User talk:CorporateM/Archive 5

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


Thanks for the ping, King. I really appreciated your changes -- you got a lot of my concerns in, which in turn makes me feel like my contributions were valued. So thanks. :) I just have a few minor edits -- should I recreate the section on the talk page, or should we move it over?

If we move it over, what section would you like it to replace? If it's the "Galleon insider trading scandal" section there's some other stuff that should be merged as we do the move -- for example that the three men were close friends, that Palecek was mentored by Kumar, that McK suffered some criticism from the press, etc. Shoud I try another stab with the merged content?

Thx again! Great work! My[2011] (talk) | 02:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks My2011. Please go ahead and take your stab! I'll check it out and respond on the Talk page. We probably need a merged Galleon section under a Controversy sub-head. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 16:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Done! just fyi. My[2011] (talk) | 20:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


I hope you will reconsider and decide to come to Wikimania. There are a few reasons, but the two most straightforward ones are that (1) the Sunday session is an "unconference" where topics that weren't part of the scheduled program can be presented and (2) sometimes mutual understanding and communication just works better when people are looking each other in the eye. It's a lot harder for all sides to be dogmatic when everyone's waiting in line for the washroom or mutually complaining about the heat/excessive air conditioning/lack of organic salad dressing... Risker (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

You mean there's no organic salad dressing!? ;-)
There's a lot of practical things we could work on at the unconference, like organizing to improve the clarity of the COI guideline[1] or starting the process to propose a BLP-like policy for company articles. I think it makes sense to empower volunteer editors to correct attack pages through policy, rather than invite paid editors to lobby for "neutrality" in what is doomed to be a contentious and problematic scenario in most cases.
In any case, I believe PR folks from CREWE plan to attend. They will likely dominate any COI discussion. I suppose I could just go to meet people though. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 04:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


Hi David - I've left you a message on my Talk page. --PremalSpiegel (talk) 09:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


Hmm.. this seemed familiar to me, but it took me a few minutes to remember why: sunflowers from late 2010.  ;) -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 08:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Mmmhmm. You can see more context in the first post in the string here. I didn't actually intend for it to be a WP:POINT but it will probably just get trashed for WP:CORP anyway. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 08:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


Hi King, you left a message on my talk page about an AFC submission which seems to have been in error; I may have edited the submission (as I have been helping do lots of AFC reviews lately) but certainly never submitted anything myself. Not sure which submission this is in regards to but I would go back and have a look to make sure that you have actually contacted the creator. You might also want to look into using the AFC review tool (it doesn't appear like you currently are), which automatically posts to the creator's talk pages when you accept/decline an article. All the best, France3470 (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks. Just doing some of my first AfC reviews. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 20:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Not a problem. :) Looks like you are off to a great start. Keep up the good work, France3470 (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Lessac Technologies[edit]

Hi, I edited this article to make it more neutral and encyclopedic, and removed the "peacock" and other boxes which you added. Thought I should let you know. Not trying to get into a war over the boxes :-). If you think the article still needs work, please put the appropriate boxes back, and if you have the chance, write something on the Talk page about what still needs to be improved. (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted it back to the version last edited by YoursinBooks, because the article now reads like an advertisement, however I would suggest asking user:Scopecreep if he feels it appropriate to remove the advert tags. user:yoursinbooks made several improvements regarding advert and peacock words. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 18:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm having trouble finding the improvements by user:yoursinbooks regarding advert and peacock words. That user has made only two edits to the article. One was to add the advert and peacock boxes, and did not otherwise edit the article. The other edit was to correct a typo, namely removing one occurence of a name that appeared twice in a row. The edit which I did, which took quite a lot of time, was not just to make the article less braggy, but also to make it more succinct. It has all the same information (in fact, a bit more) without the repetition and wordiness. I would appreciate it if you would discuss this on the talk page, rather than just helicoptering in to add boxes. (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Again, regarding the advert tags, you should discuss with the user that added them user:Scopecreep. Regarding future edits you should discuss them on the Talk page. As an example, "currently offers several hundred synthesized classic novels..." reads like an advert. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 18:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

"pro bono"[edit]

You say on your user page that you often "edit on a pro bono basis. In these cases I have no financial connection." I wonder at that: if you do it on the basis of your personal interests on hobbies, certainly you have no such connection. If you do it to people who might approach you through your firm, or where you offer you services on the basis you are a professional, I think you do have such a connection, though indirect: professionals offer pro-bono services to maintain their reputation as responsible entities, and satisfy the moral obligation they consider part of their professional status. Perhaps you meant "no direct financial connection" DGG ( talk ) 20:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I have the same wording on my COI declaration, and I think you bring up a good point. Perhaps it comes down to making distinctions between Pro Bono and On Spec. Pro bono as in editing on a topic where one will not be accepting financial compensation, not now, and not in the future. On Spec as in editing for free on a topic where one might be expected to attempt to use that free work to gain a paying client. Thoughts? -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 21:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I just added "I often edit with a close personal connection, but no substantial COI." RE "where one might be expected to attempt to use that free work to gain a paying client," I imagine that specific scenario would be extraordinarily rare, and would constitute a financial COI anyway. However, if someone approaches me with a project I have a personal interest in, for which it's not even worth the time to draw up contracts, proposals and invoices, and I choose to do it pro-bono, that's another situation, where I have a close personal connection, but no financial COI, now or ever. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 21:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Help me edit my article---QE Foundation[edit]

Hi, thanks for reviewing my article. I don't know why my article can't be approved and I tried to fix the issues you may raise but I can't find them. sorry about it. I think I am not familiar with the edit toolbox or pages. I need your help. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonniexb (talkcontribs) 17:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The best way might be for me to walk you through it. The first step of creating any article is to collect "reliable secondary sources" like media articles, books, or scholarly works. These sources must be "independent of the subject" and "non-trivial works." This means we need real meaty articles to draw content from that are from neutral sources. For example, we can't use press releases, their syndications, routine executive appointment articles, contributed articles, etc. but if a substantial trade publication wrote an article about the firm, those are the sources we need. Does this help at all or am I still speaking foreign Wiki-speak as we all tend to do? User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 23:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Assist a COI editor?[edit]

Could you provide some advice to the author of User:ThaneKoi/Thane Koi on how to edit with a conflict of interest? I think the article has a shot at notability, but the author is going to need a lot of help. Ryan Vesey Review me! 07:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I introduced myself on his Talk page. Feel free to drop me a line anytime to help COIs that seem willing to accept help. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 13:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I was assisting the editor on IRC. They have a massive COI, but they have been working hard to follow the rules I have given them. I actually haven't created the user's talk page yet-I should do that. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Woops don't know what I was thinking, he does have one. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Reply to your questions[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, CorporateM. You have new messages at BusterD's talk page.
Message added 22:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I often find your viewpoint (so different from my own) interesting[edit]

It's a shame we can't meet in real-space sometime; but as a Wisconsin civil servant, I can't afford to hare off to Wikimania and such frivolities. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I wonder how much our views actually differ or if it is merely the manner of expressing them that brings fresh perspective. User:King4057 04:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


So far, I really like what you are doing. This will help get it to the next level and usable. A "more simple" version of the simple guide, so to speak. Dennis Brown - © 02:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I gave it a very rough first run-through. Still a lot more work to do, but I'll wait for input from other editors on the progress thus far first. I left some notes on the Talk page as well. Of course, I do hope we change the title. ;-) User:King4057 04:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Of course, I've changed my mind on that already. I tend to make my sandbox titles short and without spaces for ease of typing in. As for shortcuts, I kind of like the NEWMONEY but I'm always open to other shortcuts, in place of or in addition to. The purpose of that shortcut is it would be easy for admins to remember, which is really who the shortcuts are for. As for a title, User:DGG recommended Editing for money, which has a ring to it. Dennis Brown - © 13:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I feel we are overly focused on the idea of getting paid. When I talk to a PR person, they don't know that they are a paid editor or what that means. They don't feel they are "editing for money" if they are correcting a typo during the course of their workday. Whether the title is appropriate and to what extent varies by situation. This is an area where Wikipedia and marketing speak different languages. Our instructions will be more compelling than anything that exists today, if we can write it in the language of the intended audience. My thinking: why don't we think of a title that would resonate with the audience - what they would most likely type into a search. User:King4057 14:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Your eyes requested[edit]

Hi David. I wonder if I can get your opinion on my comments here and here. I'm specifically requesting you NOT comment in those forums, since that would send an incorrect message I'm canvassing by this request. Given our discussions about paid editing and COI, I wondered what you thought generally about the situation and if you thought I was being too sensitive about the bragging on social media. Prefer you reply here. BusterD (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

What you bring up is an intrinsic problem with Wikipedia's notability criteria. Wikipedia finds companies notable based on the assumption that journalists make an impartial, independent evaluation that the topic is worth covering, when in fact a journalist's coverage is bias depending on their relationships with public relations professionals (and in favor of trending or buzzy topics). The article should stay based on the letter of WP:CORP, but is debateable based on WP:CORP's spirit and intent. Some editors hold the position that Wikipedia needs to clear out all these articles on barely notable organizations, while others feel COI can help improve Wikipedia's coverage of them. Wikipedia has no firm rules in order to allow this kind of judgement call, but it's natural for editors to disagree.
Safetray's presumably inappropriate behavior created the expected response. Your response in-turn created another predictable response. And the string of unnecessary drama continues to cascade, with each actor allowing it to continue. Of course the specific tone of your contributions could have been more civil and focused on the article, but it's also the expected response to such a situation.
For my part, I've faded away from COOP, but will contribute my time to any bi-partisan initiative worthwhile that is more representative of community wide consensus. As for our mentorship, all it consists of is two editors talking. The fact that I often edit with a COI is merely coincidental in my mentor request, which is more about becoming a better writer and Wikipedian generally. It need not be sanctioned by COOP anyway. My personal take on Safetray is that it's fine for notability, but needs some slight anti-promotional editing. User:King4057 20:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, regarding the spirit and intent of WP:CORP, it would depend on how one interprets the spirit and intent of the policy. I'm not sure it's actually intended to evaluate notability from the perspective of being "worth covering," or if it's more geared towards merely identifying articles that can reasonably be written using reliable sources. In the latter case, the bias towards companies that invest in PR is less relevant. User:King4057 14:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your sensible input. I'll concede I didn't stick to discussing edits, so that's my failing. That said, the reaction I've been seeing looks disproportionate to my error. I certainly have helped COI editors and articles before, but if I reacted badly here, it's because I failed to read the discussion between the page creator and the speedy deleting admin before commenting. BusterD (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Many editors would be offended in the same circumstance and act inappropriately as a result. In perspective, it's a single AfD discussion on a barely notable organization that came out of AfC. It's basically an ok article. Best to just move on.
On a related topic, I wonder what your take is on paid editors who contribute vast amounts of content to push the controversy section "below the fold." One one hand, advice like this isn't healthy, but many company articles are overly focused on controversy because it's a fun topic to write about. This goes back to a paid editor's responsibilities. Is it merely to make an article "an improvement" or to make the article "good." Selective improvements could create a bias, but then how picky can we get and how much can we expect?
Recognizing that there may be firm's like mine focused on organized censorship and the type of advice on the Web, I think we should keep things in perspective. Having better coverage for organizations that hire paid editors isn't going to corrupt Wikipedia the same way constant astroturfing, advertising and censorship does. User:King4057 15:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd spotted that posting some years ago, and the comments below are revealing. You can't just ignore the Wikipedia community, which despite editor retention issues has big eyes and a long memory. When a company article mentions controversy, it would be hard to simply make such material vanish. Bowman is correct about a couple of things in narrow ways: adding more to the page to push material down is a usable strategy. As pages get improved, controversial material takes a lower focus. I've pointed out before that the best basis for strong pages is strong sourcing.
Let's use Starbucks as an example, since she did. Here's the version the day before Bowman posted. 44 cites. Here's the current version. 179 cites. Notice where cup sizes and controversies are located today. Actually, note this edit and edit summary the very day the Bowman piece was published online. That admin still edits today, and I suspect he still remembers to watch the page for this kind of gaming. Overall ask yourself: did the Starbucks page development follow Bowman's suggested course? 1) Pushing stuff down, check; 2) Numbers, arguable; 3) Burying, arguable though the controversy section is much larger; 4) Fill page, check; 5) Pictures, check. Bowman was pretty much right on the merits. You can't remove negative information, but you can devalue it relative to other content.
Was she right to post her opinion of strategy? I have no idea. Did she say something substantive and predictive? Absolutely, based on the narrow example we used. What was her overall point (other than gaming Wikipedia can work)? Good Wikipedia articles about companies should contain proportionate coverage and reflect due weight of sources. That's right out of WP:NPOV policy. IMHO, as any page grows through B-class to FA class, this improvement and gradual shift toward policy is inevitable. Once a page hits modern A or FA standards, it's unlikely to ever drop below B-class again. And we're still in the baby-step days of Wikipedia. BusterD (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. I find it unreasonable to ask COIs to contribute negative information themselves in most cases, but in an ideal situation a volunteer editor with an interest in the subject would see the COI's participation as an opportunity to improve the page in a more general way. In this way the article could represent a genuine collaboration, as oppose to a review & approve cycle. In a sense the Starbucks example came to the same result and created a better article in the process, but through a bitter engagement instead of a collegial collaboration. On the other hand, this kind of controversy attracts more collaboration than doing things above-board. Again, just picking at the details compared to the current state of affairs.
In any case, I wonder what volunteer projects you think would be ideal for me to continue improving my general writing, editing and community collaboration skills. User:King4057 18:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
We have a small number of items on the mentor page where I've requested help. Cornerstone Barristers comes to mind. In addition you might participate in WP:AFD procedures as I've mentioned previously. Besides those, you could participate in village pump discussions not related to your interest area, and you could start welcoming and mentoring newbies. Another place you could be helpful is WP:AFC. Finally, there are always thousands of unassessed articles which could use assessment. BusterD (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Awesome, I'll take a look at the cornerstone article. I've done a ton of AfCs, but when I did some AfDs it sounded like at least one person thought I was a meat-puppet of some kind. Village pump sounds interesting too. User:King4057 14:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'll comment on some things here.
If you think it "unreasonable to ask COIs to contribute negative information themselves", this is a pretty strong argument against permitting them to write in mainspace. It is also an argument that anyone who wishes to move their material into mainspace needs to do careful research themselves, which is putting an burden on them that few present editors will follow. I think it very possible that increased paid editing will ultimately result in the abandonment of our principle of anonymous editing.
My own take on "paid editors who contribute vast amounts of content to push the controversy section "below the fold." is that they need careful watching for balance of the added content. The safest way to remove improper content is OTRS. The unfortunate tendency of Wikipedians to exaggerate controversy on all sort of subjects must not be allowed to produce such a reaction--even non-COI editors sometimes over-react in correcting this. The ethics of trying to conceal as Bowman suggests depends on the nature & extent of the material added. It is not possible for the few good interested editors and admins here to check back about everything they work on. In practice a tactic of simply trying the bad stuff again after a few months will work about half the time, except for reasonably prominent topics--vulnerability in articles on relatively obscure topics is an inherent defect of crowdsourcing. The difficulty in dealing with biased editing is that we have no enforceable mechanism for problems with content. Therefore, the best way of effectively dealing with them is often a deletion nomination. I have sometimes argued, generally with success, that an article is too contaminated by COI to remain, even if the subject is notable, and that a deletion will serve the useful purpose of clearing out the bad history so a new one can be started.
the Cornerstone article contains such an amount of uncited or poorly cited puffery that I probably would have chosen to reject it outright and not to do the extensive work I see you are planning. If you do such an elaborate and proper job, why should it be done for them only, rather than other equally important firms that have no articles--it could be argued it would be fairer only to do this as part of a project, and so I think the best defense against COI on companies is our own basic straightforward articles about all important firms, on the same principle we do basic articles for towns and villages. DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, DGG. When I help a COI editor, I occasionally ask them to help me cleanup someone else's COI edits. Some symmetry (and demonstration of humility and good faith) in honoring such a request. The reason I asked this user to do some basic cleanup was that it would be good exercise, was not a subject in which he had declared an interest, and required a minimum of effort. I see David has already performed the cleanup, and that's as far as I expected him to go. And it's good work, as I've grown to expect from him. I made my case to keep in the deletion discussion, and I stand by my rationale. I made no plan, other than to improve sufficiently. To my eyes, David has been playing it straight, and making an honest effort to improve the pedia. I respect him. At his request, I made suggestions. I'd take it as a personal favor if you saw fit to offer him suggestions as well. He has dedication and capacity to be a good editor here. IMHO, one direction he needs to go in is reviewing and page improvement; because he respects the bright line, he can't improve works to which he's connected. BusterD (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I enjoy the general debate, because I gain more perspective on the issues the more I talk about them and I pick up more pieces from each perspective I hear. In fact, DGG has taught me a lot already. Here's my two cents:
  • Agree that COIs should stick to Talk pages for the reasons outlined above among others.
  • Agree that it is a substantial project for a volunteer to collaborate with a COI properly on major content contributions to landmark articles. I have contributed my own controversy sections and critical content on several occasions, but this will never be common. I also don't think writing entire articles should be the default engagement method for companies.
  • Disagree that it's rare for editors to be this thorough today. Hobbes' comments here are one example of someone who did their own research.
  • Disagree that it is a "burden." I enjoy working with COIs as I think many others do as well. In many cases a COI may actually spark participation from editors genuinely interested in the subject and create more activity around company articles from editors that enjoy the collaboration. However, any single editor that finds it a burden has the freedom not to participate like anything else.
  • Disagree that paid editing would lead to the end of the anonymous model. How so? All company articles put together is still a small fraction of Wikipedia's readership.
  • Disagree on any appeal regarding fairness in the distribution of coverage. By the same token, it's unfair that some companies have to hire a paid editor, while others get articles for free. Or that large companies get articles, while small ones do not.
  • Agree on merely AfDing low quality, advertorial articles that meet notability but are too much work to improve (or just cutting them down to a paragraph as Silver suggested) if no editor wants to make the effort to clean it up.
If we take the Cornerstone article as an example, I'm enjoying learning about the UK legal system, which has "sets" and other mechanisms I don't understand. Instead of being a "paid editor" Cornerstone could do good PR by providing sources and educating me on the UK Legal system to help me write the article. This is how PR works. We don't write the articles for The Wall Street Journal, but we provide them with information, resources and expertise. I would find it a good direction if "paid editing" like what I do became a minority and merely doing good PR on Wikipedia became more common. This sort of approach is light-years ahead of the current state of affairs, but I increasingly think paid editing should be a niche approach, while doing PR on Wikipedia should be what most companies do. User:King4057 01:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

McK history section[edit]

where should I put my comments?

thanks My[2011] (talk) | 23:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

At the bottom of the conversation string would be A-ok. I numbered my comments so they are easy to respond to if one chooses using the numbers. I find that there are equal numbers of sources with promotional language like "father of" as there are senseless attacks, but an impartial editor would be best equipped to tell the difference and stick to the facts. Then we can represent all majority and minority viewpoints in a Reputation section is my thinking (when we get there). User:King4057 23:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

FindTheBest COI[edit]

Hi User:King4057. Thank you for your note on VentureBeat's notability as a source on OlYeller21's talk board. (

Would you mind adding that same note to the COI Noticeboard for FindTheBest?

Thank you for your time and help! Evan (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. User:King4057 16:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for that. Have a nice weekend! Evan (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi User:King4057, I would like to move the FindTheBest article to the main space. I'm not sure, but I believe I need an admin to make the move. Can you help me out? Thanks! Evan (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Anyone can move it, including yourself. But as a COI editor myself, I try to avoid making edits on behalf of other COIs. Since it has already been reviewed and approved by multiple editors, I think you'd be ok to move it. If you want to be sure, ping a non-COI editor that participated in the COIN discussion as a follow up. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 18:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I moved it to the main space here: It had a notable template and COI template on it for over 2 weeks so I believed it was ready to be moved. I will watch it closely the next few weeks and work to address any user's questions or concerns regarding the article. Evan (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


For the workspace pages you have marked for deletion (& which I have deleted), did you also mean to delete: User talk:King4057/Cornerstone. User talk:King4057/aviation biofuel, User talk:King4057/jet fuel. User talk:King4057/nextgen, and User talk:King4057/workspace/McKinsey History -- they do not get automatically deleted & I did not think it obvious what your intentions were. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey thanks. No not all of em. I figured once I cleared out the bulk of the riff raff I would give it another cull. Some of my sandboxes show up in Google searches and there's a lot of random old stuff in there. User:King4057 04:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


Hi there King4057... is there a reason why you would like this article deleted? It is very unlikely to be deleted under CSD G7, as it is so fleshed-out. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Although I might add that it is still technically eligible for G7. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
It's already live at: Eze Castle Integration. I'm just cleaning up a bunch of old sandboxes. This was an AfC submisssion User:King4057 13:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Love Matters (media)[edit]

Hi King4057,

On the 19th of May you refused my article, but said it was close enough :-) At a glance the new citations look good. Needs some advert editing. What does "a free platform" mean? Removing words like "around the world" "communication platform that aims to give options to make decisions" and other language about its aims, objectives, plans, etc. instead of "what is it." It looks close to me though. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 02:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyways, I have followed your advice and rewritten it, but still it didn't get aproved. It's the third time now. What else can I do? Which advices can you give me? Thanks!

Tariniti (talk) 12:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I said "at a glance," but it appears the other reviewer was more thorough and determined that the citations that "looked good" weren't actually about the subject. I usually just do what I can to help clear out the queue, but a reviewer who is potentially moving the article to main-space will be more detailed. The guideline for notability of media may be helpful[2]. There's a section specifically on radio stations. User:King4057 13:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


As this concerns paid advocacy, I thought you would be interested in lurking. [3]. Dennis Brown - © 20:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess that's the state of things. "Paid editing is only banned if it's bad." (which is most of the time)  ;-)
I'm surprised there's any doubt U.S. Corrugated needs an AfD for notability purposes, but I appreciate the pro-active investigations, because I want to see it done right. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 21:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

accidental AFC[edit]

Re:[4], looks like the requestedit draft got mistakenly moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/requestedit, because it had an active AFC template on it ;) Probably can just copy back the content to User:King4057/requestedit, and then {{db-g2}} or #REDIRECT the AFC page. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 21:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh jeez, no wonder. I was trying to duplicate the AfC process for Request Edits, but I think it may be beyond my technical abilities. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 21:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey Eclipsed, you might be interested in this essay and this op-ed for the Signpost. I'm also trying to round up a posse to look at the COI guideline, but I think it's just too big a task for folks. The guideline is huge. Part of the problem I suppose. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 21:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. Actually I already made some small edits on the op-ed draft. As for the COI guideline rewrite, I venture to guess that a 2nd, more structured, COI RFC might come about and might result in some guidance there. But I could be wrong ;)
I wouldn't worry too much about the technical/templating stuff, that can be learned. AFC does have 5+ years of history with lots of supporting systems and code, so it's not something that can be easily duplicated. Doing something to improve the request edits system is an idea worthy of discussion. The current method of just listing at Category:Requested edits needs improvement. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration)

Your help desk question[edit]

Try asking this question at WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)