Talk:Julie Meyer

Contributions towards Julie Meyer's wikipedia page

{{request edit}}

Dear Editor,

My names is Kapil Arya and I am writing to you on behalf of Lansons, a PR company that represent Ms Julie Meyer and Ariadne Capital. We were hoping to contribute some new information about Julie to help ensure that the page is as up-to-date and accurate as possible. We are, however, unsure about how best to go about suggesting new contributions and were hoping to seek your advice on this. All information will, of course, be supported by relevant documents and links to public sources. If you could offer any advice about how to update Julie’s page it would be much appreciated.

Many thanks,

Kapil

Kapil Arya — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.227.200.228 (talk • contribs) 07:54, June 24, 2014 (UTC)

Good practice is to provide:

1. The existing text which should be replaced (optional, if the only desired edit is an addition)
2. The desired text to be used instead
3. A RS supporting the new material

In some cases, it may be helpful to provide some context, e.g. is this simply missing material, has something changed, is the existing material wrong, or just awkwardly worded.

Here is an example:

The section foo currently read:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

It would be better if it read:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.

The facts are supported by:

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs) 17:46, June 24, 2014‎(UTC)

Start again from a stub?

This page was recently in the press. To put it plainly, the page is a train wreck. Not only does it reflect badly on the subject, it also reflects badly on us for failing to address the article's many failings. One way forward, since she is plainly notable but we do not have confidence in the current version, might be to strip it back to almost nothing and start again from a stub? Philafrenzy (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Support. Yes you are right, it would be less hassle to just start from scratch. Even though she a very notable personality the page lacks regular watchers to monitor edits. Keep in mind this page will be monitored by the media and will be the center of attention in the court proceedings if they did not manage reach some kind of settlement. Nicky mathew (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

All the previous versions will still be there in the history. We have a duty to present something sensible to our readers and this page isn't doing it at present. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Would it, while we are at it, also not be decent if the editor who wrote the quite elaborate "Julie Meyer and Ariadne Capital is a 'scam'" above would at least make clear that he or she has no affiliation with any parties in the field where Mrs Meyer works? It seems fair to hang on onto 'not guilty until proven', especially while media attention ramps up. (this editor has no affiliation). --Wikivolunteeer (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Apparently "it's a house built on sound". I don't think that anyone is going to take anonymous comments too seriously on this page that only we look at, particularly given the other press comments. Perhaps someone will delete it as potentially libellous? I also have no connection with any party mentioned. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I have just taken a lot out including all the litigation and the bits that seemed like puffery. Revert me if you think I have gone too far (or take more out if not far enough). Philafrenzy (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not too bad in its current state. I don't think it should be cut back to a stub. I'll help to further improve it this week.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not going to be cut back further. It is now a sound basis for an expansion in fact. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I am finding the edits to be somewhat aggressive and extreme, so I am going to leave Keithbob to do the work here. I had hoped to work on the article as I have a background in investment banking and would have a productive approach to this editing. I also think this article should be a bit kinder than it is turning out to be -- not a surprise on Wikipedia #sigh. I don't really want to be a part of this now. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Revisions

Unless her sister is notable, her first name is trivia and violates her privacy per WP:BLPNAME.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Have at it Keithbob. You've approached this in a way I'm not interested in continuing. -- BrillLyle (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

In BLPs its extra important to use only reliable sources and to represent them accurately in the article. I'm happy to collaborate and discuss as needed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 10:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Removed Content due to faulty sources

I've removed this content:

• 1) Her father was a pulmonologist in Carmichael, California. ref name=DelMeyerMD-About>{{cite web|title=About Dr. Meyer - Profile|url=http://www.delmeyer.net/AboutDrMeyer/Profile.aspx%7Cwebsite=Del Meyer, M.D.|accessdate=15 March 2016
• 2) She has a sister named Melanie. ref name=CarmichaelTimes-FatherRetirement-2016>{{cite news|last1=Skinner|first1=Susan Maxwell|title=Real Care Says Goodbye|url=http://www.carmichaeltimes.com/back-issues/pdf_files/volume_36_pdfs/Times%2001-22-16.pdf%7Caccessdate=15 March 2016|work=Carmichael Times|issue=Volume 36, Issue 04|date=22 January 2016
• Source #1 makes no mention of the subject of this article.
• Source #2 mentions a doctor named Meyer who had a daughters named Julie and Melanie. There is no corroboration that that Julie Meyer is the subject of this article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 09:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I've also removed this content:

• She co-founded the networking forum, First Tuesday.ref name=Marketing-YFirstTuesday-2000>Nottage, Amanda (21 July 2000). "YFirst Tuesday sold for £33.5 million ($50m)". Marketing. Retrieved 15 March 2016.
  • Julie Meyer is not mentioned in the source and references some other person as the co-founder. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 09:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC) I've replaced the content in the lead using a reliable source.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 09:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Removed: The source makes no mention of the subject of this article see WP:COATRACK

• and sold it in July 2000, to Yazam, a subsidiary of Jerusalem Global. ref name=Globes-YazamFirstTues-2000>"Yazam Acquires First Tuesday". Globes. 25 July 2000. Retrieved 15 March 2016.

General comment

• I'm still working my way through the article. What I'm noticing is that several sources are written by Julie Meyer. Several other sources are bios that appear at her alma mater, prior/current companies or generic bios at business websites. What I'm hoping to find are some articles where JM is the featured subject.
• I'm going through each source to make sure it is accurately represented in the article and cutting a little promotional tone here and there. Once that is done I'll look for additional sources to expand the article if possible.
• I'm also going to rework the Awards section and merge it into the career section per WP:MOS which says not to make dedicated awards sections as they create undue weight and skew POV.

Comments, collaboration and assistance are welcomed. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 10:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

My comment is to keep at it. With expert self-promoters like these it's really important to look at the sources forensically to find the real person beneath their own hype. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and encouragement.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I am really quite frankly 100% disgusted at what you've done to the article. It's a shell of what it was -- and there was good solid content that was not correctly presented or parse -- but you went ahead Keithbob and basically 300 lb. Gorilla'd all over the content and page. I can't believe how disruptive your editing style is. I will be very glad to not run into you on any of the pages I edit.

Beside the fact that quite frankly, I was willing to clean up the entry but you did not allow any room or space for that. And really, given this is Women's History Month and I am a woman editor, I think you should have stepped off -- or at least leaned back a bit -- to allow someone who has an identification and skillset with this topic. Instead of just barrelling your way through and doing your best to strip content from the existing article. Not defending the article. And I don't know the subject at all. But really this whole experience was just textbook what not to do, why Wikipedia can be nightmarish to edit. Thanks for nothing. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Erika, when an article is [pared back/gutted*]*delete as applicable like this then it can be a shock, but the former version was a battleground of hagiography and critiques. Working to expand this article based on reliable sources (not tabloids) - taking leads from some of the content in the history, which is still there to view - will result in a more tightly written, sober, and ultimately more useful article than we had before. This is the starting point for re-expanding, not the end. Fences&Windows 23:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fences and windows -- This is not my first rodeo. I understand how to clean up articles and have done this for other entries. My concern here was the methodology and attitude taken. There was no room to collaborate or assist in an way. The effect of the aggressive editing drove me off the page. A page on which I believe as a woman and as someone with a background in investment banking I would have been able to add significant content. And I would have taken a different approach than this. It needed to be reworked without completely denuding the article. This seems very backwards and unnecessary. But mostly I object to being pushed off the article editing process. It was typical of problems I've seen on other pages, is a consistent problem on Wikipedia. And needs to be addressed from a constructive standpoint. People need to work better with others. I stated this on the Facebook thread and I have stated this repeatedly here. Ironic. Unnecessarily aggressive and exclusionary. Just plain wrong. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Also want to add that Wikipedia does a really crap job with finance and finance profiles. It's something that you need to have some idea of the industry to parse out what most Wikipedia editors hastily categorize as promotional. This was not promotional from the finance perspective -- it was pretty typical. It just needed to be reworked -- and I think not even that much. Again, I wasn't given the chance to make these changes but maybe think about that some time going forward, if someone actually knows the industry and has something to contribute, maybe back off and let them help and be part of the process. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry this hasn't been a good experience. I've seen articles I wrote on companies based entirely on RSs tagged as adverts or COI when they were nothing of the kind, so I understand where you're coming from. I hope Keithbob will take a step back now and that you will add back in the financial details. We do need expert input. Fences&Windows 00:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)