![]() | Whitepages (company) has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: December 3, 2013. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
What are their information sources?
How about the role of this website in stalking and debt collecting?
173.245.87.91 ( talk) 02:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Trans Union is one of Whitepages data providers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.45.112.66 ( talk) 13:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I'll be supporting WhitePages in a public relations capacity on Wikipedia with the aim of improving and maintaining their article up to Wikipedia's standards in a manner compliant with WP:COI. I wanted to start out by introducing myself here to any watchlisters. I'll be working on a first draft offline for consideration by impartial editors. While I'm not always completely neutral, organizations tend to do fairly well improving Wikipedia with my help. I thought I would introduce myself here to any watchlisters. CorporateM ( Talk) 00:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
On WhitePages' behalf, I would like to request an impartial editor consider the proposed contributed article located at: User:CorporateM/WhitePages, which would substantially expand this article. I believe it is neutral, well-sourced and an improvement to Wikipedia. There are two areas where my conflict of interest is more pronounced on this article that I would like to draw attention to, in order to make it easier for a potential reviewer:
CorporateM ( Talk) 13:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
![]() | An impartial editor has reviewed the proposed edit(s) and asked the editor with a conflict of interest to go ahead and make the suggested changes. |
User:EdJohnston said here that the proposed draft at User:CorporateM/WhitePages was an improvement, though he corrected my spelling (thank you). Since the criticisms I drew attention to are not currently included at all, he felt it was an improvement to just get them in there and let the article improve incrementally, even if they may not be perfect. One of the benefits of taking my COI works through the GA round is getting a second pair of eyes later on.
Anyways, if an editor agrees and feels the content would serve Wikipedia's readers, I would like to ask that someone fulfill the Request Edit by adding it to article-space. CorporateM ( Talk) 03:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() | An impartial editor has reviewed the proposed edit(s) and asked the editor with a conflict of interest to go ahead and make the suggested changes. |
The current article is called "WhitePages.com" but the article reflects that Whitepages has mobile apps, APIs, business services and other products that are not covered by the ".com" aspect of the article-title. Was thinking we should move the article to something like WhitePages (company)? CorporateM ( Talk) 14:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I've nominated the article for a Good Article review. This is a good way to get a second pair of eyes on the article and to just make sure my COI works are up to Wikipedia's standards. My hope is the GA reviewer will take a closer look at the criticisms from VentureBeat I mentioned to make sure it's done properly one way or another. In the meanwhile it usually takes about three months for a review, which is plenty of time to see if anyone chirps in on the recent changes. I've also added a connected contributor tag to the top of the Talk page, so if the discussion is archived, my COI disclosure will still be present. CorporateM ( Talk) 01:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sportsguy17 ( talk · contribs) 01:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC) I will be reviewing this article. I will be busy on weekdays, but will try to get to it as much as I can. This may take up to and maybe a little over one week. Sportsguy17 :) ( click to talk • contributions) 11:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, so you've done several fixes around here. Here is the "official" review. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
It's been about a year since I helped bring the article up to "Good Article" status and I wanted to suggest a couple small updates/additions based on new sources that have come out.
draft material
|
---|
In August 2013 WhitePages purchased all the interests in the company owned by investors for $80 million.<Ref name="dafhybniub">{{cite news|title=With Buyback, 16-Year-Old Startup WhitePages Is Doing Something Very Rare With $80 Million|first=Nicholas|last=Carlson|date=October 21, 2013|url=http://www.businessinsider.com/whitepages-stock-buyback-2013-10#ixzz2qRETXgXX|publisher=Business Insider}}</reF><reF>{{cite news|title=Nextcast: WhitePages CEO Alex Algard on the distraction of outside investors and keeping your startup zeal|first=Jeff|last=Dickey|date=April 5, 2014|accessdate=May 2, 2014|url=http://www.geekwire.com/2014/nextcast-whitepages-ceo-alex-algard-distraction-outside-investors-keep-startup-zeal/|publisher=Geekwire}}</ref> |
draft material
|
---|
WhitePages has three primary lines of business: its consumer business of online directories like WhitePages.com, 411.com and other domains; mobile apps; and selling data to businesses for things like verifying data submitted by customers.<Ref name="dafhybniub"/> |
CorporateM ( Talk) 14:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
It's been almost two years since I proposed any updates to this article. In that time period some good sources have come out that have made the current article substantially out-of-date, regarding:
I've put together a draft at User:CorporateM/WhitePages with bold text indicating requested new or replaced text and crossouts for trims. In addition to the updates pointed above, it has other corrections/clarifications/updates/etc. Please feel free to ping me for any questions or clarifications on why specific changes are being requested. CorporateM ( Talk) 18:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, Superpages and Yellowpages should not be redirects, but rather stubs titled Superpages (company) and Yellowpages (company). -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
![]() | Whitepages (company) has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: December 3, 2013. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
What are their information sources?
How about the role of this website in stalking and debt collecting?
173.245.87.91 ( talk) 02:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Trans Union is one of Whitepages data providers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.45.112.66 ( talk) 13:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I'll be supporting WhitePages in a public relations capacity on Wikipedia with the aim of improving and maintaining their article up to Wikipedia's standards in a manner compliant with WP:COI. I wanted to start out by introducing myself here to any watchlisters. I'll be working on a first draft offline for consideration by impartial editors. While I'm not always completely neutral, organizations tend to do fairly well improving Wikipedia with my help. I thought I would introduce myself here to any watchlisters. CorporateM ( Talk) 00:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
On WhitePages' behalf, I would like to request an impartial editor consider the proposed contributed article located at: User:CorporateM/WhitePages, which would substantially expand this article. I believe it is neutral, well-sourced and an improvement to Wikipedia. There are two areas where my conflict of interest is more pronounced on this article that I would like to draw attention to, in order to make it easier for a potential reviewer:
CorporateM ( Talk) 13:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
![]() | An impartial editor has reviewed the proposed edit(s) and asked the editor with a conflict of interest to go ahead and make the suggested changes. |
User:EdJohnston said here that the proposed draft at User:CorporateM/WhitePages was an improvement, though he corrected my spelling (thank you). Since the criticisms I drew attention to are not currently included at all, he felt it was an improvement to just get them in there and let the article improve incrementally, even if they may not be perfect. One of the benefits of taking my COI works through the GA round is getting a second pair of eyes later on.
Anyways, if an editor agrees and feels the content would serve Wikipedia's readers, I would like to ask that someone fulfill the Request Edit by adding it to article-space. CorporateM ( Talk) 03:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() | An impartial editor has reviewed the proposed edit(s) and asked the editor with a conflict of interest to go ahead and make the suggested changes. |
The current article is called "WhitePages.com" but the article reflects that Whitepages has mobile apps, APIs, business services and other products that are not covered by the ".com" aspect of the article-title. Was thinking we should move the article to something like WhitePages (company)? CorporateM ( Talk) 14:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I've nominated the article for a Good Article review. This is a good way to get a second pair of eyes on the article and to just make sure my COI works are up to Wikipedia's standards. My hope is the GA reviewer will take a closer look at the criticisms from VentureBeat I mentioned to make sure it's done properly one way or another. In the meanwhile it usually takes about three months for a review, which is plenty of time to see if anyone chirps in on the recent changes. I've also added a connected contributor tag to the top of the Talk page, so if the discussion is archived, my COI disclosure will still be present. CorporateM ( Talk) 01:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sportsguy17 ( talk · contribs) 01:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC) I will be reviewing this article. I will be busy on weekdays, but will try to get to it as much as I can. This may take up to and maybe a little over one week. Sportsguy17 :) ( click to talk • contributions) 11:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, so you've done several fixes around here. Here is the "official" review. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
It's been about a year since I helped bring the article up to "Good Article" status and I wanted to suggest a couple small updates/additions based on new sources that have come out.
draft material
|
---|
In August 2013 WhitePages purchased all the interests in the company owned by investors for $80 million.<Ref name="dafhybniub">{{cite news|title=With Buyback, 16-Year-Old Startup WhitePages Is Doing Something Very Rare With $80 Million|first=Nicholas|last=Carlson|date=October 21, 2013|url=http://www.businessinsider.com/whitepages-stock-buyback-2013-10#ixzz2qRETXgXX|publisher=Business Insider}}</reF><reF>{{cite news|title=Nextcast: WhitePages CEO Alex Algard on the distraction of outside investors and keeping your startup zeal|first=Jeff|last=Dickey|date=April 5, 2014|accessdate=May 2, 2014|url=http://www.geekwire.com/2014/nextcast-whitepages-ceo-alex-algard-distraction-outside-investors-keep-startup-zeal/|publisher=Geekwire}}</ref> |
draft material
|
---|
WhitePages has three primary lines of business: its consumer business of online directories like WhitePages.com, 411.com and other domains; mobile apps; and selling data to businesses for things like verifying data submitted by customers.<Ref name="dafhybniub"/> |
CorporateM ( Talk) 14:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
It's been almost two years since I proposed any updates to this article. In that time period some good sources have come out that have made the current article substantially out-of-date, regarding:
I've put together a draft at User:CorporateM/WhitePages with bold text indicating requested new or replaced text and crossouts for trims. In addition to the updates pointed above, it has other corrections/clarifications/updates/etc. Please feel free to ping me for any questions or clarifications on why specific changes are being requested. CorporateM ( Talk) 18:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, Superpages and Yellowpages should not be redirects, but rather stubs titled Superpages (company) and Yellowpages (company). -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)