for that, too. I have a quick follow up request just to tidy up a few loose ends, and I hope one of you wouldn't mind helping with these:
If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks again to everyone. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, all of that is done. I tried a number of different orientations for the screenshot, but where I left it now is probably the best we're gonna get in terms of page formatting. SilverserenC 21:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again, Silverseren, this all looks great. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Another Palm oil request

Hello again, I am looking for help with an unresolved request on the Palm oil talk page. Though the first part of my request has been answered I am still looking for feedback on my suggested revision of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil section of the article. The current version is too long, lacks referencse throughout and is largely copied from RSPO-published sources. I would appreciate it if an editor here could read the draft and let me know what they think. As with my other requests on this page I have prepared this request on behalf of the Malaysian Palm Oil Council. Thanks in advance. YellowOwl (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I am still looking for an editor to review this request. I thought I should try one more general request before I try approaching individual WP:Cooperation members directly. Thanks in advance. YellowOwl (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I found an editor to help with my request. YellowOwl (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal For Paid Wikipedia Editors Judge & Jury

I happened on web articles describing the conflict over paid Wikipedia editors which led me to Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia where I learned about various groups trying to address this issue.

While I was never a paid editor, I have some expertise in a controversial area post-abortion syndrome(post-abortion syndrome) and my own efforts, several years ago, to bring balance to articles related to that issue were met with hostile point-of-view pushers who consistently deleted objective material cited to the high quality peer reviewed medical journals. A small gang of POV pushers eventually drove me out. Indeed, I'm convinced that at least one or two of these aggressive editors were paid staff members for groups advocating or performing abortions.

I've come to understand that there are now some opportunities to appeal edits to "the community" asking volunteers to review or mediate disputes. But this takes time . . . and the volunteers may simply bring their own biases to their decisions . . . and any sophisticated political or business group might also have "sleepers" in the volunteer dispute resolution groups who are there precisely to tilt the balance their way from an "objective" volunteer.

So here's my suggestion. It is one that would benefit PR professionals, volunteer editors with expertise in a field, and any editor who believe the balance of an article is being distorted by POV editors who block true and verifiable information and front load articles with POV material.

--Per Piece Paid Editing/Judging From Wikipedia Staff Editor/Judges -- Volunteer Wikipedia editorial mediation and arbitration services are fine. But they can take a long time and may not be fair or objective.


Wikipedia should offer an option for users to pay a fee for a professional editor, on Wikipedia's staff, to review the proposed changes and the basis of information for them, and to enter those those changes in the article with a definitive order that they shall not be changed without the consent of the person who proposed the change.


This means a professional PR person with a business, for example, can transparently submit a proposed change to the Wikipedia editor/judge and if accepted, have it immediately and authoratitvely "locked into the article", notifying the other editors (especially those who are POV pushers) to not disrupt the edit.


This solution would (a) provide revenue to Wikipedia, (b) provide a mechanism for rapid correction of untruths or omissions, and (c) provide a mechanism to deliver paid, professional, authorative oversight to contentious articles in a manner that still allows for the articles to evolve but will reduce edit wars.


If the person paying the fee is unhappy with the judgement, they should be allowed to pay a second fee to have the issue examined by a panel of 3-5 of Wikipedia's paid staff--whom, of course, should be chosen based on a variety of different political, religious, and ideological views and all committed to striving toward a fair balance of such views in every article.


People willing to pay for accuracy and balance should be able to help improve Wikipedia without having to battle POV pushers as I did.


Would some one like to start a page to discuss this proposal? --Strider ♫♫ 15:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

This should really be something that's discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Also, not quite so sure that it's going to go over well, i'm just telling you in advance. SilverserenC 21:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Good luck with that. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 01:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

MicroStrategy and Michael J. Saylor

I could use some help with a couple of article rewrites I've recently proposed; one about the company MicroStrategy (current article | proposed version | Talk proposal) and another about CEO co-founder, Michael J. Saylor (current article | proposed version | Talk proposal).

A little background: I'm not the first person representing the company to work on these pages; last fall, an editor self-identified as a company employee made a large number of direct edits to these pages. Although I think they meant well, these edits did not conform to Wikipedia guidelines, and the articles were affixed with warnings (properly, in my view). Since then, the company has brought me in to help resolve the issue.

It was my estimation that both required a full rewrite to fix these issues; I've now done that, and I first proposed these new versions a couple of weeks back. Each received an initially favorable response, and from different editors (MicroStrategy here; Michael J. Saylor here). In fact, I was encouraged to move the Saylor one myself, but I'd prefer not, for obvious reasons. Since then, I'm afraid both editors have been mostly offline, and my "request edit" templates have not drawn in any new volunteers.

I'd really appreciate some feedback here, whether others believe the drafts need work before they are ready for the mainspace, or if they're suitable replacements now. I'll ping a couple of editors associated with this project now, but others are very welcome! Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking at the proposed article for MicroStrategy now, and while it improves on the current version by using less flowery language, I think it contains excessive detail and overcitation. I don't think we need a paragraph on every single product; I especially don't think we should be including citations just to demonstrate sample customers. That sounds far too much like a sales pitch for my tastes. It's obviously a bit hard to think about due to the nature of the product, but when I go to, say, Toyota Corolla, I don't expect to read lists or examples of people who've purchased them. I've also never seen the rationale for a "Competitors" section; usually these actually get added by the competitors, but even though they're being added by the company itself here, I don't know that it actually adds to the article.
It would be awesome if someone else could provide their input as well. At the moment, I don't feel that the significant improvements necessarily outweigh the negative changes, and thus I'm not inclined to "move it, fix it later". But others could persuade me. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Qwyrxian! I appreciate the thoughtful feedback, even though critical. I can offer some thoughts on why it is the way it is, and then I'd like your suggestions about how to revise:
  • I don't mean the paragraph-by-paragraph treatment of each product to be like a sales pitch, but I can understand why you say that. It's a very large company with just a few very big divisions organized around specific software offerings; describing each to my mind meant accurately describing its business ventures. That said, it surely does produce a number of very short paragraphs in succession, which may start to feel like too much.
  • Similar with lists of customers: the large companies listed work with MicroStrategy more closely than just buying the product in the store and walking off with it; to describe (and in some cases list) them is describing MicroStrategy's corporate partners (each inclusion based on a third-party source). This is why I've sought to include some context about customer use cases in a couple of instances. Perhaps there's a way to make this clearer?
  • The competitors section already exists in the article; this is just updated. MicroStrategy is in an industry with just a few big players, and defining them helps to define the market they are in.
Any specific advice on each or any of the above about how you'd prefer to see these read before I go back and work with it? And of course, thoughts from anyone else very welcome as well. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
While I understand your positions, I don't think they meet the concerns of an encyclopedia article. I think that the entire "products" section could probably be done in two paragraphs, with each product getting no more than one sentence (unless it's really, really, really independently notable; I would expect any such product would have it's own WP page). And I understand that the business relationships are more than producer-customer, but, again, to pull a different analogy, Merrill Lynch, and, in fact, all wealth management companies, often have very close, intricate, ongoing relationships with their customers...but that article doesn't have a big list of their clients. I'd like to see all of those mentions removed; if the relationship with one specific customer resulted in significant ongoing press, then perhaps that should be covered somewhere in "History" or even as a standalone section. And on competitors, this has been a long-standing opinion of mine, and I actually remove such sections on sight; if you weren't working on a new draft, I'd strip it out of the live article right away (doing so now messes up the history a bit more). However, keep in mind that I'm probably a lot more strict on what I consider "encyclopedic" (i.e., WP:DUE) than other editors. So I personally cannot advocate moving it over, though I probably wouldn't stop someone else if they did. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again, your points make sense to me. So now I'll try for another revision that aims to follow your suggestions, although it might take me a few days or more to bring that back here. In the meantime, I'll make sure there's a note in other places where I've mentioned this proposed rewrite, in order to consolidate discussion if others join. More from me soon! Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Request Edit: Seattle Cancer Care Alliance

Writing to request updates to the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance Wikipedia page copy. There are several updates that are not reflected in the copy on the Wikipedia page. To make this page more accurate we are requesting that this text be replaced with this copy,

File:SCCA Wikipedia Copy FINAL

which was pulled from the current Wikipedia copy and updated.

[[1]]

http://www.seattlecca.org/

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you, Katie — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatieRC (talk • contribs) 22:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

It would be really great if you could first read our reliable source guidelines, which you clearly have not done. The tone of the proposed copy is also clearly promotional, rather than encyclopedic. If there are specific, individual instances on the current page where there are errors of fact, it is probably better to point those out, along with reliable sources that provide a correction. Providing a copy of what you think the page should look like is, frankly, frowned upon. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 22:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
It looks like the promotional language is in the current revision. I can't see the proposed revision. My other comments stand though. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 23:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for help with Motion Picture Association of America

Hello, I am an employee of the Motion Picture Association of America, and have been working on some edits for the MPAA article that I'd like to see implemented with help from volunteer editors.

I recently posted about my first set of proposed revisions—a more in-depth perspective on MPAA member studios—over at Talk:MPAA. One user, Tbhotch, thought that the revisions were acceptably neutral and encyclopedic, and suggested that I move the changes over myself. Given my conflict of interest, however, I'm not totally comfortable doing so. I'm hoping that someone here will be willing to take a look at my proposed changes and, if they think they look okay, make the changes to the article.

I'm also working on revisions to other sections of the article, so you may see me here again requesting additional help in the future. If you have any questions or concerns, please follow up with me here, or on my talk. Thanks! MPAA Kyle (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

My revisions were moved into the article by Tbhotch, so please consider this request answered. As I mentioned above, I might come here again with other revisions, so let me know if you'd like to help with that. Thanks! MPAA Kyle (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for Activia

Hello, I worked on a draft on the Activia page. I am looking for an editor to review it before editing it on the live page.

Here's the link to the draft: User:Solarys-fr/Activia

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask here or to contact me on my talk page. Thanks! User:Solarys-fr —Preceding undated comment added 07:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I've posted some comments on the talk page of the draft. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

User:I'm Tony Ahn/Rembrandt Flores

Greetings. Would someone be willing to review User:I'm Tony Ahn/Rembrandt Flores and if you find it meets community standards, move it to Rembrandt Flores? I can review an article for you in return if you like. If you're wondering what this is about, I write articles in my userspace and then ask for an independent third party to review them against community standards and move them. In this way I never directly edit Wikipedia, but can still get my clients' articles inserted. Thanks! If you'd like to know more about how I developed this approach, and the response of administrators, ArbCom members, and an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation, read this: User:I'm Tony Ahn/Public relations professionals editing Wikipedia I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Moved by someone already. Thanks. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 07:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

BP environmental record overview

I have introduced myself above on this page previously, but to recap, I work for BP and I have been offering suggestions and new drafts on the BP article's Talk page since last summer. Last week, I put forward a new draft on the Talk page for an overview to the Environmental record section. The section currently begins with a few facts from various sources and dates that do not give a clear overview of the company's overall environmental record, so I feel that a fuller overview would provide more information to readers and help with the clarity of the section as a whole. Once again, the Talk page is very quiet and editors involved there have not responded to my request.

My complete request is on the BP Talk page and the draft is in my user pages here: User:Arturo_at_BP/Environmental_record

I would like to ask if anyone here would be willing to review the draft. If you can assist with this review, please can you discuss the draft on the BP Talk page, but make any changes directly into the draft; working this way has been helpful to editors in the past. Thanks, Arturo at BP (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Extensively discussed at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest and Talk:BP, and also in the news - for example, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/21/bp-wikipedia-page_n_2923363.html . -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Small request for Rally.org

In the last week, I proposed a new article for fundraising platform Rally.org, which I had written on behalf of the company. The article went through AfC and was reviewed by editors for NPOV and other COI concerns. The editors who reviewed are busy (one of them is continuing to review and work on the article now that it is live), so to avoid overloading them I was hoping that an editor here might be able to help with a few small requests.

1. The first request is to set up redirects to Rally.org from:

  • Piryx
  • Tom Serres

Piryx is the predecessor of the platform and Tom Serres is the company's CEO. Serres is not yet notable for his own article, but appears often in articles about the company, so I think it may be helpful to readers to have a redirect from his name to the Rally.org article.

2. I'd also like to ask that Rally.org be added to the Rally disambig page. Here's what I was thinking:

Rally.org, a social online fundraising platform

3. Last but not least, I've uploaded the logo for Rally.org and I'm hoping someone can add this to the article's infobox. The file is here: File:Rally.org_logo.png

If you have any questions at all, please let me know. I really appreciate any help that editors here can provide. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 23:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 Done -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks so much, John! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

A page I created has been "red linked"

I am Julia van Tuyll and I work at Vision Capital. I am reaching out to this group for some advice on the creation of a dedicated Vision Capital Wikipedia page. There is already nine references to Vision Capital on Wikipedia in context of our ownership of a number of companies. We think it would be very useful for Wikipedia users to be able to trace the owners of these companies, but despite our efforts to create a link from these mentions to our page, we have struggled to get any traction. We have also been cited in a number of newspapers and publications which can be used as references. I would be very grateful if you could consider working with us to create a page or give us advice on how we may move forward.

To give you some context, there are currently 26 companies within Vision Capital’s portfolio across Europe and the Americas. In total over 10,000 people are employed by companies owned by Vision. Vision Capital has raised seven funds totalling over EURO1.9bn. It currently has EURO1.7bn in AUM.

Anyone who could help advise on next steps? JHAVTVS 11:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHAVTVS (talk • contribs)

The first step, I think, would be to give a link to a few of those newspapers and publications, whichever ones best cover Vision Capital, so they can start a base for an article. Next, I would suggest working on a draft version of the article so that it can get up to scratch before actually being put into mainspace. Might I suggest starting a draft at User:JHAVTVS/Vision Capital? SilverserenC 23:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Strike that. I found your Articles for Creation submission at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Vision Capital, so no need to start a draft when you already have one. I actually am not quite sure on why it was declined. I'm asking for some clarification from the user that declined it. I'll provide some follow-up here once they respond to my query. SilverserenC 23:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that the user in question hasn't edited since December and, thus, isn't likely to respond, so i've left a request for a re-review of the draft here. SilverserenC 02:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Edits to the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance page

There are a few facts I'd like added to the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Cancer_Care_Alliance. I've listed them below with sources. (proposed changes in Italic text)

Updated facts: "SCCA, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, UW Medicine, and Seattle Children's form the only NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center in the Northwest." -Source: http://cancercenters.cancer.gov/cancer_centers/cancer-centers-list2.html#WA

"Patients treated by SCCA, in general, have higher 5-year survival rates than patients treated elsewhere for every type of cancer, according to the 2011 National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) Survival Reports." -Source: http://www.facs.org/cancer/ncdb/survival.html

Thank you, KatieRC — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatieRC (talk • contribs) 18:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the wait on responding to this. I just have one main concern about the information. The sources you've given don't actually say this and it seems that you're interpeting them. Either we need a source that specifically says the informationy ou'd like to add or we'd have to be much more general in how we're using these sources. SilverserenC 02:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Winton Capital Management

Hi all, I recently posted a request on Talk:Winton Capital Management to see about making some updates to that article, primarily based on new developments since I last worked with them to expand and improve it a couple of years back. It doesn't look like anyone has yet had a chance to review my suggested revisions, however; any chance someone from here might be able to take a look and, if appropriate, move the edits over into the article? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The above request has been implemented. I've actually got two rounds of edits planned—they're all quite simple, but I don't want them to be overwhelming—and the latest (middle) one is now here. Thanks in advance to anyone who can help. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Should anything be done about unsolicited approaches from people wanting to pay money to have articles written about them?

A message has reached me, saying, as follows--edited to remove identities, etc.


I don't know the policy on this or where to find it.

This is what I think the policy probably is, but would appreciate any clarification before I respond.

"I think Wikipedia probably doesn't care how articles get written and contributed, even if money changes hands, and trusts to the wiki editing process to ensure that it gets un-obscenitied if anyone obscenities with it. In other words, there's no need to report such an approach and no action Wikipedia would take about it.

However, it is a pretty bad idea for a publicity seeker to hire a Wikipedia editor, because the editor can't control the results. Deletion of the article, if the subject does not meet WP:BIO, can't be prevented. The content of the article can't be controlled, a positive or laudatory tone can't be guaranteed, and the subject of the article can't force the withdrawal of the article. The Wikipedian community is generally hostile toward attempts to use Wikipedia as a promotional tool. Hiring someone to insert a promotional Wikipedia bio seems like a recipe for bad feelings and difficulty in collecting fees, because the client is is unlikely to be happy with the final result of the process."

Is that about right? Dpbsmith (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Essentially, but it does really depend on what the subject wants. If they just want an article on themselves and they aren't forcing it to be promotional (and presuming they are indeed notable) then I don't see that much of a problem with it. I would suggest you just keep an eye on the article in question to make sure that it stays neutral. SilverserenC 03:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Seeking help toward completing MicroStrategy

Hello there, anyone who is watching this page. I'm looking for help on an article improvement project that is nearly complete, but has stalled in the last few weeks as editors previously involved have become busy on other projects. This is about the company profile for MicroStrategy. First, here's a brief recap of progress to date:

  1. On 15 March I proposed (see request here) a newly researched and rewritten version of this article, seeking to address problems identified by User:Dreamyshade, who had flagged the article last year, and who had recently agreed to look at a new draft from me.
  2. On 27 March I brought the request to this work page because Dreamyshade was busy offline. User:Qwyrxian responded soon, offering some constructive criticism (see discussion here), and I started working on a second draft.
  3. This second draft took longer than expected, and just before I was ready to post the second draft for discussion, Dreamyshade returned and updated the live article with my first version, while making some changes of her own.
  4. I asked Dreamyshade if she would look at the second draft, and she said "sounds good" but then has been mostly away from Wikipedia since then. Qwyrxian made a small edit this week, but has also told me he's probably too busy to look any closer.

So here I am again, looking for assistance. The above should bring readers up to speed on the discussion around the article; the rest of this message will focus on the specifics of the current live article and proposed draft:

And here's a basic list of changes I'm suggesting from the live version to my new draft:

  1. My versions have always included a brief list of notable clients in the intro; these were removed by Dreamyshade in moving the first version live. It seems to be a common section in articles of this type, however I'm fine with it either way.
  2. The Overview section (current article | proposed draft) has been adjusted with feedback from my contacts at MicroStrategy, who have judged some of the current wording to be inaccurate. Although I took their input seriously, I've also made sure that everything included here is backed up with a reliable third-party source.
  3. Also in Overview: I'd originally had a separate subsection for competitors, though Qwyrxian suggested removing or reducing it. The information included is reliably sourced, so I rewrote it slightly and have merged it into the parent heading.
  4. The History section (current article | proposed draft) has changed some, although I think the changes here are more obviously straightforward.
  5. The Products section (current article | proposed draft) has changed the most, and I consider this the top issue. My first draft had a paragraph for each key product and example clients; in his initial feedback, Qwyrxian suggested it should be just a few paragraphs and not mention specific clients. I came to agree, and the new section reflects this—I think this is much more encyclopedic. Dreamyshade didn't have this new version yet when she made the initial changeover, and no one has yet compared the two.
  6. I've also added a short section called Awards and recognition (proposed draft). This includes a detail about recognition from Apple and a couple of industry awards, all supported by third-party sources.

That about covers it, though reviewers may wish to look at my (somewhat less detailed) explanation of this draft on Talk:MicroStrategy, and it's probably for the best that most discussion occur there. Thank you very much if you've read to the end of this, and I look forward to any constructive feedback! Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Since I posted here last week, there was an edit made to the MicroStrategy article, completely removing the Products section. As mentioned above, this is one of the sections that I've been working on redrafting to make it better conform to Wikipedia's standards. Although I agree that the Products section could be shorter (as reflected in the draft that I proposed), completely removing it doesn't seem appropriate.
If someone has a chance to review the edit and either (a) revert it while we work through this article, or (b) review my proposed revision to the section and consider adding that in its place, I'd appreciate it. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I've implemented it. Considering that it was mainly just a rearranging of material and the addition of a sentence here and there (and the Awards and recognition section), it's not a big enough deal to get a second opinion, in my opinion. Besides, Qwyrxian already looked over it. SilverserenC 04:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very, very much Silver. There's just one last thing to be done, which is re-enabling the logo. Would you mind doing that, too, when you have a moment? Thanks again! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Completed by Stfg. SilverserenC 00:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Alex Castellanos

Hi all! A few weeks ago I posted a request on the Talk page for Alex Castellanos looking for editors to review a replacement draft I prepared for the article. Alex Castellanos is a political consultant and current partner at Purple Strategies. My work on this article is on behalf of Purple Strategies, and I have received input from Castellanos in preparing this draft.

My original request, and subsequent messages on several related WikiProjects and editor Talk pages, has not led to any response. If someone here is available to review my suggested draft I'd really appreciate it. In the original request on the talk page I've explained a few of the major issues with the current version, which I think would be helpful for reviewing editors to read. My draft is in my user space here. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 12:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Completed and moved to the article by CaroleHenson. SilverserenC 00:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Edits to University of Texas Medical Branch

Hello. A few weeks ago I posted a request for reconsideration of edits on the Talk page for UTMB. Initial edits were declined, so I checked in with that editor. He/she was busy on another project and directed me to ask elsewhere. Since no one has responded, I'm here looking for editors to review replacement text I drafted for paragraphs 2 & 3. My work on this article is on behalf of UTMB to correct inaccuracies, update figures and improve organization of information that's currently on the page.

If someone here is available to review my suggested edits I'd really appreciate it, and I hope my explanations and reference citations provide adequate information. Myra McCollum (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm personally not all that sure about the changes requested on the talk page. It would probably be to your best interest, Myra, to go and ask members of this Wikiproject directly to help on their talk pages. SilverserenC 03:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

New article creation & Redirection of an existing article

Hi everyone, as an editor with COI I need your help. I've recently submitted a new article for approval:Baring Asset Management Limited. When I tried to move it to 'The Articles for creation' space, it failed as the URL for Baring Asset Management currently redirects to its parent company Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company - here is the link . This may have not been noticed previously. I've left a comment in the talk section but had no reply so far.

Could you please look into it? If you get a chance to review the new article for Barings, that would be very much appreciated too. Please let me know - Kat Kt1502 (talk) 17:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Clearly a bit out of date reply at this point, sorry about that. As the two editors pointed out when the article was rejected, there are a number of things you need to fix in this article. There are a number of sections that are not referenced, you need to fix that. A fair amount of the language sounds promotional, such as "These included kings, prime ministers, authors and even fictional characters such as Phileas Fogg!". So you need to fix that too. Furthermore, you need to really minimize the amount of primary sources (sources directly by the company itself) used in the article. Lastly, you need to include information about Barings Bank and how and why it collapsed. Not too much on it, but at least a good paragraph covering what happened.
If you can manage to do all of that, then it will be ready for a proper review. SilverserenC 03:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Assistance with Howard Lederer's article

Hi to anyone watching this page. I've been looking for help with the article for professional poker player Howard Lederer, which is a little outdated and suffers from some issues with balance and inaccuracy. Although I've posted at WP:BLPN and Talk:WikiProject Biography, there's only been one reply so far, from an editor thought my proposal looked ok but would like to see other editors comment.

I have a COI with the article as I'm working on it for Proof Integrated Communications, who are creating a new website for Lederer's sister, Annie Duke. In short, they'd like to be able to link to his Wikipedia article, but there are a few issues in the article that need addressing first. As always, due to my COI, I will not edit the article directly, instead I've written a new draft that I'd like to have editors review and move if it's ready.

If you're able to help, I'd be very grateful. Here are the links to the current article, my proposed version and the Talk page explanation of the issues in the current article and how I've aimed to address these in the draft. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. I moved it over myself. SilverserenC 03:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks so much Silverseren! Really appreciate you reviewing and moving the draft over. Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 13:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Maker's Row Page

Hi,

I've been editing this page because it has been tagged as looking like an advert. Please let me know if it's OK now. Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maker%27s_Row

19:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Americanmanufacturing (talk • contribs)

One of the things that I think will help a great deal in making the article be more neutral would be to add more secondary sources. These would be news articles, books, and other sources about the subject (Maker's Row) that are independent of it. So things like press releases don't count. They have to be independent coverage. If you can find some more of those to add to the article, especially if they cover the same content that the primary sources are right now, so they could replace them, that might be enough in itself. SilverserenC 01:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Does it look any better now? Let me know when I can take off the advert tags. If not, let me know what I can change, I'm happy to do so :) Americanmanufacturing (talk) 20:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I did a bit of changing, re-arranging, wikilinking and such. Good job in adding those references. As far as I can tell, the article is fine now, so i've removed the tags. SilverserenC 21:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Assistance with Center for Copyright Information article

Hello, I've recently been working with the Center for Copyright Information to improve their Wikipedia article. Because of my financial COI, I posted a note on Talk:CCI, along with a draft in my userspace. My initial draft generated quite a bit of feedback, leading me to update my draft, taking into account the comments from volunteer editors. However, since posting the updated version, the main participant in the discussions, User:Mjb, has indicated that they don't have time to look at it, and I've had trouble finding other editors to review my changes.

I'm hoping someone here might be able to review the feedback I received, see if the new draft of the article is acceptable and, if so, move it over into the mainspace.

For ease, here are links to the relevant pages:

Thanks! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 17:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

This is now  Done. ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 14:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Education Management Corporation

In addition to my above note, and sincere apologies in advance for bringing multiple requests here at once, I am looking to tie up some loose ends on the Education Management Corporation Talk page. Back in early July I proposed a revised draft for the Programs section.

This draft was then approved by another editor, who initially suggested I add it, then agreed to come back to it when I explained why I shouldn't, however this editor hasn't been back and has not been added to the article. Can someone here give my draft and the current section another quick look and then make the update if all looks OK?

My request on the Talk page explains the differences between my draft and the current section in more detail; in brief, the current section lacks citations and needs minor updates throughout.

Here are the links to the current section and my draft:

I'm actually heading out the door to Wikimania very soon, so I may not be very quick to reply here to any questions, but I will try to check in during the next week. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

This one is  Done. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Two new articles: Sturgeon Ventures LLP and Regulatory Incubator (Saved in my talk section)

Hi all, I'm an editor with COI and need your help, again. I've created two new articles in my Talk section: Sturgeon Ventures LLP and Regulatory incubator. Have an article for Baring Asset Management sitting in my Sandbox that I've been forgetting to re-visit so had to use Talk - know it's not ideal but here you go. If I knew how to add another sandbox I'd have done it but I'm not as experienced as you are...still learning. Could you please review them for me and suggest any improvements? Many thanks, Kat Kt1502 (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: I've moved the proposed articles into separate user sandbox pages and wikilinked the original request for easier view. Alex ShihTalk 03:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The articles look pretty good. The only thing i'd note is that the second paragraph of Sturgeon Ventures LLP should probably get some wikilinks added to it.And I would suggest rewording it a bit so it flows better. It seems a little dense right now. SilverserenC 00:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks Silver - I've reworded the second paragraph and also made some tweaks, following feedback from teb00007. Please see if it reads better now. Many thanks, Kt1502 (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

NFLPA Game

Hello, I've been working on behalf of the NFL Players Association to improve a number of articles here on Wikipedia that relate to their mission; recently, I've worked on sorting out the NFLPA Game article, which is a mess, as it combines two different series of games, treating them as if they were the same. The consensus about what seems to be happening is laid out at WikiProject:NFL and Discussion at Talk:NFLPA Game.

To resolve this issue, I've prepped drafts for the two different games that the current article conflates: a full draft of prospective articles for the NFLPA Collegiate Bowl and a stub for the Texas vs The Nation.

At various times on WP:NFL and Talk:NFLPA Game, editors have stepped in to say that they think the drafts look good, or suggest small tweaks, but I've had a hell of a time finding an editor who will actually implement the solution that seems to have been settled on. So, I'm reaching out here. If things look okay, will someone go ahead and set up the two new articles, with a redirect from NFLPA Game to the Collegiate Bowl article (although a disambig page would be OK too)?

Here's a quick bulleted list of relevant articles and discussions:

Current articlle
Drafts
Previous discussions

Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I've raised this issue at Jimbo's Talk page, the first time I've done so actually. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
It looks like you've got this in hand on Jimbo's talk page. And it's likely going to need an administrator to actually deal with the history merges and article splitting and such anyways. SilverserenC 01:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Yep, took a few days, but eventually this got  Done. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Help with Accenture and a related article

Hello, I'm currently working on behalf of Accenture to make some improvements to two articles here on Wikipedia: Accenture's own article, as well as the article for their Chairman and CEO, Pierre Nanterme. I've had some help from User:FeralOink at Accenture, although he seems to be a bit busy, and I've yet to locate anyone to help with Mr. Nanterme's article, so I'm hoping someone here might be able to help out.

A brief summary of the current issues with the articles:

Accenture

As I noted, FeralOink has been helping here, and addressed most of the issues that I initially raised (as well as making a slew of other improvements to the article). There are two outstanding issues, though, and it seems that FeralOink is busy at the moment, plus I'd like a third opinion on one aspect. The issues are discussed in detail at Talk:Accenture, but here's a crib-sheet version:

  • After some edits to the "Leadership" section, there is one "Group Chief Executive" listed (although Accenture has more than one person in roles with this title), but there is no discussion of the COO; it seems the COO should be here before any of the group chiefs. Additionally, now that this section has been shortened, it seems too short, so I've suggested we add the full board of directors in, in order to provide a broader sense of the leadership of Accenture (the markup for this is at Talk:Accenture). Curious on people's thoughts about this.
  • One of FeralOink's edits removed two sentences about Joe Glickauf, an important person in the early history of Accenture. The sentences were unsourced and, as it turns out, plagiarized from a blog written by Accenture itself. However, Glickauf's role is important enough that he should be included in the article, so I've prepared a new sentence with roughly the same information, but using an independent source (the Chicago Tribune), to replace the plagiarized sentence. My suggestion can be found at Talk:Accenture.

I also have a couple other requests related to the Accenture article, but I'd like to get this first set of things wrapped up before making additional suggestions.

Pierre Nanterme

The current article for Mr. Nanterme is extremely short and poorly sourced. I've written a more complete draft of the article that I'd like to see replace what is currently there, and uploaded it to my userspace. A brief summary of my changes can be found at Talk:Pierre Nanterme.

If someone here as time to look at one or both of these articles and vet my suggestions, I'd sure appreciate it! Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 13:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cooperation/Paid_editor_help/Archive_3&oldid=1189648479"