Talk:Ginni Rometty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Why is this page titled by her nick name instead of her full legal name? Dsmouse (talk) 13:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAMEEustress talk 14:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
This doesn't make a lot of sense, we've had an article on her for years, and this new one just gets created?--Milowenthasspoken 18:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Ginni is the correct name for the article. However, when I created the page, I was unaware that the Virginia article existed; otherwise, I would have performed a move of that article to preserve the edit history. A lot of editing has been done on this article now, so I'm not sure if any corrective deleting/moving makes sense now. My apologies for the oversight. —Eustress talk 13:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── As someone whose contributions were impacted by Eustress, I'm not impartial, but before we close this topic and move on I want to point out two reasons why Eustress shouldn't dismiss this issue with a brief "See WP:COMMONNAME":

  1. It is far from clear that "Ginni Rometty" should be the article name. For example, consider these searches: (About 194,000 results) (About 268,000 results) (About 754,000 results) (About 185,000 results) (About 249,000 results) (About 629,000 results)
    There's more to WP:COMMONNAME then these preliminary searches (see WP:Search engine test for details), but these results do point to the need for more discussion as to what the article name should be.
  2. Regardless of article title, I think it is incumbent upon Eustress, who is an administrator, to do the WP:HISTMERGE , because Eustress is clearly to blame for the problem. Note that Eustress made the following edit:
    Eustress deliberately chose to "Merge content from Virginia M. Rometty" (as reported in the edit summary), instead of simply moving Virginia M. Rometty to the new name and re-applying any of his/her changes. At that moment it would have been really easy to do it right, since Ginni Rometty consisted of only four edits:
04:18, 26 October 2011‎ Eustress (talk | contribs)‎ (2,482 bytes) (Merged content from Virginia M. Rometty) (undo)
22:16, 25 October 2011‎ PamD (talk | contribs)‎ (1,140 bytes) (stub-sort etc) (undo)
21:54, 25 October 2011‎ Eustress (talk | contribs)‎ (1,013 bytes) (added nickname) (undo)
21:52, 25 October 2011‎ Eustress (talk | contribs)‎ (1,005 bytes) (Create as stub)
Since as an administrator, Eustress knows the importance of article histories, even at this late date I think Eustress should just bite the bullet and do the WP:HISTMERGE. (talk) 05:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Regarding Issue 1 (article name), Google searches are somewhat irrelevant and represent a synthesis (i.e., original research). The prevailing source, IBM, refers to her a Ginni (see IBM profile for Rometty), consistent with WP:COMMONNAME.
Regarding Issue 2 (article history), I've already apologized for the mistake... even admins aren't perfect editors. In this case, I cannot act administratively per WP:INVOLVED. Besides, the history-merge request was already declined by an uninvolved admin (see diff). If clarification is desired, please reach out to that admin. —Eustress talk 15:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll approach another admin about the history merge. Given the WP:INVOLVED issue, can I at least assure the admin that you'll help with the effort? Your high percentage of the edits to Ginni Rometty and awareness of the circumstances we are in translates into expertise that would make the job a lot easier if you'd help. (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Birth date / Age?[edit]

Isn't there some reliable source for her birth date (or year at least)? Most of the sources say she is 54, which would give 1957 (or even 1956) rather than 1958. --Fanfwah (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I work for IBM in the Corporate Social Team and we intend to correct Ginni Rometty's birth date to July 29, 1957. We plan to make this change in five days. Any questions or feedback are welcome in the interim. (Mvblue (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC))
Do you know if the 7/29/57 date has already been published somewhere so it can be corrected now? The facts need to be published somewhere per WP:V and WP:BLP. The publication of the date would also be preferred to a company representative posting it per WP:COI. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
The birth date has been published in this fortune article: Could you please make the edit? Mvblue (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I see the July 29 but not the year. Is there another source with the full date or at least the year (if you have one with the year we can use the Fortune article for the rest of the date.) Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
This source has the year listed: Please use the Fortune article for the rest of the date. Thank You, Mvblue (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Done. And as you have a conflict of interest with this article, you handled it exactly right by discussing the edit here on the talk page. Thank you for that. Best, Bahooka (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


Why do people not want facts? Why do they want the filtered fallacies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

A few links that apply in this situations are WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:ISNOT. The content should remain off this BLP until a consensus is reached on this talk page to include it per WP:BRD. Bahooka (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Bahooka, so every edit needs to be approved by all editors involved here? The result has been this very concise article lacking any meaningful information.Paulthemonk (talk) 09:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
And on a complete unrelated topic, do privacy protection institutions have editors on their payroll? It just would make sense if they did.Paulthemonk (talk) 09:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)