User talk:CorporateM

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:King4057)
Jump to: navigation, search

Talk page stalkers[edit]

A while back I said I would try to announce recent major COI projects I was working on here on my Talk page, so that anyone that chooses to stalk me specifically regarding my contributions in that role, could do so easily. Here's what I've been doing recently in a COI capacity:

  • Nestlé Purina PetCare - A draft was recently implemented, nominated for GA and got a reviewer right away (now GA)
  • Noel Lee - failed GA due to not enough detail. I substantially expanded the article and re-nominated.
  • Heather Bresch - Significantly overly controversy-focused BLP. First draft shared on Talk about two days ago.
  • Yelp - Suggested a bunch of copyedits, updates, and other tweaks. Hoping to get it translated for French and German in the future
  • Elgato - I did this product brand page (the company itself is not actually notable) a while back and it is currently pending GA review
  • CSG International - A new draft was just recently implemented, cleaning up promotion and replacing it with a more neutral piece. Pending GA review.
  • RTI International - Currently in a long conversation with a new editor about RTI's work in Iraq; will probably start an RfC soon.
  • Autism Research Institute - Not currently a client, but I did their article a long time ago and posted a comment about it more recently regarding some recent changes to the page.
  • BabyFirst - Continuing to protect it against a network of vandal socks, incorporated a video and fixed a coding error that was preventing an update someone else added from showing up
  • Shaygan Kheradpir - Submitted this article, however some of the more promotional aspects of this page are not from me and I disagree with them.
  • McKinsey & Company - Very large complex article wrapped up for now and pending a GA review.

CorporateM (Talk) 01:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)



  • A couple final sub-sections proposed at Invisalign that should make it GAN ready. CorporateM (Talk) 04:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Per User:CorporateM/Coolsculpting[edit]

Please read WP:MEDRS. We do not allow primary sources and the popular press for medical claims. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Doc. Let me keep working on it. I have a list of "Review articles" that I think are the sources you're looking for, but many I had a hard time trying to get access to. CorporateM (Talk) 19:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I am cleaning up some of the primary sources in some of your previous medical related articles. The independent secondary sources come to significantly differing conclusions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey user:Doc James. Invisalign is actually primarily a business article at this point, without much in the way of medical claims, however I did recently throw something together at User:CorporateM/Invisalign that would add the debate about its efficacy in comparison to braces, which of course includes the very significant 2005 study that found it under-performed wire braces by 18 points on the American Board of Orthodontics's standardized grading system at the time. 2005 is of course almost ten years ago and more recent studies have had more favorable results. CorporateM (Talk) 02:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
We use secondary sources. Interestingly there have been no systematic reviews since 2005 thus that 10 year old source is some of the best that we have. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
@User:Doc James Check out the discussion section from this 2012 source, which summarizes some of the more recent findings. It's been a controversial subject among orthodontists, so different sources say different things. I also noticed from the source you used, that you only added the most critical aspects of the source, which also includes quite a bit of content about convenience, hygene, etc. citing various studies. CorporateM (Talk) 02:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
No I added details from both sides. The most important bit is that they have been poorly studied. But they are "likely more comfortable and faster for the dentist to apply" which is now supported by a secondary source. Also "They are likely useful for tooth crowding of the front teeth that is of a moderate degree" The source you link to is the inside net of NCSU Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@user:Doc James does this link work for you?

For example, this article you used says "Certainly there are major advantages... the aligners can be removed for eating, brushing and intimacy; patients experience less dental pain, have better oral hygiene and fewer dietary restrictions; and the treatment planning software (ClinCheck) is an excellent tool for visualizing and analyzing potential treatment outcomes...." This is similar to what is stated in other sources, except what I found was actually conflicting reports on pain levels, as oppose to Invisalign being less painful. I suspect because it is difficult to measure. This makes me wonder if you are editing contentiously, because this text is actually higher up in the article, so you would have had to have glazed past it to get to the criticisms you added. 02:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

That is a primary source this link Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
@user:Doc JamesOk, I haven't done much work on medical subjects, being that I primarily work on business topics. Can you explain what you mean by it being a primary source? The author has no affiliation with Invisalign and is summarizing studies not authored by the same person. It looks to be in a proper medical journal. I thought that when a study summarized the pre-existing work on the subject, that this was an ideal medical source. Also, you clearly found the other source to be reliable, so would you oppose if I suggested adding more content from it? It could be used to support quite a bit of the material I already put in my draft and since you have already indicated that it is a proper source, that makes things easy. CorporateM (Talk) 03:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
We are looking for review articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
@user:Doc James That might clear things up for me actually, because I've seen the big "Review article" labels on some sources and it might explain why I feel like I'm swimming in an ocean of source material. Just to verify, if an article does in fact "summarize the current state of understanding on a topic" in a "Background" or "Introduction" section, but it is also "reporting new experimental results" in other sections, is that not allowed? So the entire source, not just part of it, needs to be a review. CorporateM (Talk) 03:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes the entire source needs to be a review. The review typically needs to be pubmed indexed. And also it should have an impact factor that is at least greater than zero. Ideally we use sources from the last 5 years; however, may use older sources for obscure topics such as this one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
@User:Doc James Got it - I will keep this in mind next time (if there is a next time; I don't do much in the medical arena). I'm surprised we don't use older sources, because in business topics the older ones are often the most precious and difficult to find and we want to cover the entire history. But it sounds like for medical claims we focus on the most recent literature? Do you use a specific tool to find Review articles specifically rather than wading through the ocean of primary sources? 03:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes pubmed. You can limit your search to review articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
@user:Doc James Yup, just found it. Sorry if it turns out I was being a bit of a jerk. I honestly thought you were just browbeating me, since by any business page standards, CoolSculpting would obviously qualify for a page based on the volume of source material in the press. I see why the press is not a good source though, as one article said the dead fat cells were consumed by white blood cells (instead of macrophages); even I know that because I have a basic education.
Anyways, this helps ALOT. It's late in my time-zone, but I'll re-work user:CorporateM/Invisalign based on these standards this week and ping you when it's ready. The medical claims-type stuff is all that's left to make it GAN-ready. I'll also work on the Cryolipolysis page eventually, but after the discussion closes out. I appreciate you being patient with me. CorporateM (Talk) 03:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sig Mejdal[edit]

The article Sig Mejdal you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Sig Mejdal 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 Vile-eight -- Vile-eight (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing User:Wizardman! Is there any way I can persuade you to take on another GA review on a minor BLP Noel Lee (executive)? The thing is it already waited in the queue for months; it failed review and I immediately fixed all the issues raised before re-nominating, but waiting several months for a reviewer twice-over is just nasty. user:Ritchie333 was the initial reviewer and seemed content with it being renominated, but didn't want to take on the second review him/herself. CorporateM (Talk) 22:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it should be an easy GA review. I didn't want to do GA2, because I'd done a bit of content work improving it past GA1, which I think disqualifies me from being a reviewer. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Noel Lee (executive)[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Noel Lee (executive) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Noel Lee (executive)[edit]

The article Noel Lee (executive) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. 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:Noel Lee (executive) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Noel Lee (executive)[edit]

The article Noel Lee (executive) you nominated as a good article has failed Symbol oppose vote.svg; see Talk:Noel Lee (executive) 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 Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The GA review was passed (not failed), but there is something buggy about the scripts. CorporateM (Talk) 02:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Paxata[edit]

The article Paxata you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. 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 14 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Paxata for things which need to be addressed. 23W 21:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Paxata[edit]

The article Paxata you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Paxata 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 23W -- 23W (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Mutual Mobile page[edit]

Reaching out as it is unclear as to your preference for removing the right side bar with corporate information and logo for Mutual Mobile. This is common feature on many pages, for example The Coca-Cola Company, as well as other company-focused pages where you provided meaningful edits. Can it be returned?

Bobdeuce (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The infobox is not a problem; I've restored it. The issue is with language like "breakthrough products" and a dedicated section on awards. Awards are primary sources, because they are reporting on events they are directly involved in. In most cases they do not carry historical/encyclopedic significance. Unless however there are secondary sources on them, such as a profile story on the company in the local/trade/national press that includes it. Also, external links are not allowed in the body of the article and are typically associated with spam and linkbait.
If you see other company pages that are setting a poor example with similar content, I would like to know which they are, as I do quite a bit of work here fixing these types of problems. CorporateM (Talk) 20:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance, and for adding back the infobox. I had taken corporate language from the website for "breakthrough products" but also understand your POV on using the informative and historical versus corporate-speak and unintended linkbaiting. Will make sure any future edits and updates consider these, and secondary sources for those bearing significance. Thank you for your help.

Bobdeuce (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

A particularly bold claim, like being "breakthrough" would require particularly strong sources. The company website should only be used for things like revenue, number of offices, corporate structure and sometimes to summarize current products offered, but this requires a complete re-write from the website. Some very large companies have books about them written by independent historians, which are the best available sources. However, for a smaller company like this, you're probably looking at media sources. The sources that are acceptable should generally be bylined by a journalist, published in a reputable media publication, and include more information than just a brief mention; Care should be taken to avoid press release reposts, contributed articles from the company, quoted commentary from the company and to use interviews only with caution, as much of their content is coming from the company, rather than independent sources.
Hope this helps. Cheers! CorporateM (Talk) 20:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

3O request removed[edit]

I've removed your listing at WP:3O as there hasn't been any discussion to this point (at the link you provided in any case). 3O is used for listing debates between two parties so that a neutral third party can weigh in. You are welcome to repost your request if it becomes a discussion between two parties or with a link to an existing debate. Happy editing! DonIago (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@DonIago I guess I thought it was like RFC, where you might start a fresh string posing the question. If you click Edit on the string above that one and do a CNTRL F find for MERIP, you'll see all the discussion that has taken place about it, mixed in with discussions about other sources. Most of the other sources are pretty clear cases. AP is reliable, CorpWatch is not. Student-written op-eds are not. This one remains contested. CorporateM (Talk) 16:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. FWIW 3O posts should also be made with 5 tildes rather than the usual four so that your username isn't included, as a way of "neutralizing" the post (yeah, anyone who wants to can still look it up, but it's the spirit of the matter). Anyway, no 3O requests should link to the discussion without starting a new thread for it. I'm not sure whether yours will be accepted given that there was another editor involved, but it looked to me like they haven't contributed in over a month. Best of luck anyhow! DonIago (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
@DonIago Ugh, yah, he said he was going to be traveling for "a few months". Any suggestions? I don't want it to seem like I'm taking advantage of his/her absence and since I have a conflict of interest, nobody is going to answer a Request Edit while the contesting party is unavailable to comment. However, there are some legitimate NPOV-type issues they have raised with strong sourcing that I would like to fix and having an NPOV tag on an article I brought up to GA is no fun. CorporateM (Talk) 16:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
It may be that someone checking 3O will take your request in any case, so I wouldn't worry about it too much yet. That said, the prior discussion appears rather lengthy and involved. You may need to look into opening a case at the dispute resolution noticeboard if the 3O request is shut down again. I don't think anyone would expect a dispute to simply be tabled indefinitely because one of the disputants is unavailable; personally I'd think the best approach there would be to revert to the last stable version of the article until they're available to weigh in, but that's just my two cents.
Anyway, I wouldn't worry about it at this point. If someone takes the 3O request it may be a non-issue. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
talk page visitor Doniago's sentence "Anyway, no 3O requests should link to the discussion without starting a new thread for it" confused me for a moment, as I thought he was saying that no 3O request should do that. Of course, 3O requests should refer to the section in which the issue was substantively discussed. I'm sure that's what Doniago meant. You may want to refactor the page to clarify. I don't feel able to tackle your request myself, but I don't see that there could be any objection to your addressing those "legitimate NPOV-type issues they have raised" if you want to. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
@Doniagouser:StfgWell, I started working on those "legitimate NPOV issues" here and found myself changing my mind after looking more closely at the sources. For example, one thing Exit wanted to add was that the inspector general found in 2008 that the RTI program in Iraq did not have adequate measures to evaluate success. This is reported in the AP, a clearly appropriate source. However, it turns out just one year later the inspector general said it was measurable at that point and had in fact benefited Iraqis. So it becomes a "are we going to cover every blow by blow here or what?" OTOH, Dr. Savage actually gives RTI credit for establishing local government in Iraq in a major way. This section is just a summary of RTI's most notable work and not the place for a detailed narrative and political analysis. I'm going to keep taking a closer look CorporateM (Talk) 17:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that sentence was poorly-phrased on my part. Apologies for the confusion. DonIago (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Studio One edits 2015[edit]

Hi, I see that after I added all secondary sources yesterday, many of them were still removed. Can you please explain? Especially the paragraph starting "In 2007..." I used secondary industry-respected publications. AEF (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Marcia

Hi AEF. I've been meaning to send you an explanation. Sorry I haven't! Most of the sources I removed were primary sources. As mentioned previously, secondary sources are independent not just of the organization, but of the events it's reporting on. So for example, you can't cite a trade association website to cover a partnership or membership with that trade association. This article, which you said was a "secondary industry-respected publication" says that article was from PRWeb, a press release distribution service, and from glancing at the content it's pretty obvious it's a press release or slightly modified from one. CorporateM (Talk) 15:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I will continue to search for more sources - this company definitely deserves to have a presence. AEF (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Marcia

@user:AEF I wonder if there are any substantial profile stories on the firm that are already used in the article and may not be completely mined for useful content. CorporateM (Talk) 23:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Blackstone Audiobooks article edits[edit]

Hi, I had requested some corrections and updates to my company's article, which were declined. I understand why the narrator list was removed, but I am unclear as to why noting that we have won awards in not acceptable. I read the link that you directed me to, which says "The significance of an award can be justified if the award is notable enough for its own Wikipedia article or if secondary sources (independent from both the organization and the award-organizers) cover that the organization was honored with it." Both of the awards mentioned have their own articles. We have won many Audie Awards; is it mentioning Grammy nominations which is an issue? Also, is there a reason we can't have links to other relevant articles? Thanks for your help! HappyListener (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@HappyListener Upon closer investigation, you are correct. I have implemented the awards. The Audie Awards do appear to be significant and have their own article. Also, this is a perfectly acceptable, secondary source. Thank you for pointing it out to me. We get so many trivial awards added by COIs, I did not pay close enough attention to this was an exception. CorporateM (Talk) 22:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! HappyListener (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

One Horizon Group[edit]

You seem to believe that the wiki page for is subject to deletion.

You are clearly mistaken. This is a NASDAQ Capital Markets listed company, ticker symbol OHGI.

If you are having difficulty understanding the company's business and product then please revert or go to our home page, SEC filings and/or You can also review our US patent application in the USPTO reference 13/642094.

I expect our company's entry in Wikipedia will no longer be considered for deletion.

- One Horizon Group, Inc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onehorizongroupinc (talkcontribs) 11:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Onehorizongroupinc I edit a large number of articles, so I don't necessarily remember this one. But looking at the AfD discussion, it appears it's more focused on promotion and copyright infringement as rationale for deletion than it is about whether they company is notable. If you want to save the article, you would need to delete anything that is copy/pasted from another source, remove all the trademark symbols, remove any primary sources published by the company and make sure all that remains is utterly neutral information cited to credible, independent sources. If they are indeed notable and you did that, you could probably turn the tide of the discussion. CorporateM (Talk) 20:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Dany Bahar - sentence tweak[edit]

Hi CorporateM, sorry if this is unnecessary to run past you but I left another short message on the Dany Bahar talk page as I realised the paragraph we agreed doesn't make it clear that DRB-Hicom had recently acquired Proton. I've made a slight tweak to the first sentence and added another source (Bloomberg). If you could take a quick look that'd be great, again sorry if this is mundane enough for a COI editor – not sure it is so would rather run it by you. I'll add an image and infobox next. Thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I looked through the edit-history, but all I saw was wikification, which is an acceptable non-controversial COI edit. Can you provide a diff of the edit you'd like me to look at and an explanation on why the acquisition is relevant to his profile? CorporateM (Talk) 20:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I edited the talk page - the paragraph in italics we'd been working on (for the second paragraph in the Lotus subsection) - in the article it just mentions "DRB" out of the blue in the second sentence (one of the two parties he filed against, Lotus being the other) but there's no explanation that they were the new owners and the ones who launched the investigation. So I'm suggesting a change to the first sentence from "Following an internal investigation, amid allegations that he was misusing company funds for extravagant expenses, Bahar was dismissed from his role as CEO in June 2012" to "In June 2012, six months after Proton was acquired by Malaysian firm DRB-Hicom, an internal investigation by the new owners led to Bahar’s dismissal from his role as CEO amid allegations that he was misusing company funds for extravagant expenses." I added a Bloomberg source so it's ready to go if you're happy with it. HOgilvy (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Medical Issues[edit]

Hi! I have been having some medical issues which only allow me to be at the keyboard for 20-30 minutes at a time, but I want you to know that I still believe in what you are doing and will do anything I can to help and to show other COI editors that if they follow the advice at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide they will get help from the Wikipedia community.

I can still proofread, check for neutrality, check references, etc. while stuck in bed or in a doctors waiting room (I print out a copy of the Wikipedia page and any pages cited and mark them up).

I Just wanted you to know my status. The doctors predict that I will recover fully. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem @Guy Macon. Hope you get better soon! CorporateM (Talk) 15:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see[edit]

The talk page at The Promenade Shops at Saucon Valley which is, surprisingly, a lifestyle center. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, CorporateM. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#Seminars_in_cutaneous_medicine_and_surgery.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SilverserenC 05:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)