|This is CorporateM's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to CorporateM.|
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17|
|This user is only human. If he has made a mistake, please be civil in explaining the error. This editor also reserves the right to remove uncivil comments from his own Talk page and report personal attacks to the appropriate boards.|
- 1 Your GA nomination of Yelp
- 2 This week's article for improvement (week 34, 2014)
- 3 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
- 4 Nomination of David Thomas Williams for deletion
- 5 This week's article for improvement (week 35, 2014)
- 6 Your GA nomination of BabyFirst
- 7 Template:Reliance Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group
- 8 Asking for help and advice on corporate page initiative
- 9 Your GA nomination of BabyFirst
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)
This week's article for improvement (week 34, 2014)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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.
|1,056||3.0||Sprint Corporation (talk)||2.0||2.0||2.0||2.0||2.0||Add sources|
|10||1.0||WBEM Services Specification (talk)||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||Add sources|
|68||1.0||Same Old Lang Syne (talk)||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||Add sources|
|251||1.0||Source lines of code (talk)||2.0||2.0||0.0||2.0||0.0||Add sources|
|14||1.0||Ogbunike (talk)||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||Add sources|
|39||1.0||German-Jordanian University (talk)||0.0||2.0||2.0||0.0||0.0||Add sources|
|2,016||2.0||Investment banking (talk)||2.0||2.0||2.0||2.0||0.0||Cleanup|
|204||3.0||Ralph Bunche (talk)||2.0||2.0||2.0||2.0||2.0||Cleanup|
|46||1.0||Unlimited liability corporation (talk)||0.0||0.0||2.0||0.0||0.0||Cleanup|
|13||1.0||Common Diagnostic Model (talk)||0.0||2.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||Expand|
|8||1.0||Staatstheater Nürnberg (talk)||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||Expand|
|78||2.0||Elves in fantasy fiction and games (talk)||2.0||2.0||2.0||2.0||0.0||Unencyclopaedic|
|6||2.0||Webroot Internet Security Complete (talk)||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||Unencyclopaedic|
|49||1.0||Pop (UK and Ireland) (talk)||0.0||2.0||2.0||2.0||0.0||Unencyclopaedic|
|114||2.0||Front organization (talk)||2.0||2.0||0.0||2.0||0.0||Merge|
|137||1.0||Mindfulness meditation (talk)||0.0||2.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||Merge|
|61||1.0||Pure tone (talk)||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||Merge|
|245||1.0||Sexless marriage (talk)||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||Wikify|
|55||1.0||Fault management (talk)||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||Wikify|
|5||1.0||Federal 500 siren (talk)||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||Orphan|
|8||1.0||ACA Cyclone (talk)||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||Stub|
|26||1.0||Siren (genus) (talk)||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||Stub|
|75||1.0||Kantipur (daily) (talk)||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||Stub|
|10||1.0||Personal alarm (talk)||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||Stub|
|23||1.0||St. Elizabeth's Medical Center (Boston) (talk)||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||0.0||Stub|
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)
Nomination of David Thomas Williams for deletion
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)
- Done I have made the sources that suggest notability available by uploading the PDFs to DropBox and providing links where they can be verified by other editors. CorporateM (Talk) 15:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 35, 2014)
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)
- @user:Drmies Are you asking if I have some time to clean them up? CorporateM (Talk) 02:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Well, you know, yeah man. But it's like, you know, three dozen articles. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- @user:Drmies I've gotten started on it. Trimmed a few and PROD'd a half-dozen. I think almost all of those could be consolidated to just one article on the Group. CorporateM (Talk) 13:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Asking for help and advice on corporate page initiative
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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Systems The new draft I have ready is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bostonscribe/sandbox
- @Bostonscribe A few notes at-a-glance:
- Avoid long lists of products, locations, divisions, etc. (this is also a problem in the current article). Please see WP:ORGLISTS
- We prefer paragraph-style prose over bullets
- Avoid words like "innovation" and "solutions"
- Also avoid stuff like "successful" give specifics. They grew from $___ in revenue to $_____ in revenue and acquired a ____% market-share
- A lot of the material in your draft is unsourced
- The grid of logos in the Products section is silly - we need a paragraph-style summary
- Any "Awards" section is inheritly promotional. Please see WP:ORGAWARDS. All that needs to be deleted.
- The entire Logos section seems to rely on low-quality sources and needs to be removed
- The See Also section is excessive
- The Leadership section is also a typical COI thing - needs to be deleted entirely. The company website is the most appropriate place for that
- We should not list office locations individually.
- I would suggest acquisitions, revenue growth, going public, etc. be merged with Corporate history
- This is a useless promotional sentence "Employees, partners, and stakeholders have appreciated the unique Adobe environment."
- For the Corporate Culture section, please check it against WP:ORGAWARDS.
- Dedicated controversies and criticisms sections are also seen as non-neutral. They should be integrated into the article. For example, the anti-trust issue should be under Corporate History. Some of those controversies probably belong on individual product pages. I would recommend you separate out the product ones and let a disinterested editor move those to the appropriate pages.
- CorporateM (Talk) 15:01, 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)
- Generally you are expected to obtain consensus, then ask a disinterested editor to merge the draft into article-space; probably you will be better off vetting it section-by-section. "Corporate History" is suppose to be the first section and is usually the largest. The draft has a long ways to go before it is ready though. CorporateM (Talk) 15:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)@Bostonscribe: Despite the material being out of date you need to understand that WIkipedia can and will only accept material backed by references. We require references from significant coverage about the entity, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please, that reflect the changes you hope to make. See WP:42. If reliable sources say that black is white then that is what we must record. WP:TRUTH will interest you. Replacement of one article by another is not generally a way that will be acceptable to the community.
- Put simply, your sources must be impeccable. Fiddle Faddle 15:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)@Timtrent: @Timtrent : Yes indeed. I am familiar with the importance of reliable and secondary references. You said: "Put simply, your sources must be impeccable" Thanks for the reminder. This is an ideal towards which I am doing my best. Your suggestions are always welcome. Thanks Bostonscribe (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree (sort of). You say Adobe must use impeccable sources, but the community has not. We have used blogs, forums and junk sources to create a pile-on article dominated by a Criticisms section. In a case where an article-subject is genuinely treated unfairly, it is irresponsible for us to provide barriers / double-standards that prevent the article-subject from correcting it. In the case of general improvements, it is the COI editor's responsibility to demonstrate value to Wikipedia/the community, but when an article-subject is treated unfairly in a substantial way, we need to accept responsibility and bend over backwards to fix it.
- I have started by removing large amounts of poorly-sourced contentious material and putting the article into a more neutral article-structure.CorporateM (Talk) 16:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- @CorporateM: I have never let the deficiencies of the past or of less than good editing stand in the way of a vision of a substantially better future. As a member of the community it is up to me, up to you and up to others to hold ourselves to the highest standards we are able. We can't solve it all, but we can solve what we touch. Fiddle Faddle 16:26, 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)