Hello, Mysidae, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Please remember to
sign your messages on
talk pages by typing four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome! --
Uzma Gamal (
talk)
11:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Mysidae, I think you should really refrain from editing on Moody's like you are doing, even if you mean no harm, especially at that moment when Moody's and other rating companies are under scrutiny from the media. The subject is currently highly controversial, and even if you only mean good, avoiding conflict of interest in your case is almost impossible to reach or to prove. By the way, I think that your knowledge of how Moody's and these rating agencies work could be much better used IMO in explaining how they are working. My impression is that these companies are misjudged because nobody really understand how they are working, and as always, newspapers grossly exaggerate everything. Really explaining how ratings are given (for now, there are only a list of ratings, which is not very useful IMO) would much better help to change the maybe distorted view people have of your company. BTW, you tagged as POV the "Power and influence" and "Portugal controversy" chapters, but I really don't know why. The sources for the "Power and influence" chapter really look valid (if Thee Washington Post is not considered valid, what source is ?). Maybe it's the wording which bothers you? Hervegirod ( talk) 23:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
Have fun;
bobrayner (
talk)
20:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I replied here to your COIN post. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 11:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Himanis Das
talk
05:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar |
I am pleased with your commitment to quality coverage of your employer and your complete transparency. If more organizations had people like you working for them, Wikipedia's corporate coverage would be much better. Andrew 327 18:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC) |
Hello Mysidae, I have enjoyed your fixes and proposed updates to credit rating agency, which is getting much better as a result. Thank you.
You wrote on the talk page at one point, "[Moody's'] goal, as mine, is to produce a thorough, well-balanced and easy to read summary of the industry consistent with Wikipedia's Manual of Style and other content guidelines." I would like to hear a bit more about this, since this is a part of our knowledge ecosystem I would like to understand better. Have they commissioned any handbooks or reference materials on the industry in the past? Do you develop a specific map of topics to improve or does it emerge out of other work you are doing for them? Do you do your own research or more communicate existing material that you have access to?
With further thanks for any insights, – SJ + 00:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Mysidae, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Please remember to
sign your messages on
talk pages by typing four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome! --
Uzma Gamal (
talk)
11:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Mysidae, I think you should really refrain from editing on Moody's like you are doing, even if you mean no harm, especially at that moment when Moody's and other rating companies are under scrutiny from the media. The subject is currently highly controversial, and even if you only mean good, avoiding conflict of interest in your case is almost impossible to reach or to prove. By the way, I think that your knowledge of how Moody's and these rating agencies work could be much better used IMO in explaining how they are working. My impression is that these companies are misjudged because nobody really understand how they are working, and as always, newspapers grossly exaggerate everything. Really explaining how ratings are given (for now, there are only a list of ratings, which is not very useful IMO) would much better help to change the maybe distorted view people have of your company. BTW, you tagged as POV the "Power and influence" and "Portugal controversy" chapters, but I really don't know why. The sources for the "Power and influence" chapter really look valid (if Thee Washington Post is not considered valid, what source is ?). Maybe it's the wording which bothers you? Hervegirod ( talk) 23:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
Have fun;
bobrayner (
talk)
20:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I replied here to your COIN post. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 11:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Himanis Das
talk
05:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar |
I am pleased with your commitment to quality coverage of your employer and your complete transparency. If more organizations had people like you working for them, Wikipedia's corporate coverage would be much better. Andrew 327 18:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC) |
Hello Mysidae, I have enjoyed your fixes and proposed updates to credit rating agency, which is getting much better as a result. Thank you.
You wrote on the talk page at one point, "[Moody's'] goal, as mine, is to produce a thorough, well-balanced and easy to read summary of the industry consistent with Wikipedia's Manual of Style and other content guidelines." I would like to hear a bit more about this, since this is a part of our knowledge ecosystem I would like to understand better. Have they commissioned any handbooks or reference materials on the industry in the past? Do you develop a specific map of topics to improve or does it emerge out of other work you are doing for them? Do you do your own research or more communicate existing material that you have access to?
With further thanks for any insights, – SJ + 00:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)