Hello CorporateM. I noticed one of your recent edits and wanted to mention an aspect of the title which I believe is incorrect. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is Not (Organizations) capitalizes "organizations", which should only happen when the parenthetical is a proper noun. I was going to move the page, but thought I would mention it to you, and ensure there was no disagreement. Do you agree? I will leave the move to your discretion. Cheers.— John Cline ( talk) 09:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I understand your apprehension, though I am certain, having seen demonstrations of your intent, that you are entitled to a full collaborative share for the work you have done. I will never presume an edit from you is anything less than a reflection of your best, absolutely good faith, effort. If I see where I can improve anything further from there, I certainly will have a try. And if I learn a new thing, observing your manner, I won't be surprised in the least. I would be surprised however, rather derelict I suspect, if I observed your editing manner, and did not learn some new things on the way.
I remember looking at this essay when it was in your user space; thinking that I wanted to help copyedit it. I am going to be bold in that regard and actually get some of it done; hoping to help you realize your stated goals. I need to look in on the noticeboard you were trying to implement as well, to help ensure it also sees fruition. I saw the initial "naysayerisims", but it looked to me that a groundswell of support was emerging, and that you were advocating its purpose well. That is another positive thing you are moving forward, such that I say bravo to you!— John Cline ( talk) 15:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi.
What exactly is File:Act-on screenshot.png showing?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk)
20:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The Business and Economics Barnstar | ||
For your daily improvement of the pedia, and your business-like dedication to doing paid editing in the most transparent, by-the-book manner possible, I award you this business-like barnstar. As I read about PR firms pledging they will follow your example (and their own ethics rules), I can't help but be proud of our association, and especially be thankful that you are the stand-up guy I believe I recognized through your early contributions. BusterD ( talk) 21:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC) |
I thoroughly enjoy reading a 25-year old source, then a 5-year old source, that are both on the same subject. The 25 year-old source says the tech isn't even viable - the 5 year old source has the benefit of hindsight. CorporateM ( Talk) 06:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I don't know if you living in the DC area, but I noticed your post on Harej's wall about Wikipedia and Congress. We're doing a panel about Congressional editing of Wikipedia and transparency and legislation and Wikipedia awesomeness on August 18th. It's open to the public, if you wanted to come (or let others know about it!). RSVP here. Thanks! HistoricMN44 ( talk) 13:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi CM. Would you please consider making the edit requested here, if you have the time?
Thank you for a fair and neutral post regarding this article on the Extant Orgs NB. I appreciate your contributions to the encyclopedia. Your ethics seem well developed and to my knowledge your behavior has been honorable. I apologize if in the past I lumped you in with some editors who worked on the article with a less forthright approach not to mention editing skills far below what a cursory looks shows have. I was wrong to make an assumption that because you made an honest COI disclosure that you were associated with some who seemed to clearly have a COI but did not acknowledge it. In looking at some of your contributions it is clear you would not have copy pasted from ARI's website and sourced from the organization itself. If I might add pinging me was courteous and showed respect and diligence and was commendable. I am somewhat fascinated by the idea of a straightforward approach to COI editing and appreciative of the volunteer work you contribute. Best wishes and happy editing. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 19:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Just as a note on collaborating on a new version of this article. I shudder to think that my heroes Gorski, Novella, Hall, Sampson, Barrett etc. would find participating in anything other than an outright condemnation of ARI a betrayal of principle. I hasten to remember that what I do here is help develop an encyclopedia whereas their work has a different purpose. I think the guiding principles of WP as expressed in policy can lead to an article that provides the facts about the subject without being promotional and without presenting unproven/disproven and or dangerous treatments or approaches in any way that might cause harm to come to sick children (this is a professional ethical responsibility as a Registered Nurse). ARI certainly played a historical role in the developing phenomenon of the "autism epidemic" and continues to exist and function within that community. An encyclopedic article should provide the basic details of that. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 22:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey CM, couple of comments. Not sure if I have the time for a full GA review, but you might find these useful
The article Yelp you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Yelp for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Erachima -- Erachima ( talk) 00:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
A historical map of
West Africa from 1707
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Previous selections: Ghost story • Animatronics Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT ( talk) 00:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC) • |
---|
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom ( talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 12:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Thomas Williams is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Thomas Williams until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
A solar flare erupts from the Sun, an example of
solar activity.
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Previous selections: History of West Africa • Ghost story Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT ( talk) 00:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC) • |
---|
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article BabyFirst you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bentvfan54321 -- Bentvfan54321 ( talk) 01:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Lots of articles, lots of unverified and non-neutral information, tons of spammy links... Drmies ( talk) 02:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Dear CorporateM, I am pleased to contact you because I noticed your User page that inspires trust. I am confident that you can help me a lot on how to proceed with the following initiative. I am trying to recreate the current "Adobe Systems" page that is clearly outdated. This page was first created and published on September 27, 2001 and edited numerous times for more almost 13 years. Its current content shows several outdated sections, ill-structured and incomplete information. Instead of engaging in a large scale updating of the current live article "Adobe Systems", I have opted for writing an entirely new article. My intention is to replace the current one with the new draft. Could you please give your opinion on this initiative and on how to proceed safely. Your ideas, suggestions and advice are very welcome.
The current live "Adobe Systems" article: /info/en/?search=Adobe_Systems The new draft I have ready is here: /info/en/?search=User:Bostonscribe/sandbox
I am looking forward to hearing from you soon. Thank you for help. Bostonscribe ( talk) 12:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@Corporate : I really appreciate your prompt review, constructive remarks and wise suggestions. Do not hesitate to let me know if you have more. In particular, I am a little unsure on how to proceed with the replacement of the old article after all your editing suggestions. Should I entrust this to someone else? Thanks. Bostonscribe ( talk) 15:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
The article BabyFirst you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:BabyFirst for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bentvfan54321 -- Bentvfan54321 ( talk) 17:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I'm not doing much on request edits. I do go in and handle one once in a while. I did change the {{ Admin_dashboard}} so the item is in red if over 120 (my hope is to move the hurdle down over time)
For better or for worse, I have a lot of irons in the fire, and can't devote much time to it now.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 18:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:TAPAD png lg green.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 22:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Code42 CMYK.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 14:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Hey, M, I see a few of your subpages listed at [3]. I am trying to reduce the backlog. Well, I am wondering if your subpages should be listed in the category. Is there a way to remove the pages from the listing? Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 06:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
It is requested that an edit be made to this article that the user below does not want to make because of a
conflict of interest. Please review the request below and make the edit if the edit is well cited, neutral, and follows other Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Please consider reading the instructions on how to review and submit request edits, including decline and accept parameters. |
I've pinged User:Hasteur on their Talk page to see if they know how to fix it. Alternatively please feel free to remove them and/or wait to see if I can fix it so the wizard still works. CorporateM ( Talk) 23:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The article Yelp you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Yelp for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Erachima -- Erachima ( talk) 13:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SAS Institute you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Protonk -- Protonk ( talk) 14:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
The article SAS Institute you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SAS Institute for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Protonk -- Protonk ( talk) 21:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Dear CorporateM. Hope you are well. Wondered if you could help me out with this page again - or if you would rather I put up a 'request edit' let me know? I was in touch with Malpass93 as he/she had added a better looking logo but haven't had any further response to my note on their talk page. The info box on the Infront Sports & Media page is now out-of-date. Due to my Conflict of Interest, I'm inclined not to edit directly. The company now has 600 employees (not 500) and 25 offices (not 20). I have taken some time to look at the suggested reading on WP:LR which Malpass93 kindly informed me about - as some of the references / citations on the Infront page are also broken. Unfortunately most of those in mention were to a website that has now become 'subscription only'. I have a number of suggestions (new links) prepared already to update the references section - all notable and neutral of course, which I think are possibly more informative than some of the previous ones. Can you advise best where / how I should start. I would be most grateful for help. Kind Regards HablasESport!121 ( talk) 14:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tapad you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bentvfan54321 -- Bentvfan54321 ( talk) 12:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
The article Tapad you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tapad for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bentvfan54321 -- Bentvfan54321 ( talk) 15:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Paxata you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cirt -- Cirt ( talk) 23:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The article Paxata you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Paxata for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cirt -- Cirt ( talk) 14:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
In one month's time, we will know our WikiCup 2014 champion. Newcomer Godot13 ( submissions) has taken a strong lead with a featured list ( historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876) and a raft of featured pictures. Reigning champion Cwmhiraeth ( submissions) is in second place with a number of high-importance biology articles, including new FA Isopoda and new GA least weasel. Casliber ( submissions), who is in his fifth WikiCup final, is in third, with featured articles Pictor and Epacris impressa.
Signups for the 2015 WikiCup are open. All Wikipedians, new and experienced, are warmly invited to sign up for the competition. Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may also like to sign up for the GA Cup, a new WikiCup-inspired competition which revolves around completing good article reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk · contribs) The ed17 ( talk · contribs) and Miyagawa ( talk · contribs) 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi CorporateM – hope you're well. I wonder if you could take a look at something for me. You may recall that I work for Bell Pottinger to address issues on various clients' pages. I've been working with SmartSE on the article for Trafigura, which is a tough one as traditionally there hasn't been a lot of media coverage although that has improved a little in recent years. We added a Company History section and are now working on a userspace draft of a Business Activities section. Our discussion is in small text under each para – as you'll see we're pretty much there but I haven't heard back in a while and thought you might be a good third pair of eyes. One thing you'll notice straightaway is the use of a primary source, namely a prospectus for a bond offering – it wasn't actually written by Trafigura but was compiled and reviewed by several third parties and published by the Singapore Stock Exchange. We've agreed that it's reliable but that it should be used carefully – see our discussion about that here. I've also posted on the article talk page about the intro, which I think could do with a bit of attention. If you could take a look sometime that'd be great. Many thanks. HOgilvy ( talk) 10:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Triumph International you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bobamnertiopsis -- Bobamnertiopsis ( talk) 23:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
The article Triumph International you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Triumph International for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bobamnertiopsis -- Bobamnertiopsis ( talk) 23:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello CorporateM -
I am trying to lodge a COI edit request for the following page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_equity_firms
But the TALK page for this page doesn't seem to allow me to post a request? Could you possibly advise as to how best to proceed?
Incorrect Information - “Largest private equity firms by PE Capital” section i.e. The following is a ranking of the largest private equity firms published in 2014. The ranking was compiled by Private Equity International.[1]
The 2014 ranking used on the page claims to be published from Private Equity International (PEI) but it is not the true ranking which we have verified by contacting the publication directly to confirm.
The correct 2014 PEI ranking can be found here: https://www.privateequityinternational.com/uploadedFiles/Private_Equity_International/PEI/Non-Pagebuilder/Aliased/News_And_Analysis/2014/May/News/PEI%20300%202014.pdf
The top 20 firms from the 2014 PEI ranking are as follows:
Rank Name of Firm Headquarters Capital raised* 1. The Carlyle Group Washington DC $30,650.33 2. Kohlberg Kravis Roberts New York $27,182.33 3. The Blackstone Group New York $24,639.84 4. Apollo Global Management New York $22,298.02 5. TPG Fort Worth Texas $18,782.59 6. CVC Capital Partners London $18,082.35 7. General Atlantic Greenwich CT $16,600.00 8. Ares Management Los Angeles $14,113.58 9. Clayton Dubilier & Rice New York $13,505.00 10. Advent International Boston $13,228.09 11. EnCap Investments Houston $12,400.20 12. Goldman Sachs Principal Invt Area New York $12,343.32 13. EIG Global Energy Partners Washington DC $11,345.18 14. Warburg Pincus New York $11,213.00 15. Silver Lake Menlo Park $10,986.40 16. Riverstone Holdings New York $10,384.26 17. Oaktree Capital Management Los Angeles $10,147.28 18. Onex Toronto $10,097.21 19. Ardian Paris $9,805.25 20. Lone Star Funds Dallas $9,731.81
Thanks in advance for any guidance you can provide on how best to proceed. Kosterberg ( talk) 17:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Can you do me a favor and refactor that draft so I can copy it over into the article when we're done. Also do you mind if I directly edit the draft? I took another look late last night but I'd really like to be able to run over it and make edits as I go (since I'll probably be adding it to the article). Protonk ( talk) 15:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok, that looks good. I see that you've got different ref names for things, so I'm not going to copy that over myself. :) Go ahead and update the article from the draft (or change the refs so it won't break when I do it and ping me) and I think that's it for the review. Protonk ( talk) 12:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
@ user:Protonk It's good to know that sometimes a COI can get the attention and help of editors by being enjoyable to work with, rather than by causing disruption ;-) We may still cross paths on articles like History of public relations (not all of my contributions are sponsored). In the meanwhile, happy editing. CorporateM ( Talk) 13:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I have taken the borderline decision to accept this draft. As I did so I hoped I might ask you to give it a hard stare and your usual scrupulous editing approach. I decided to accept it because the COi author was never going to achieve what was required. If you decide it is unacceptable I will not oppose a deletion process upon it. Fiddle Faddle 21:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Please join me if you have time at The Cobra Group, which is littered with factual errors, significant NPOV issues and other problems. user: Callcott1 has been trying to get an editor's attention to the article for quite some time and the issues have remained unresolved. It will take quite a bit of editor attention to work out all the issues. CorporateM ( Talk) 04:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article History of public relations you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MrWooHoo -- MrWooHoo ( talk) 03:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article ExactTarget you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Crisco 1492 -- Crisco 1492 ( talk) 05:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
In response to your comments on the IfL wiki page regarding closure, I'm happy with your amends and believe they give both sides succinctly (without any hysteria). Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mashton 75 ( talk • contribs) 09:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi CorporateM – hope you're well. I have some concerns about the new structure of the Trafigura article. I see the reasoning behind it – breaking up the controversy section and expanding the history section roughly chronologically – but I’m not sure how good a job the article now does of telling a reader what Trafigura does and how it operates. Does that large history section now make sense? Most articles for a company of that size with some negative coverage about it (including Trafigura’s competitor Glencore) follow the format: History, Operations, Controversies. Granted controversies sections are discouraged, but when they are broken up and redistributed they can only really go in one place and that’s the history section, which in turn can make that section very long and unwieldy and leaves material about what the company actually does (i.e. Activities) buried way down the page. Regarding the source you mentioned (Trafigura: A Global Physical Commodity Trader) and the issue of weight and prominence, I’m afraid I don’t have it but I’m not sure you can justifiably call the investments and bond issuance subsections ‘mundane’. There have been tens of thousands of articles about Trafigura over the last ten years that are mundane – e.g. 100-word Reuters or Platts articles detailing specific trades etc. – but these two subsections here contain information that’s very important to anyone who wants to know where Trafigura has invested and how it’s financed, and they serve a completely different purpose to the other subsections. Is there not some argument for a shorter history section, perhaps expanding on the intro of the current section, and a division of the rest of the material into two consolidated subsections: one for the investments and financing sections, perhaps titled, ‘Recent investments and bond issuances’, and one for Oil-for-food, Cote d’Ivoire, Norway etc?
As you suggested might be appropriate, I can definitely use some of the content you lost from the Activities section to put together a more accurate Corporate Structure section, but I wanted to get your opinion on this first. I absolutely get that the ideal is for positive and negative content to sit side-by-side in balanced sections, but we are looking at two very different types of content here that can’t possibly knit together any further than simply sitting in successive subsections, and so overall I’m not sure the current structure makes much sense.
Would you mind having another look at it? Thanks very much. HOgilvy ( talk) 20:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
CorporateM, the Talk:ExactTarget/GA1 page had gotten stranded when the ExactTarget article and talk pages were moved to Salesforce Marketing Cloud the other day, so I've just moved the GA review page to the new article name as well. BlueMoonset ( talk) 21:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
If u have some spare time Wikipedia:WikiProject_Marketing_&_Advertising#Article_assessment, I really appreciate any help you can provide Lbertolotti ( talk) 13:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
@ Lbertolotti Definitely an important business article and it looks to be in decent shape, but I'm not sure the small section on marketing really belongs there. It appears to be a summary of marketing theories, but does not explain any relevance to the economic term of markets. CorporateM ( Talk) 13:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
@ CorporateM The article has 4 main parts:
So what do you think? The article had some inconsistencies which I fixed Lbertolotti ( talk) 15:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
@ CorporateM Do you have some marketing reference material that could help?
Two thumbs up! Lbertolotti ( talk) 00:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello CorporateM. I happened to see your question at User talk:DGG#Bands. Unless you can find an unusual angle to justify some coverage, this band still falls short of the usual ladder-of-success for bands that is presented by WP:BAND. For instance, their CDs all appear to be self-published. WP:BAND would like to see two albums published by a major label. In terms of awards, the only ones that matter for the guideline are the major ones like the Grammys. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
The article History of public relations you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:History of public relations for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MrWooHoo -- MrWooHoo ( talk) 00:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The article History of public relations you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:History of public relations for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MrWooHoo -- MrWooHoo ( talk) 01:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I made the move but there are some things we need to discuss.
Can you help me to get this bot approved? Lbertolotti ( talk) 00:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello CorporateM. I noticed one of your recent edits and wanted to mention an aspect of the title which I believe is incorrect. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is Not (Organizations) capitalizes "organizations", which should only happen when the parenthetical is a proper noun. I was going to move the page, but thought I would mention it to you, and ensure there was no disagreement. Do you agree? I will leave the move to your discretion. Cheers.— John Cline ( talk) 09:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I understand your apprehension, though I am certain, having seen demonstrations of your intent, that you are entitled to a full collaborative share for the work you have done. I will never presume an edit from you is anything less than a reflection of your best, absolutely good faith, effort. If I see where I can improve anything further from there, I certainly will have a try. And if I learn a new thing, observing your manner, I won't be surprised in the least. I would be surprised however, rather derelict I suspect, if I observed your editing manner, and did not learn some new things on the way.
I remember looking at this essay when it was in your user space; thinking that I wanted to help copyedit it. I am going to be bold in that regard and actually get some of it done; hoping to help you realize your stated goals. I need to look in on the noticeboard you were trying to implement as well, to help ensure it also sees fruition. I saw the initial "naysayerisims", but it looked to me that a groundswell of support was emerging, and that you were advocating its purpose well. That is another positive thing you are moving forward, such that I say bravo to you!— John Cline ( talk) 15:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi.
What exactly is File:Act-on screenshot.png showing?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk)
20:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The Business and Economics Barnstar | ||
For your daily improvement of the pedia, and your business-like dedication to doing paid editing in the most transparent, by-the-book manner possible, I award you this business-like barnstar. As I read about PR firms pledging they will follow your example (and their own ethics rules), I can't help but be proud of our association, and especially be thankful that you are the stand-up guy I believe I recognized through your early contributions. BusterD ( talk) 21:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC) |
I thoroughly enjoy reading a 25-year old source, then a 5-year old source, that are both on the same subject. The 25 year-old source says the tech isn't even viable - the 5 year old source has the benefit of hindsight. CorporateM ( Talk) 06:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I don't know if you living in the DC area, but I noticed your post on Harej's wall about Wikipedia and Congress. We're doing a panel about Congressional editing of Wikipedia and transparency and legislation and Wikipedia awesomeness on August 18th. It's open to the public, if you wanted to come (or let others know about it!). RSVP here. Thanks! HistoricMN44 ( talk) 13:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi CM. Would you please consider making the edit requested here, if you have the time?
Thank you for a fair and neutral post regarding this article on the Extant Orgs NB. I appreciate your contributions to the encyclopedia. Your ethics seem well developed and to my knowledge your behavior has been honorable. I apologize if in the past I lumped you in with some editors who worked on the article with a less forthright approach not to mention editing skills far below what a cursory looks shows have. I was wrong to make an assumption that because you made an honest COI disclosure that you were associated with some who seemed to clearly have a COI but did not acknowledge it. In looking at some of your contributions it is clear you would not have copy pasted from ARI's website and sourced from the organization itself. If I might add pinging me was courteous and showed respect and diligence and was commendable. I am somewhat fascinated by the idea of a straightforward approach to COI editing and appreciative of the volunteer work you contribute. Best wishes and happy editing. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 19:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Just as a note on collaborating on a new version of this article. I shudder to think that my heroes Gorski, Novella, Hall, Sampson, Barrett etc. would find participating in anything other than an outright condemnation of ARI a betrayal of principle. I hasten to remember that what I do here is help develop an encyclopedia whereas their work has a different purpose. I think the guiding principles of WP as expressed in policy can lead to an article that provides the facts about the subject without being promotional and without presenting unproven/disproven and or dangerous treatments or approaches in any way that might cause harm to come to sick children (this is a professional ethical responsibility as a Registered Nurse). ARI certainly played a historical role in the developing phenomenon of the "autism epidemic" and continues to exist and function within that community. An encyclopedic article should provide the basic details of that. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 22:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey CM, couple of comments. Not sure if I have the time for a full GA review, but you might find these useful
The article Yelp you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Yelp for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Erachima -- Erachima ( talk) 00:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
A historical map of
West Africa from 1707
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Previous selections: Ghost story • Animatronics Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT ( talk) 00:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC) • |
---|
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom ( talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 12:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Thomas Williams is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Thomas Williams until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
A solar flare erupts from the Sun, an example of
solar activity.
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Previous selections: History of West Africa • Ghost story Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT ( talk) 00:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC) • |
---|
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article BabyFirst you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bentvfan54321 -- Bentvfan54321 ( talk) 01:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Lots of articles, lots of unverified and non-neutral information, tons of spammy links... Drmies ( talk) 02:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Dear CorporateM, I am pleased to contact you because I noticed your User page that inspires trust. I am confident that you can help me a lot on how to proceed with the following initiative. I am trying to recreate the current "Adobe Systems" page that is clearly outdated. This page was first created and published on September 27, 2001 and edited numerous times for more almost 13 years. Its current content shows several outdated sections, ill-structured and incomplete information. Instead of engaging in a large scale updating of the current live article "Adobe Systems", I have opted for writing an entirely new article. My intention is to replace the current one with the new draft. Could you please give your opinion on this initiative and on how to proceed safely. Your ideas, suggestions and advice are very welcome.
The current live "Adobe Systems" article: /info/en/?search=Adobe_Systems The new draft I have ready is here: /info/en/?search=User:Bostonscribe/sandbox
I am looking forward to hearing from you soon. Thank you for help. Bostonscribe ( talk) 12:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@Corporate : I really appreciate your prompt review, constructive remarks and wise suggestions. Do not hesitate to let me know if you have more. In particular, I am a little unsure on how to proceed with the replacement of the old article after all your editing suggestions. Should I entrust this to someone else? Thanks. Bostonscribe ( talk) 15:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
The article BabyFirst you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:BabyFirst for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bentvfan54321 -- Bentvfan54321 ( talk) 17:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I'm not doing much on request edits. I do go in and handle one once in a while. I did change the {{ Admin_dashboard}} so the item is in red if over 120 (my hope is to move the hurdle down over time)
For better or for worse, I have a lot of irons in the fire, and can't devote much time to it now.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 18:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:TAPAD png lg green.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 22:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Code42 CMYK.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 14:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Hey, M, I see a few of your subpages listed at [3]. I am trying to reduce the backlog. Well, I am wondering if your subpages should be listed in the category. Is there a way to remove the pages from the listing? Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 06:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
It is requested that an edit be made to this article that the user below does not want to make because of a
conflict of interest. Please review the request below and make the edit if the edit is well cited, neutral, and follows other Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Please consider reading the instructions on how to review and submit request edits, including decline and accept parameters. |
I've pinged User:Hasteur on their Talk page to see if they know how to fix it. Alternatively please feel free to remove them and/or wait to see if I can fix it so the wizard still works. CorporateM ( Talk) 23:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The article Yelp you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Yelp for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Erachima -- Erachima ( talk) 13:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SAS Institute you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Protonk -- Protonk ( talk) 14:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
The article SAS Institute you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SAS Institute for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Protonk -- Protonk ( talk) 21:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Dear CorporateM. Hope you are well. Wondered if you could help me out with this page again - or if you would rather I put up a 'request edit' let me know? I was in touch with Malpass93 as he/she had added a better looking logo but haven't had any further response to my note on their talk page. The info box on the Infront Sports & Media page is now out-of-date. Due to my Conflict of Interest, I'm inclined not to edit directly. The company now has 600 employees (not 500) and 25 offices (not 20). I have taken some time to look at the suggested reading on WP:LR which Malpass93 kindly informed me about - as some of the references / citations on the Infront page are also broken. Unfortunately most of those in mention were to a website that has now become 'subscription only'. I have a number of suggestions (new links) prepared already to update the references section - all notable and neutral of course, which I think are possibly more informative than some of the previous ones. Can you advise best where / how I should start. I would be most grateful for help. Kind Regards HablasESport!121 ( talk) 14:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tapad you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bentvfan54321 -- Bentvfan54321 ( talk) 12:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
The article Tapad you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tapad for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bentvfan54321 -- Bentvfan54321 ( talk) 15:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Paxata you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cirt -- Cirt ( talk) 23:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The article Paxata you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Paxata for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cirt -- Cirt ( talk) 14:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
In one month's time, we will know our WikiCup 2014 champion. Newcomer Godot13 ( submissions) has taken a strong lead with a featured list ( historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876) and a raft of featured pictures. Reigning champion Cwmhiraeth ( submissions) is in second place with a number of high-importance biology articles, including new FA Isopoda and new GA least weasel. Casliber ( submissions), who is in his fifth WikiCup final, is in third, with featured articles Pictor and Epacris impressa.
Signups for the 2015 WikiCup are open. All Wikipedians, new and experienced, are warmly invited to sign up for the competition. Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may also like to sign up for the GA Cup, a new WikiCup-inspired competition which revolves around completing good article reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk · contribs) The ed17 ( talk · contribs) and Miyagawa ( talk · contribs) 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi CorporateM – hope you're well. I wonder if you could take a look at something for me. You may recall that I work for Bell Pottinger to address issues on various clients' pages. I've been working with SmartSE on the article for Trafigura, which is a tough one as traditionally there hasn't been a lot of media coverage although that has improved a little in recent years. We added a Company History section and are now working on a userspace draft of a Business Activities section. Our discussion is in small text under each para – as you'll see we're pretty much there but I haven't heard back in a while and thought you might be a good third pair of eyes. One thing you'll notice straightaway is the use of a primary source, namely a prospectus for a bond offering – it wasn't actually written by Trafigura but was compiled and reviewed by several third parties and published by the Singapore Stock Exchange. We've agreed that it's reliable but that it should be used carefully – see our discussion about that here. I've also posted on the article talk page about the intro, which I think could do with a bit of attention. If you could take a look sometime that'd be great. Many thanks. HOgilvy ( talk) 10:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Triumph International you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bobamnertiopsis -- Bobamnertiopsis ( talk) 23:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
The article Triumph International you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Triumph International for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bobamnertiopsis -- Bobamnertiopsis ( talk) 23:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello CorporateM -
I am trying to lodge a COI edit request for the following page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_equity_firms
But the TALK page for this page doesn't seem to allow me to post a request? Could you possibly advise as to how best to proceed?
Incorrect Information - “Largest private equity firms by PE Capital” section i.e. The following is a ranking of the largest private equity firms published in 2014. The ranking was compiled by Private Equity International.[1]
The 2014 ranking used on the page claims to be published from Private Equity International (PEI) but it is not the true ranking which we have verified by contacting the publication directly to confirm.
The correct 2014 PEI ranking can be found here: https://www.privateequityinternational.com/uploadedFiles/Private_Equity_International/PEI/Non-Pagebuilder/Aliased/News_And_Analysis/2014/May/News/PEI%20300%202014.pdf
The top 20 firms from the 2014 PEI ranking are as follows:
Rank Name of Firm Headquarters Capital raised* 1. The Carlyle Group Washington DC $30,650.33 2. Kohlberg Kravis Roberts New York $27,182.33 3. The Blackstone Group New York $24,639.84 4. Apollo Global Management New York $22,298.02 5. TPG Fort Worth Texas $18,782.59 6. CVC Capital Partners London $18,082.35 7. General Atlantic Greenwich CT $16,600.00 8. Ares Management Los Angeles $14,113.58 9. Clayton Dubilier & Rice New York $13,505.00 10. Advent International Boston $13,228.09 11. EnCap Investments Houston $12,400.20 12. Goldman Sachs Principal Invt Area New York $12,343.32 13. EIG Global Energy Partners Washington DC $11,345.18 14. Warburg Pincus New York $11,213.00 15. Silver Lake Menlo Park $10,986.40 16. Riverstone Holdings New York $10,384.26 17. Oaktree Capital Management Los Angeles $10,147.28 18. Onex Toronto $10,097.21 19. Ardian Paris $9,805.25 20. Lone Star Funds Dallas $9,731.81
Thanks in advance for any guidance you can provide on how best to proceed. Kosterberg ( talk) 17:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Can you do me a favor and refactor that draft so I can copy it over into the article when we're done. Also do you mind if I directly edit the draft? I took another look late last night but I'd really like to be able to run over it and make edits as I go (since I'll probably be adding it to the article). Protonk ( talk) 15:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok, that looks good. I see that you've got different ref names for things, so I'm not going to copy that over myself. :) Go ahead and update the article from the draft (or change the refs so it won't break when I do it and ping me) and I think that's it for the review. Protonk ( talk) 12:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
@ user:Protonk It's good to know that sometimes a COI can get the attention and help of editors by being enjoyable to work with, rather than by causing disruption ;-) We may still cross paths on articles like History of public relations (not all of my contributions are sponsored). In the meanwhile, happy editing. CorporateM ( Talk) 13:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I have taken the borderline decision to accept this draft. As I did so I hoped I might ask you to give it a hard stare and your usual scrupulous editing approach. I decided to accept it because the COi author was never going to achieve what was required. If you decide it is unacceptable I will not oppose a deletion process upon it. Fiddle Faddle 21:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Please join me if you have time at The Cobra Group, which is littered with factual errors, significant NPOV issues and other problems. user: Callcott1 has been trying to get an editor's attention to the article for quite some time and the issues have remained unresolved. It will take quite a bit of editor attention to work out all the issues. CorporateM ( Talk) 04:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article History of public relations you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MrWooHoo -- MrWooHoo ( talk) 03:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article ExactTarget you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Crisco 1492 -- Crisco 1492 ( talk) 05:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
In response to your comments on the IfL wiki page regarding closure, I'm happy with your amends and believe they give both sides succinctly (without any hysteria). Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mashton 75 ( talk • contribs) 09:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi CorporateM – hope you're well. I have some concerns about the new structure of the Trafigura article. I see the reasoning behind it – breaking up the controversy section and expanding the history section roughly chronologically – but I’m not sure how good a job the article now does of telling a reader what Trafigura does and how it operates. Does that large history section now make sense? Most articles for a company of that size with some negative coverage about it (including Trafigura’s competitor Glencore) follow the format: History, Operations, Controversies. Granted controversies sections are discouraged, but when they are broken up and redistributed they can only really go in one place and that’s the history section, which in turn can make that section very long and unwieldy and leaves material about what the company actually does (i.e. Activities) buried way down the page. Regarding the source you mentioned (Trafigura: A Global Physical Commodity Trader) and the issue of weight and prominence, I’m afraid I don’t have it but I’m not sure you can justifiably call the investments and bond issuance subsections ‘mundane’. There have been tens of thousands of articles about Trafigura over the last ten years that are mundane – e.g. 100-word Reuters or Platts articles detailing specific trades etc. – but these two subsections here contain information that’s very important to anyone who wants to know where Trafigura has invested and how it’s financed, and they serve a completely different purpose to the other subsections. Is there not some argument for a shorter history section, perhaps expanding on the intro of the current section, and a division of the rest of the material into two consolidated subsections: one for the investments and financing sections, perhaps titled, ‘Recent investments and bond issuances’, and one for Oil-for-food, Cote d’Ivoire, Norway etc?
As you suggested might be appropriate, I can definitely use some of the content you lost from the Activities section to put together a more accurate Corporate Structure section, but I wanted to get your opinion on this first. I absolutely get that the ideal is for positive and negative content to sit side-by-side in balanced sections, but we are looking at two very different types of content here that can’t possibly knit together any further than simply sitting in successive subsections, and so overall I’m not sure the current structure makes much sense.
Would you mind having another look at it? Thanks very much. HOgilvy ( talk) 20:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
CorporateM, the Talk:ExactTarget/GA1 page had gotten stranded when the ExactTarget article and talk pages were moved to Salesforce Marketing Cloud the other day, so I've just moved the GA review page to the new article name as well. BlueMoonset ( talk) 21:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
If u have some spare time Wikipedia:WikiProject_Marketing_&_Advertising#Article_assessment, I really appreciate any help you can provide Lbertolotti ( talk) 13:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
@ Lbertolotti Definitely an important business article and it looks to be in decent shape, but I'm not sure the small section on marketing really belongs there. It appears to be a summary of marketing theories, but does not explain any relevance to the economic term of markets. CorporateM ( Talk) 13:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
@ CorporateM The article has 4 main parts:
So what do you think? The article had some inconsistencies which I fixed Lbertolotti ( talk) 15:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
@ CorporateM Do you have some marketing reference material that could help?
Two thumbs up! Lbertolotti ( talk) 00:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello CorporateM. I happened to see your question at User talk:DGG#Bands. Unless you can find an unusual angle to justify some coverage, this band still falls short of the usual ladder-of-success for bands that is presented by WP:BAND. For instance, their CDs all appear to be self-published. WP:BAND would like to see two albums published by a major label. In terms of awards, the only ones that matter for the guideline are the major ones like the Grammys. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
The article History of public relations you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:History of public relations for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MrWooHoo -- MrWooHoo ( talk) 00:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The article History of public relations you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:History of public relations for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MrWooHoo -- MrWooHoo ( talk) 01:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I made the move but there are some things we need to discuss.
Can you help me to get this bot approved? Lbertolotti ( talk) 00:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)