Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid editor help/Archive 1

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid Editor Help Archive 1

Steve Scully

All right, let's see how this works in practice: A project I've been undertaken on behalf of C-SPAN is a rewrite of the article about Steve Scully, a producer and on-air host for the network. The lengthy current article is supported by just 5 separate sources and quite a bit of extraneous detail about tangential subjects—surely more than an encyclopedia entry about Mr. Scully's career should include. A typical example of the current version is the following:

In 2004 Scully defeated CBS' John Roberts and was elected to the executive board of the White House Correspondents Association (WHCA), serving as president in 2006-07. The WHCA deals directly with the White House on everything from administration access and accountability, to presidential travel. The WHCA also sponsors several high-profile events in Washington for journalists and the politicians whom they cover, including a spring scholarship dinner...

The WHCA has its own article (wikilinked in both versions) so at least the second and third sentences are unnecessary, yet it continues on like that, including some details not supported by the sources provided.

The new draft I have prepared narrows the article to be a more concise overview of significant aspects of Mr. Scully's career, expands the number of sources to 15, and introduces new sub-headings to provide more points of entry for the reader. Meanwhile, I've made an effort to preserve as much of the original entry as is compatible with Wikipedia guidelines as I understand them. I invite a side-by-side comparison of the current entry and my revised version:

• Steve Scully
• User:WWB Too/Steve Scully

If anyone has questions about this proposed revision, I'd be very happy to answer or consider further changes. On the other hand, if it is agreed the article is ready to go, I'd appreciate it if someone else would copy this draft into place. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

For me, the new draft is several dozen times better than the old one, in terms of writing, choice of key points, and depth of sources. I am not going to read all of the sources, though I will comment on a few. I'm going to leave some notes on the talk page of your draft, but I think that it can likely be moved to mainspace soon. Probably the best way is going to be a history merge (delete the old article, move over the new one, then restore the old history), so that all of the attribution history remains. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

What's the difference between doing that and just copying and pasting the draft into the mainspace article? Wouldn't that leave the history intact as well, without the unnecessary deletion and recreation? I must admit that I get mixed up on how attribution works, but the method you're discussing sounds overly complicated, just in my opinion. Silverseren^C 05:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

If I do that (esp. since WWB Too wants one of us to copy the draft), then the edit in mainspace will reflect only me as the "writer". Thus, we lose all attribution to WWB Too's edits, thus breaking CC-BY-SA (the problem will be more obvious if I also edit article before copy-pasting). Theoretically, it is sufficient as long as I give a link to the original draft in the edit summary, but only so long as the draft remains in WWB Too's user space. Someone may not notice the attribution and end up deleting the userspace draft as a fake article or for some other random reason. So, though more difficult, this seems like a "safer" aproach; if I do it right, it should only take an extra step. For the talk page, I will just copy and paste over the draft talk; technically attibution is lost there, by I scarcely think anyone will care. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I get it. It's silly, but I get it. Silverseren^C 06:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't care tremendously about personal attribution in the edit history, but here's one possible solution:

1. Whomever copies the article into mainspace could mention my username.
2. The connected contributor template could be applied to the Talk page.
3. At Talk, I could post a short note of disclosure, with relevant links, including a link back to the original draft.

Apart from the template, that's how I've typically how I've handled this in the past. I might as well add: given clear consensus, I'm open to moving it myself. I recognize this is not Jimbo's idea of best practices, but it's perfectly compatible with the WP:COI (7.4), which permits Making edits that have been agreed to on the talk page. I have done it this way as well. This would also require someone else posting a notice on the Scully Talk page first.

Perhaps this is worth bringing to discussion back at WP:CO-OP Talk, or at least we should think about creating a clear, step-by-step process for such situations. One more note: Qwryxian, I've answered some questions on the draft's Talk page, and made one change on your suggestion. Let me know what you think. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to make the move; your method is fine when there's no admin involved, but since I'm here it's relatively easy for me to do a history merge. Such merges are really only a problem when you have the article being simultaneously developed in two places, but here your history just comes entirely at the end. And the advantage of me moving it is that, though you retain attribution, I'm "taking responsibility" for the edits, meaning I'm providing my non-involved opinion that the changes you've made are neutral and an improvement, thus meaning even a really overzealous hater of COI edits has no cause to take action against you. Having said that, someone else could still legitimately revert these edits, but I'm hoping that they don't. Finally, you're right about the connected contributor template. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian and Silver, I'm very appreciative of your time and effort on this. I will have more requests of this sort in the near future—some unavoidably involving thornier topics than Mr. Scully, I should add—so I thank you and would like to help find others to join this process. Meantime, I'll post a note about my involvement on the Scully Talk page shortly, and I'm really glad this has worked out so well. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense in C-SPAN articles

In addition to the above request about Brian Lamb's article, I'd like to make a few simple requests to remove some random nonsense from two C-SPAN articles I'd previously worked on:

• First, someone recently added (here's the diff) a new section,C-SPAN#Spin-off_channel, claiming C-SPAN planned a spin-off channel in 1988, only to be "scraped at the last minute". The source given is a YouTube video which makes no reference to C-SPAN. Needless to say, I've been told there's no truth to the statement and I've certainly found no sources saying otherwise, so I'd like for another editor to remove this section.

• Second, on the Steve Scully article we did here recently, a brand new account added some similarly unverified claims (here's the diff) about Mr. Scully's TV background, including apperances on a game show where I don't believe he ever appeared, and on a PBS children's show I don't believe even existed. This clearly should go. This same editor added a sentence about C-SPAN winning numerous awards (here's the diff) to another section and, however true, it's not necessarily relevant here. I'd like to suggest that it be removed as well.

That's all. I'd appreciate it if someone would look into these and make the changes. Cheers, WWB Too(talk) 16:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Done and done. The first is unreliable referenced (probably to a copyvio) and the second is unreferenced. I don't even need to wait for other users' agreement to fix them. Silverseren^C 21:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. I figured those ones would be an easier call. WWB Too (talk) 00:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Private Equity Growth Capital Council

I've posted a new proposed draft in my userspace, a rewrite and expansion of an existing article about a trade association / lobby group, the Private Equity Growth Capital Council (PEGCC). The current and proposed versions may be compared side-by-side, here:

• Private Equity Growth Capital Council
• User:WWB Too/Private Equity Growth Capital Council

Here's what I think is important to note about the difference between versions:

1. Most obviously, my draft is significantly more complete and supported by many more citations (two in the current draft, 31 in mine). The goal is for my expanded draft to be a more informative and more reliable overall portrait of PEGCC and its activities.
2. In several ways, my version is an expansion of what is in the current article:
   1. My lede is an expansion of the first half of the first graf in the current version.
   2. My Organization background section is an expansion of the second half of the first graf and first half of the second.
   3. My Activities section is a significant expansion on the second half of the second graf.
3. I have removed a few things:
   1. The standalone sentence about when Lowenstein became president; he's no longer the president, although Lowenstein does appear in the Activities section.
   2. Most significantly, I've removed the section called Member firms, which I think doesn't add any useful information and is a possible WP:NOT issue. There are thirty-some firms, and they're not a fixed number. Better instead to include a link to the list in External links, which is what I've done.
   3. The article currently lists SEIU, MoveOn and Amnesty International as critics, but the New York Times article cited (in both versions) makes very clear the SEIU was the primary actor, and that it was "teaming up with groups like" MoveOn. It's also worth noting that the SEIU's criticisms were aimed more at the private equity industry as a whole, rather than PEGCC, although it is a matter the PEGCC became involved with. That said, there is actually more information about the SEIU's criticisms of private equity in my version than the current version.
   4. Including the old logo seems unnecessary, and a possible copyright issue, to boot.
4. In the time since I started writing the article, another editor has made some changes to the existing article, particularly changing one instance of "educate" to "promote"; I hadn't made the same change, but I'm not opposed to it if that's determined to be more neutral.
5. Overall, I tried to include as much about PEGCC's activities that a) seemed encyclopedic and b) was covered reliable sources, but I'm not fixed on this exact version: I simply intend for the article to serve as a better overview of PEGCC, its history and activities. If others feel there is too much or too little focus on one topic or another, I'm certainly open to suggestions.

Looking forward to others' feedback. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I generally do not support having an editor get paid to make contributions to Wikipedia but I do prefer an editor being upfront about it rather than making the edits without declaring their COI. That being said, the proposed article seems to be factual and well referenced. I prefer having disclosure of the membership in the article, there are several external articles from the NYT that probably should be kept and potentially better integrated. Also I prefer to keep historical logos especially when they show a change in branding or emphasis like in this case. There is no copyright issue (Aside from fair use rationle, I think the PE Council would have a hard time trying to establish copyright on the words private equity council and four blue boxes)|? ?r?an?ene?al • TALK ?| 23:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Urbanrenewal. I've made some changes based on your comments:

• I hadn't tried untangling the section about member firms previously, but now I've done some additional research and have now added it back as a section, here: Member firms. First, I started with what was the third paragraph of the Founding and mission section, naming the most prominent founding members. Next I found a third-party source, which named the rest of the founding members. And then I used the official PEGCC membership list to complete the section.

• While I didn't use the three NYT sources in writing my draft, it turns out they are relevant to some aspects I did write about: a) "Can Private Equity Build a Public Face?" to support the bit about why it was formed, and b) "Mr. Kravis Goes to Washington (Capra Rolls Over)" and "Of Private Equity, Politics and Income Taxes" to support discussion of its early lobbying focus.

• Lastly, if you'd prefer the old logo to remain, that's fine. I've added it to my draft, although I've disabled the image for now, just in case.

Again, I very much appreciate the close read and good suggestions. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Bounty Board Question

Do you guys think it's appropriate for a paid editor to use the bounty board to ask a volunteer to help translate into other languages? It's kind of an awkward predicament. Volunteers do as much, but it feels like there's an awkward COI issue when it comes from a paid editor. King4057 (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's really rare when something on the Bounty Board actually gets done. So probably not. :/ Silverseren^C 22:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

And the bounty goes to the Foundation, so I'm not sure what the problem is. It's basically a COI saying, I'll donate money to the Foundation if someone will translate an article. Assuming the article is neutral (etc) in the first place, it's good for everyone. Rklawton (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The Glover Park Group

{{Request edit}}

I'd like to propose for a new article draft for review: User:WWB Too/The Glover Park Group

That is to say there is not an existing article, although the company easily passes WP:CORP. I've written the article according to the guidelines at WikiProject Companies/Guidelines, and the further suggestions for organizing such articles at Wikipedia:Companies,_corporations_and_economic_information.

A few key points about the draft:

1. There are four main sections:
   1. The Organization section outlines the company's services, its leadership, and recent acquisition by WPP.
   2. Areas of business covers the three largest service areas: public relations and communications, advertising and marketing, and government affairs. This section includes some specific clients, as mentioned in the sources, to provide examples of work that the company has carried out.
   3. History provides background on the company's founders and early work and its growth and development in recent years. Here I've included details of the political background of the founders, including its change from all-Democratic staff (founded by Clinton administration officials) to becoming a bipartisan firm.
   4. Awards and recognition includes details of the company's most noteworthy industry awards. I've included this to provide some context as to the company's standing in the PR community and have aimed to write this as neutrally as possible. If the information strikes some as promotional I am open to suggestions about how it can be made less so.
2. As a general note, I have followed the source material in writing the article's content, as well as being informed by the above-mentioned guidelines as to what information should be included about GPG's activities.
3. The article's research was done largely in Lexis-Nexis, where I sourced the coverage by industry journals as well as publications such as The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Politico. This does mean that some sources of these sources do not have a URL, however I could add the Nexis URL if desired.

I've endeavored to write in an even-handed manner about the company's operations and history, however I'm certainly open to suggestions about certain wording or significance of details. I'll also be posting a request about this at WikiProject Companies, which I believe is the most relevant topical wikiproject, and I welcome all constructive suggestions. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm definitely comfortable enough with it to move it into mainspace. I'll make some small edits, and request some others from you, but let me point out one thing that concerns me with a number of your articles: you have a tendency to over-cite small details. In this article, for instance, you don't need three different citations to verify that WPP bought out The Glover Group. One would be sufficient. Adding all of the citations goes into WP:UNDUE territory, and might make it look like you're trying to inflate the citation count on the article just to make it look better. It's fine to have multiple citations for controversial claims, or in cases where one citation isn't enough to cover all of the facts in a sentence, but I feel like in numerous places you've overcited there.

Nonetheless, as I said, the overall article is plenty good enough to be in mainspace, with any major problems able to be solved through normal collaborative editing. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and a question, WWB Too: are you interested in trying to get these articles featured as a DYK? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Qwyrxian, very glad you thought it was ready to move over. You raise an interesting point about over-citing small details; I'm more familiar with "the more citations, the merrier" as a general sentiment among Wikipedians, but I can see what you mean. In the case of the WPP sale, two of the three citations had multiple uses, and they went in here as well. While I intend to be thorough, I certainly don't intend for my citations to appear overly defensive, and I'll aim to avoid that going forward.

Meanwhile, I've created the article's Talk page, including relevant WikiProjects, a connected contributor template, and one for WP:CO-OP as well. I'll also ask about getting a quality logo for the infobox.

And regarding DYK, I think that's an excellent idea. For a hook, I'd suggest the Diageo ad being the first U.S. television ad produced for distilled beverages in decades; it was controversial at the time, and I'd have to check that it even aired—I know that NBC reversed its decision a few months later. I can look into it in the next few days. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, one small request: overnight the DPL bot alerted me to the fact that I'd wikilinked George Bush instead of George W. Bush in the Company expansion section, when it should be the latter. Although WP:COI permits me to make such an edit, I'd probably better not as long as consensus is drifting away from such direct edits—can someone else fix this? WWB Too (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Two more things. First, I've uploaded a GPG logo, including the necessary fair use rationale, and it is here. Second, I'd actually be perfectly OK without a DYK for it; the article's existence is good enough for now. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed paragraph reorganization

{{Request edit}}

On behalf of PEGCC I'd like to propose slightly rearranging and expanding two paragraphs in the Private equity fund performance section of the Private equity article. The quoting gets a bit long, so I'm going to try out collapsible tables for this. Also note that any text added, altered, moved or removed between versions is highlighted for easier comprehension.

Here's the first two paragraphs as they read now:

Current version

Due to limited disclosure, studying the returns to private equity is relatively difficult. Unlike mutual funds, private equity funds need not disclose performance data. And, as they invest in private companies, it is difficult to examine the underlying investments. An oft-cited academic paper by professors at University of Chicago and MIT (Kaplan and Schoar, Journal of Finance, 2005) suggests that the net-of-fees returns to PE funds are roughly comparable to the S&P 500 (or even slightly under). This analysis may actually overstate the returns because it relies on voluntarily reported data and hence suffers from survivorship bias (i.e. funds that fail won't report data). One should also note that these returns are not risk-adjusted. However, it is challenging to compare private equity performance to public equity performance, in particular because private equity fund investments are drawn and returned over time as investments are made and subsequently realized.

Here's what I'd seek to do with it:

Proposed version

Due to limited disclosure, studying the returns to private equity is relatively difficult. Unlike mutual funds, private equity funds need not disclose performance data. And, as they invest in private companies, it is difficult to examine the underlying investments. It is challenging to compare private equity performance to public equity performance, in particular because private equity fund investments are drawn and returned over time as investments are made and subsequently realized. An oft-cited academic paper (Kaplan and Shoar, 2005) suggests that the net-of-fees returns to PE funds are roughly comparable to the S&P 500 (or even slightly under). This analysis may actually overstate the returns because it relies on voluntarily reported data and hence suffers from survivorship bias (i.e. funds that fail won't report data). One should also note that these returns are not risk-adjusted. A more recent paper (Harris, Jenkinson and Kaplan, 2012) found that average buyout fund returns in the U.S. have actually exceeded that of public markets. These findings were supported by earlier work, using a different data set (Robinson and Sensoy, 2011).

Key changes:

1. I've moved the last sentence of the second paragraph to the end of the first paragraph, and changed the transition. I think it makes more sense here, continuing the discussion of challenges to analyzing the private equity industry.
2. I've added two more recent papers suggestive of better returns for the industry than the 2005 paper, with what I believe is a fairly conservative description of them, and included formatted citations for all three.
3. I've removed the names of the universities because trying to include them for the other two papers was turning this into a word salad, not to mention Steve Kaplan from University of Chicago is an author on both the 2005 and 2012 papers. I think this way it's easier to follow.
4. Other suggestions for rewriting the section welcome, but optional. At least this should be a small improvment.

Thoughts? WWB Too (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Does the first paragraph have a reference? Silverseren^C 23:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't. What I don't propose to change, I'm essentially proposing to leave alone for now. Ideally it should have one, but so should a lot of other paragraphs in this article. WWB Too (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, that's true. I'd like to wait for at least one other person to comment here before I (or they) make the change. Silverseren^C 01:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• The reorg and additional refs seem fine, esp. Harris/Jenkinson/Kaplan. If anything, you've underplayed what appears to be significantly better data for the newer research and the presumably more accurate conclusions thus obtained. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

With the extra support from Hobbes, i've gone ahead and made the change. Silverseren^C 02:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Terrific, thanks to you both! Looks great to me. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

As a postscript, can I ask a question? I understand that an investor in private equity (an LP) might have money "idle" during some of the "allocate, commit, draw down, invest" sequence. Is this true, and if so is this included in the performance figures? Wildfowl (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It should be, otherwise the new data has a serious defect of its own. If you want to dig further, I'd recommend starting with the last of the new added sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll defer to Hobbes for the moment; it's a relatively new area of study for me, so I wouldn't want to say the wrong thing. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I tried to read Robinson & Sensoy, but found it hard going. It looks as though they carefully take account of distributions out of the fund as it closes down, but that doesn't answer my question about what happens earlier when money is being drawn down into the fund. I had a look at Harris, Jenkinson and Kaplan as well, but I did not seem to be getting anywhere.

What I did find was a recent article in The Economist and an accompanying leader which paints a different picture. The final paragraph of the leader is worth reading! The main article is well sourced and includes Harris, Jenkinson and Kaplan but not Robinson and Sensoy.

It seems to me that there are two dangers:

1. Learned-paper wars – cherry-picking the paper that "proves" what you want.
2. The assumption that pre-crisis performance statistics work in this post-crisis world. The Economist seems to think that there has been a paradigm shift for PE – a more negative environment for years to come.

Perhaps include a reference to the Economist article to give balance? Wildfowl (talk) 11:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you have the energy, I wouldn't mind seing this part of the article built out, with some additional studies added, if solid, but I'd hope that WP would do a little better than the Economist article on this topic, which I would summarize as: "There are different studies that use different data sets and come to different calculations of returns." Thanks, guys. (The rest of the article and the leader are better, raising some interesting questions, such as:

• Is the S&P 500 is the appropriate baseline to use?
• Is the success, such as it is, of Private Equity significantly based on their taking advantage of tax laws, as opposed to their doing a better job of finding undervalued assets or setting companies on a better course?)

Request Edits

How long should I tell someone to expect to wait for a request edit to be addressed? King4057 (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say something around 5 days. If there's no response after that time frame, then a notice on some other board should be made to make sure there will be a response. Silverseren^C 04:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

That said, the faster we can get these edits reviewed, the better. The more efficiently those channels work, the more incentive people have to actually use them. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 05:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like someone went through them. Allens gave a very thorough response to my request edit. There is a blog post going out on PR-Squared (a top PR blog) tomorrow that is recommending PR people use this feature. It's probably the single most important tool COI editors should learn to use, so I hope we can make the page much busier. King4057 (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly a huge rush of request edits, but I see Aspen Dental made one, which probably spared a more confrontational encounter (or reverts, etc.). I'll take what successes I can ;-)

King4057 (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You should try hitting up the people that made the Wikilove button at the tops of all talk pages now (try it out! mw:Wikilove for more info): I know user:Kaldari is one that was involved in making the system I saw in that other group there was one good suggestion to have a notice about requesting edits when you edit if you have a conflict of interest, in a similar way to the message you get when you aren't logged in - I think that would be a very good idea, just a simple link to WP:COI+WP:PSCOI would probably help a LOT (especially if they were clearly written) --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 22:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Brian Lamb

{{Request edit}}

Following on the successful rewrite project for C-SPAN's Steve Scully, I'd also like to suggest a rewrite for the article about C-SPAN's founder and CEO, Brian Lamb. As with Scully, an article about Lamb has existed for some time. Although the current Lamb page is better than the Scully article was, I think my draft nonetheless represents a substantial improvement. Here they are, for comparison:

• Current article: Brian Lamb
• Proposed draft: User:WWB Too/Brian Lamb

Overall, the proposed draft contains more encyclopedic information, more carefully organized, intended to better represent the scope of his career and make it easier for readers to find relevant information at a glance. My draft also represents a considerable expansion in the number of sources cited. Per previous comments by Qwyrxian, I don't wish to over-cite non-exceptional details, but I'm open to suggestions where this could be the case.

Here's a general overview:

1. Trimmed lede to key points from career and achievements.
   1. Removed story about foundation of C-SPAN, adequately covered in that article.
2. Renamed Life to Early life and education.
   1. Removed excess trivia details about his family.
   2. Moved information about current personal life down to a separate section.
3. Created Early career section with Navy career and Communications and journalism career subsections.
   1. Added and clarified details about his Navy career.
   2. Added information about his career between the Navy and C-SPAN.
4. Expanded C-SPAN.
   1. Expanded the beginning of this section to give a brief but complete overview of Lamb's role in C-SPAN's foundation and day-to-day operations.
   2. Added 2 new subsections: Hosting and interview style and Issues.
      1. Used material from existing Interviews section, clarified with additional sources.
      2. Created new Issues section with details about the political issues he has been involved in related to media access.
5. Updated Written works with complete bilbliography.
   1. Added a new introductory paragraph to this section.
6. Added a new Honors and awards section.
   1. Lamb has received a large number of awards, noted in press, e.g. in interviews with him.
   2. Included the most noteworthy awards: National Humanities Medal, Presidential Medal of Freedom.
7. Created a new Personal life section, using material from the current Life section, clarified with additional sources.

General notes:

1. I've removed a lot of the more "chatty" content about his family ("very Irish", for example).
2. I've removed block quotes used throughout in the existing version; they didn't add any greater clarity, and sometimes seemed off-topic (e.g. the quote about Ronald Reagan in the C-SPAN section).
3. Updated the infobox photo to a better one, provided CC-BY via an official C-SPAN Flickr account. The image in the existing article is lower in quality, has Brian looking off to the left, and seems to have red-eye imperfectly removed.
4. Removed the photo of Lamb signing a book including in the current Interviews section. The image doesn't relate to the section (or any of the article's content), and it doesn't show Lamb clearly. But I could go either way on this one.

I welcome any comments or suggestions from independent editors, or invite anyone to move it over if the replacement article is deemed to be ready for the mainspace. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Was the original version of your draft a copy of the then current Wikipedia article? Nobody Ent 23:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Up to a point: I started with the current version and kept as much as I thought made sense, adding and subtracting as I added new information and removed irrelevant details (i.e. the chatty family background stuff). Particularly in the current Life and proposed Early life and education sections, you'll see I've preserved some wording, but changed and expanded on it as well. That said, the majority is original to the draft posted in my userspace. WWB Too (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

We're going to end up doing a histmerge or whatever else works best for the situation, so there shouldn't be any issues with attribution, if that's what you're concerned about. Silverseren^C 00:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it's that I'm actually such a wiki-geek now I find it easier to look at diffs than the articles side by side. Nobody Ent 00:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, I find that the new version is, overall, inferior to the existing article. We gain more resume-like elements (in particular, the new awards section is rather fluffy), and lose content--denigrated as "chatty"--that helps gives the reader a flavor of the man and his background. The new picture is a vast improvement, however. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Hobbes, I am a little surprised to hear you think the proposed version inferior to the current. It seems to me one I've prepared is not just a more complete and verified picture of Brian Lamb's career, but also closer to Wikipedia guidelines and style. Certainly, this was was my goal. On the other hand, I'm very unlikely to insist on the specific representation of any particular sentence or detail, and I'd be interested to hear what you would prefer to see differently. You do mention the bit about his mother being "very religious" and his father "very Irish" adding color, but I'd say those don't especially relate to Brian Lamb's notability and are not particularly encyclopedic, hence my removal.

I suppose am more surprised to hear you refer to "resume-like elements" as less interesting or informational, because it is his public career that makes him notable. That said, I'm open to suggestions about how to shape the Honors and awards section, although I may as well note that I found myself looking for reasons to exclude, rather than include, particular items—as the section demonstrates (perhaps to a fault) he has received significant recognition in recent years. Anyhow, I'm sure there's a compromise to be found in here. What are your biggest areas of concern? WWB Too (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I mean "resume-like" in a negative sense, with added elements that are more puffery than meaningful content. Won the "Gaylord Prize"? The Library of American Broadcasting’s (who?) 2011 "Giants of Broadcasting"? I imagine he also has a "World's Best Grandpa" coffee mug on his desk, but that doesn't belong in this article, either. I've given my overall view of new versus old. I don't know that I am interested enough to vet every sentence, but if so, I'd prefer to work from the current version forwards. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm rather confused about what you're saying Hobbes. The Library of American Broadcasting is linked in the draft and an award like that from them is very important, because that means it's going into the annals of journalism history. Furthermore, journalism awards given by major universities are generally considered to be important.

Also, the career coverage in the draft is very, very obviously better than what's in the current article. And WWB did work forward from the mainspace article, but he has to use the draft to do it, since he can't edit the mainspace article.

Lastly, the extraneous information about his family and other things is clearly either undue information or is very POV and unnecessary to include. If there's any specific sentence or something that you feel should be kept in, feel free to point it out, but a lot of the current mainspace version is puffery. Silverseren^C 03:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Why would you say that the Library of American Broadcasting award is important or notable? I imagine that it's more of a logrolling exercise by a small non-profit to get wealthy honorees to kick in some bucks and famous ones to turn up at their NY lunch. Yes, there is a link to the library's WP article (which really ought to be smerged with a parent organization article)--it doesn't actually mention the award. And neither does the Gaylord College of Journalism and Mass Communication article mention its not-obviously-important "Gaylord Prize", which doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere in WP--except in WWB Too's proposed revision.
• Yes, well, you do seem to be on the same page as WWB Too in thinking that the paid-for proposal is "obviously better". I do not. And I realize the he worked forward from the current article, but you are missing the point--I don't care to work backward from his draft.
• If you can find clear consensus to make the wholesale change, then that's fine. Otherwise, if there is any specific sentence or something that you feel should be put in or taken out of the existing version of the article, feel free to point it out. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 06:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm perplexed by the focus on the Library of American Broadcasting, and I see you've now flagged that article for questionable notability. Actually, it's not a "small non-profit" but a 40-year-old archive center based at the University of Maryland; it houses significant artifacts from broadcasting history and has received plenty of coverage over the years, including from the Washington Post in 1999, the NY Daily News in 2003, and Lamb's own recognition by them was noted by the National Press Club in 2011. Meanwhile, as my draft shows, Lamb's awarding of the Gaylord Prize was reported on by the Norman Transcript and Broadcasting & Cable, both reliable secondary sources. That said, I realize you've indicated a lack of interest in discussing my draft, about which I'm disappointed, but we'll keep the discussion open. WWB Too (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Silverseren's analysis of WWB's draft. It is considerably more encyclopedic than the current version, and thus should replace it. I disagree with Hobbes that the mention of the aforementioned awards in the article constitute "puffery". This is pertinent information per WWB's comments (with citations) above.--JayJasper (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Just got a chance to check now. I haven't drilled down into the citations themselves, but I also agree that, on average, the new version is better--it's better formatted, it appears to contain better citations (again, trusting that the cites say what WWB Too claims they do, something I have no reason to doubt based on past experience), and has a much tighter lead. I think the awards section is fine, though I wouldn't mind paragraphs 1 and 3 being combined, because they same to be about the same general type of award. On the other hand, I strongly dislike the Personal Life section. The first paragraph is fine, but the second two, to me, feel completely unencyclopedic. However, take this with a grain of salt: I generally oppose all information in biographical articles about things not connected to the person's notability or "core" life issues (family and schooling), and especially think we should not be mentioning hobbies. I hold that they are WP:UNDUE, even when mentioned in reliable sources (excepting insofar as those hobbies directly effect their notability, such as if a hobby lead to or is interconnected with a person's employment). I also see no reason to discuss his political views; I understand the logic, given that his work is political, but since it seems to have no effect on his work, it doesn't seem germane. I am aware, though, that my position on personal issues and hobbies is not necessarily shared by other editors, so I would bow to consensus on this matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I can see what you mean about the personal life section. I would agree that the second paragraph is full of fairly irrelevant information, though I feel like the third paragraph contains fairly relevant information. Considering his occupation, his political affiliation certainly has some amount of importance.

As for the awards section, I do feel like the Presidential Medal of Freedom, being the most important award in there, should be presented first, with the others following it. And combining the first and third paragraph (though not the first sentence) would look good and flow well. Silverseren^C 03:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree that the 2nd paragraph of the personal life section in the draft version is mostly superfluous and should be pared down if not altogether eliminated. Per Silverseren, the 3rd paragraph has some importance considering his occupation and is no way detrimental to the article. I also agree that combining the 1st & 3rd paragraphs of the awards section would improve readability.--JayJasper (talk) 06:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I follow the argument for paring the Personal life section down to paragraphs 1 and 3. Some of paragraph 2 I had carried over from the current version ("simple things", interest in reading, visiting of gravesites) which is somewhat "chatty" itself, but is at least about him. That said, I agree it's less relevant—so I have gone ahead and removed it, combining 1 and 3 into a single paragraph. How does the current version look?

Also: if anyone notices that someone added Sigma Alpha Epsilon to the current Lamb article, I checked on this and the answer I received is that this is incorrect. Brian Lamb was Phi Gamma Delta at Purdue, as is verified here. I've added it to my draft. WWB Too (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Good job in trimming the personal life section. Much more encyclopedic, IMO.--JayJasper (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

One more thing

Hey, I just noticed Qwyrxian took care of this overnight: very cool, and thanks to all who weighed in. However, I just noticed that I introduced a couple of citation errors with my quick snip: There are currently two orphan references, <ref name=Groppe/> and <ref name=Leibovich/>, because I accidentally snipped out the parent ref when trimming the Personal life section. Now that the article is live, would someone else add these back in? Here's the full citation for each:

• <ref name=Groppe>{{cite news |title=C-SPAN founder's life is an open book |author=Maureen Groppe |url=http://w3.nexis.com/new/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4SSF-S880-TWWW-R1F2&csi=252052&oc=00240&perma=true |newspaper=The Indianapolis Star |date=15 June 2008 |accessdate=15 February 2012}}</ref>

• <ref name=Leibovich>{{cite news |title=Brian Lamb's Flock; The Unassuming C-SPAN Founder and Host Has a Faithful Audience |author=Mark Leibovich |url=http://w3.nexis.com/new/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4683-XDB0-010F-91P4&csi=8075&oc=00240&perma=true |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=11 July 2002 |accessdate=15 February 2012}}</ref>

Many thanks in advance. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

There we go, I also fixed the no indexing on the categories, so that they are working properly now. Silverseren^C 17:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Terrific, thanks for doing so. And also for enabling the categories: I don't always remember to mention that part. WWB Too (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Grohe AG: Please review my proposal

{{Request edit}}

Hey,

the article about Grohe is pretty short and not up to date (the actual company name is Grohe AG), so I wrote a proposal for a new one, based on the current version, but with way more information and citations: User:Pfandtasse/Grohe AG

COI: As I work with Grohe in Germany, I wouldn't make any changes to the article by myself, so I kindly ask you to review my proposal and move it to the article namespace if you find it appropriate. I already posted a request to the topic's talk page and two users kindly started reviewing and suggesting changes. One pointed me to this page to ask for further assistance.

I am really looking forward to your feedback. Please feel free to make suggestions to my draft.

Cheers, --Pfandtasse (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Your work looks very good to me, and it could probably be moved to mainspace now and not be a problem (though I recommend you make some more small changes, listed below, before we do that). I notice that you are using a good mix of sources (not only sources belonging to Grohe, but also news sources, etc) and that you have included information on a controversy involving Grohe. Some things to think about (please keep in mind that I am not German and I know nothing about Grohe, so some of these recommendations may not need to be acted on, I'm just throwing out ideas):

1. Removing the "Related companies" section. You can include a link to Hansgrohe in a "See also" section if you wish, but there is really no need to dedicate a section of the article (even a small one) to the company, unless it has significant dealings with Grohe - and if it does, you should consider writing about those.
2. Double-check whether there has been any other news coverage of significant single events in Grohe's corporate history - were there any other things like the cartel case (positive or negative) where Grohe was newsworthy for that particular thing?
3. Consider adding some more information about early products - your history coverage deals mostly with market share and profits, but says little about what the company produced. This is not to say that you make a "list of products produced by Grohe" or anything - just some background about what they sell/sold, and how that business factors into their profits, etc.
4. There's always room in a Wikipedia article for more sources. Do another quick check through the literature available to you to see if you have access to more information, or old information that can be used to support more individual statements that you already have in the article.
5. Make yourself a list of categories that you can apply to the article once it's moved into mainspace. The ones that are on the current article version are good, but you can probably expand on them.
6. Consider trying to get some photos of Grohe products to include in the article.

I hope these ideas help! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Fluffernutter, thanks a lot! These are great suggestions which I implemented as follows:

1. Moved information about Hansgrohe into early history. I consider the connection to be important because both companies originated from one family and the names are pretty similar.
2. Added information about the "locust" debate in Germany, when a high-profile politician cited Grohe as an example of foreign private equity firms exploiting German companies.
3. Added early products to the extent of publicly available information.
4. Added sources, though I did not find neutral ones for the company's early history. Typical problem for information on private companies.
5. How about these: Category:German brands, Category:Companies established in 1911, Category:Private equity portfolio companies
6. Included a product photo. I'll try to convince them to release some more images under an appropriate license. This would be a good idea anyway.

Would anyone mind to check again (including grammar and spelling, as I am not a native speaker)? --Pfandtasse (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Great work! I've moved your version of the article to the main article space. You can now find it at Grohe if you'd like to continue making edits to it. I've also redirected Grohe AG to Grohe so that people searching for the full company name can find the article. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I will keep the article up to date and make improvements if possible. Have a nice week! --Pfandtasse (talk) 07:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Colin Digiaro

{{Request edit}}

I have a client who would like to make changes to two or three pages, and create a new page for SGN--it would be great if there's an editor out there who would like to help me through the process. Thanks in advance!

So far, they have only sent me the changes for Colin Digiaro:

Take out MindJolt and Hallpass in the first sentence. Change "join" to "found" before the word Slingshot in the last sentence in the first paragraph.

When I notified the client that there was a possible deletion of the page in the works and that they might want to add content, they sent me this:

As COO of SGN, Colin Digiaro is responsible for all areas of day-to-day operations. In addition, he oversees the company’s game development studio, publishing, sales, customer acquisition and distribution.

As a serial entrepreneur, Digiaro has spent his career turning startups into successful businesses. Most notably, Digiaro co-founded MySpace where he oversaw advertising sales, operations, and strategy. Digiaro led the effort to position MySpace as an advertising platform, introducing nearly every major Fortune 100 brand advertiser to social media, generating annualized ad revenues of over $700 million.

Digiaro hold a B.S. in Policy from the University of Southern California; he lives in Los Angeles.

References: http://techcrunch.com/2011/06/23/mindjolts-sgn-studio-launches-social-ios-game-mini-cafe/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/18/more-execs-walk-away-from-foxmyspace-slingshot-labs-president-evp-resign/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/03/chris-dewolfe-mindjolt-austin-ventures/ http://techcrunch.com/2009/08/21/another-news-corp-digital-exec-departure-colin-digiaro-resigns-from-slingshot-labs/

The client is fully aware of Wikipedia COI issues and the need for documentation, so if anything else is required, please let me know.

Thanks!Alexwillis (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I've made a userspace draft of the article at User:Alexwillis/Colin Digiaro. Feel free to make the wanted changes there and then we can review it here and move it into the main article. Feel free to also work on a new page at User:Alexwillis/SGN. Silverseren^C 02:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful! I have made the changes to User:Alexwillis/Colin Digiaro. Please let me know if I need additional references. Also, I've let the client know that we need the additional changes/new content..... Thanks again! Alexwillis (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you should add in the references you have listed above. If you need help getting them to work, i'd be glad to offer my assistance. Also, if there are any other available news sources besides Techcrunch, that would be good to use, as a bunch of articles from the same news organization still counts as only one source, in terms of notability. I think it still needs a bit of beefing up to be safe from deletion. Silverseren^C 05:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help so far: I have added some references to Colin's article, and not all from one source. A lot of the sources the client gave me were duplicate information and not really applicable, but if you think there are any specific statements that need documentation, let me know.

I have also input a first draft of the SGN article--the client would actually like the page to be named "Social Gaming Network (SGN)" with a redirect from SGN. Again, I have included references, but I welcome any comments you have about content or the need for more citations. Thanks!Alexwillis (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for taking so long to respond to this. I'm going to fix a few things up in the article drafts tomorrow and then see about putting them into mainspace. Silverseren^C 05:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

No worries! I think the only other page the client wants to make changes to is the MySpace page, so if you could, at your convenience, make a userspace draft of that one, I'll try to get the changes they want to make. Thanks!Alexwillis (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Update: They'd also like to make changes to Chris DeWolfe. They will be getting the changes to me hopefully this week. Thanks!Alexwillis (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I just found out that MindJolt is already an article, so we're going to just have to add the draft over there, not make a new one. Silverseren^C 20:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Silver seren asked me to do a history merge. However, I don't think Digiaro meets WP:BIO. The TechCrunch article is good, and discusses him, but it's pretty brief. PocketGamer appears to be promotional in nature, given that their tagline is "Promoting the mobile gaming business". I'm not convinced they qualify as either independent or reliable. Neither the Mashable article nor the Billboard article mention him. I don't see enough to meet either BIO or GNG, and if this were in main space, I'd probably nominate it for AfD. I won't nominate the current article yet (because I haven't done WP:BEFORE), but I am going to tag it for notability concerns. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Some possible additional references re: Colin Digiaro:

• "Social networks--future portal or fad?", ZDnet asia [1]
• "'Nice!' MySpace likes Borat", Forbes [2]
• "Mobile game discovery isn’t ready for primetime", Venturebeat [3]

Please note I have no connection to the subject of the article, beyond reading about it first here. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   12:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, my client would be happy to supply any necessary citations...just let me know what type of info is required....Alexwillis (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I would say that if you have any news sources (or other kinds of reliable sources, including industry specific news and magazines) that discuss Digiaro in some amount of detail, those would be good to supply. I think the main issue here is that most of the sources thus far are only mentioning Digiaro, but are generally about other subjects. Silverseren^C 06:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is an interview with Colin [4]

and a cruchbase profile: [5]Alexwillis (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the Crunchbase profile adds much really, but the interview is good. If you can find 2 (or more) things like that, it should be good.

Tomorrow i'm going to move over the SGN stuff, since I don't think there's any issues there. Notability is pretty evident. I just need to finish fixing up the references and maybe add a few more myself. Silverseren^C 06:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't really think the crunchbase thing was worth much. Let me check with the client and see if I can find anything else. Thanks!Alexwillis (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Mindjolt/SGN, I have moved over the userspace copy, completed the history merge (I had to leave of Silver seren's last edit to the old Mindjolt because of overlapping history, but I don't think it's a relevant loss), and moved the article to Social Gaming Network. Let me know what the Digiaro article is ready to merge in. Sorry that I don't have too much time to handle the drafts themselves, but at least I can be the designated admin merge-person :). Qwyrxian (talk) 09:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much! The only thing I would add is a redirect from SGN_(disambiguation). The client doesn't have anything else to add in the way of citations for the Colin Digiaro page. Would it be okay to just move it over as it stands? If it ends up being tagged for deletion for notability, well, then, that's the way it goes....Alexwillis (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll add the info to the SGN dab (though, to be fair, I think that's something so uncontroversial that you can do it without breaching COI). As for moving it, I can't (personally) do that, because I personally think it should be deleted; my moving it is essentially an endorsement of the article. If there are no more sources, probably the best step is to send the current article to AfD, and include a link to the draft article in the discussion (so that people can evaluate both). I'll wait for SS's input first; maybe there's some other process that might work. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Colin Digiaro article--Understandable. I wasn't sure on the SGN redirect, but I did go ahead and add the SGN website link and fix a capitalization error on my own. I figured nobody could have a problem with that....:) Alexwillis (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if this article helps at all--it's still more about the game, but it includes a couple of quotes from Colin, as well as some factual information. [6]Alexwillis (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

That does help a bit. The issue with Digiaro, the same issue with game developers in general, which is also shared in some part by journalists and reporters, is that the news reports on what he and others make, what they do, not about them. This makes it rather difficult to write an article on such people, which is why this one is a bit of a challenge. Silverseren^C 02:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Or, an alternate way of putting that is that most people aren't notable, even if projects they work on or businesses they play a large part in (even run or own), aren't notable. If either of you think you have a draft that's acceptable, let me know; if it's borderline, I'll leave aside my concerns and move it over. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

For the businesses, you meant "are notable", right? Silverseren^C 03:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the client has given me about all they can for Colin's article. As far as I'm concerned, the draft is acceptable--but I don't think I'm the one to judge in this case. They did come back with some comments about SGN, and some changes to MySpace and Chris DeWolfe--but they're still gathering feedback. I'm going to wait until they have everything together, in an effort to minimize the back-and-forth. I really appreciate both your efforts on this! Alexwillis (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I've agreed on my talk page to do a history merge on Digario tonight; the rationale is that, technically, you don't really need me to history merge, it just creates a clearer history (than having the rest of the history hanging out in your userspace). I do agree that your version is better than the current version, and if you didn't have a COI, you would have just edited these changes into the article directly. After I make the transfer, though, I may consider nominating the article for deletion; since it's clearly borderline, it would be at an AfD, which anyone, including you, could comment on for 7 days (though, if you do, you should probably mention your COI in the discussion). But I'd have to do my own checking first before I do that, so I may just ignore it...depends on how motivated I am. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I've done the move. I removed the one source that appears to be PR to me, and the sentence it supported. I'm not going to tag it for notability until I can look more on my own. Anyone else, may, of course, do so. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll keep an eye on it for a while, but ultimately it's probably up to the client to monitor on an ongoing basis. And if it goes to AfD, I'll definitely disclose COI in any comments I might make.Alexwillis (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Jesse Thomas (graphic designer)

{{Request edit}}

I'd like to propose a new draft, for a completely new article: User:WWB Too/Jesse Thomas (graphic designer)

The subject is the founder and CEO of creative agency JESS3, on whose behalf I have prepared it. Although there is no current article about him on Wikipedia, I believe the sources cited more than demonstrate his notability. Among these are dedicated profiles in Mashable, Modern DC Business, and Communication Arts magazine, among other secondary sources—some well-known, some known better in the arts and tech communities—included in this draft.

Here is a quick overview of the main information I've included in the article:

1. A short introduction, summarizing his career to date
2. The article is split into three main sections:
   1. "Early life": detailing his background and outlining his early interests in business and graphic design, to provide some context for his career.
   2. "Career path": outlining his educational background and career development prior to establishing his company. In particular, this section mentions his early freelance work.
   3. "JESS3": focusing on the foundation of the company and its development under his leadership, recognition of his work and the company's, including a few of their more significant projects. This section includes a hatnote pointing to the existing JESS3 article.
3. I have also included the usual infobox and external links (to the JESS3 website and Jesse's blog). There currently is not a photo of Jesse in the draft, but they have CC-licensed images to use, assuming the article is approved.
4. The disambiguation is necessary as Jesse Thomas is a dismbig page; if the article goes live, this should be added to it.

Overall, I have tried to include only details about Jesse Thomas that I considered encyclopedic and supported by reliable third-party sources. There may be some details that others feel have been given too much attention or too little, so I am open to any and all reasonable discussion. WWB Too (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, hey, Jesse. There's really no article on him? That's rather surprising. I'm willing to take full responsibility for this one without waiting for other people to respond. You okay with me going ahead and moving it into mainspace? Silverseren^C 02:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You bet. It's ready to go as presented, and once we come up with the right photo, I'll let you know. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 03:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. And I fixed the cats and any incoming wikilinks. Silverseren^C 04:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Terrific, thanks much! I also noticed you fixed the wikilinks in the JESS3 and Leslie Bradshaw articles, and thanks for doing so. Looking at the article now, I just saw that the final reference isn't where it should be. It's entirely my error, from the draft. Can you move that to the end of the last sentence for me? Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Academy of Achievement and Golden Plate awards

Consider this post less of a request and more of an FYI regarding a couple of ongoing discussions involving a client. First, my involvement with the Academy of Achievement article predates WP:CO-OP's establishment, but I've just posted a new request on that article's Talk page requesting a couple of small changes. Second, I've been discussing (with a friendly, uninvolved editor) the possibility of creating a list article called List of Golden Plate awardees, identifying notable recipients of the Academy's 50-year-old annual award. The most relevant discussion is on my Talk page here, and there are a couple of relevant exchanges on his Talk page, here and here. While I don't mean to rush, even as he's been quiet for a few days, I also think he wouldn't mind if someone else took interest as well. If anyone here would like to follow up either of these, please go ahead. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

A related article is EduCap, and today I've just proposed a new draft for it. The new draft is here, and my note on the EduCap Talk page is here. I've pinged the original creator of the article about it as well, so again I'm not necessarily asking for help here, but nor would I refuse! WWB Too (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Info updates and citing to company page

{{Request edit}}

Hello. I am an employee of Cryo-Save and interested in having our page updated. My "conflict of interest" is that I work for the company who's page I would like to edit. The last time I did anything to this page, my account was suspended and I had to go through a review process to get my name cleared. So I am very careful about not changing anything unless Wikipedia approves it. I was also told that I might need to provide more external references, but was not told by Wikipedia what info needed to be cited. Please let me know what parts of the article need citing so that I can find links.

Introduction should be updated as follows: Cryo-Save is Europe's largest cord blood bank with over 200,000 samples stored . It it is based in Zutphen, the Netherlands and operates in over 40 different countries. Certified laboratories and processing facilities can be found in the following locations: Arabia, Belgium, Germany, India, South Africa and the USA. Cryo-Save is a founding member and sponsor of ITERA. The company is listed on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange.

The Laboratories section should be updated as follows: Cryo-Save currently has processing and storage facilities in Arabia, Belgium, Germany, India, South Africa and the USA. Cryo-Save is also a member of Cord Blood Europe, a not-for-profit association of family cord blood banks in Europe, founded in 2009.

The following accreditations have been awarded to Cryo-Save's labs:

Arabia: AABB, Clinical Operating License by the Center for Healthcare Planning & Quality

Belgium: F.A.G.G., ISO 9001:2008

Germany: Herstellungserlaubnis nach deutschem Arzneimittelgesetz Akkreditierung vom Paul-Ehrlich-Institut

India: ISO 9001:2008, WHO GMP, AABB, with NABH and NABL all in progress

South Africa: The newest Cryo-Save lab having opened in September 2011.

USA: AABB

External links should be updated to:

• Cryo-Save Official site
• Cryo-Lip official site
• Cryo-Save Labs official site
• Category:Blood banks
• Category:Childbirth
• Category:Stem cells

Thank you!--CindyCord (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for someone not responding to you yet. I've got to get to sleep soon, but i'll deal with this tomorrow. Silverseren^C 03:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, C. Looking forward to working with you.--CindyCord (talk) 08:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added the updated info. I reworded a few small things and took off the in progress accreditations (they should be added once they are completed), but it's pretty much how you listed it here. Silverseren^C 02:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks great, Silverseren^C Thank you very much!--CindyCord (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Request Edits

I was just hoping to kindly bring attention to the request edit queue in hopes a volunteer contributor may be willing to devote some time to it. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 14:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I've listed a request on AN for some administrator's to work through it. No luck so far though. Silverseren^C 01:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request for Minor Change to Peabody Energy Page

Hi,

I proposed some minor changes to the info box financial info on the Peabody Energy article's talk page. Could someone please review the edits for me? Thanks. Namk48 (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

As SmartSE said, those sort of minor changes are things you can do yourself, as they are coming straight from the company itself. Silverseren^C 05:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Request completed by Canoe1967. Silverseren^C 01:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Guy Bavli

{{Request edit}} Hi folks. There is a discussion on Talk:Guy Bavli about WP:WEIGHT issues, and the {{coi}} tag. Please note I'm a Connected contributor to this article. Any input from non-connected parties would be appreciated. Thanks. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   20:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Sandbox draft for this BLP is in-progress at User:Eclipsed/Guy Bavli. Feel free to edit the draft, but first add yourself to the connected contributor list on the bottom of the draft if you are connected to the subject.

No one has yet addressed the {{coi}} tag on the Guy Bavli article. Can someone review the situation? Thanks. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   09:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

A draft rewrite/restructuring is now ready for review. I placed a {{Request edit}} message on Talk:Guy Bavli. Thanks. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   17:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

And a second draft incorporating some suggestions so far is now available on User:Eclipsed/Guy Bavli. Comments welcome. Thanks. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   20:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for the lack of response to this section. It's a bit late now, but tomorrow i'm going to poke the other members of the project to get them to be more involved in this page. Silverseren^C 02:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

With the recent changes made by SmartSE and myself, I think the Guy Bavli article draft may be ready for mainspace. Could someone take a look? Thanks. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   08:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is still the same as before, I think you've done a good job with the article and removing the unnecessary lists of shows and other things. It looks ready to go to me. Silverseren^C 02:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

thanks. If anyone has more suggestions for article improvement please feel free to post on the article talk page or here. The current draft at User:Eclipsed/Guy_Bavli seems to be a major improvement, and ready to be moved to mainspace. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   04:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Draft has been merged with the mainspace version, though there are still a few outstanding issues outlined on the talk page. Silverseren^C 21:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

New draft ready for review. Please see Talk:Guy Bavli#proposed update for details. Thanks. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   06:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Draft now in mainspace. Could someone do a quicky update and re-activate the Categories? Thanks ;) Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   00:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Silverseren^C 03:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Strayer University

Strayer University

{{Request edit}} I work for Strayer as an Online Community Manager, and I would like to see the current article become much better than it is. I have had some Wikipedia experience in the past, and I'm familiar with Wikipedia's policies regarding neutral point of view, verifiability, conflict of interest and reliable sources. So I'd prefer not to edit the article myself, and I hope that I can find assistance here. I also want to make it known that William Beutler (WWB) gave me some advice and support in preparing the draft as well as coming here to ask for help with the article.

Considering that the current Strayer University article is somewhat limited, I’ve written a new draft that expands on the current article to include more details about the university’s long history, its programs and its organization.

The structure and content were written based on University articles that have achieved GA status, such as the Georgia Institute of Technology and Massachusetts Institute of Technology articles.

With this draft, I’ve aimed to correct any details in the article and include only relevant, encyclopedic information to help tell the University’s story. It should be noted that some material currently in the article has been removed, specifically:

• Sandra Stollard is no longer with the University and when looking at other university articles, they do not tend to include historical information on their presidents.

• The repayment rate for federal loans in the introduction was taken out as it is out of context here.

The draft has 5 main sections, plus an introduction, references, and external links:

• The current "History" section is rather short, covering over 100 years within just two paragraphs and does not include any detail about the period between its foundation and 1969. Since it doesn’t adequately explain the history of the University, I’ve added some more detail on the early years and gone into more depth about its development since the 1980s.

• The "Campus locations" section has been renamed to "Campuses and online" and includes up-to-date details of the University's locations and its online offering.

• The "Academic programs" section is now just called "Academics" in the draft. I've split it into 3 subsections, providing information about the University's mission, its programs as well as accreditation and admissions requirements. It also includes details on the Jack Welch Management Institute programs, while the information about JWMI’s purchase has been moved into the "History" section.

• I've added a new section called "Faculty, students and alumni", which provides information on the University's staff, the demographics of its student population and notable alumni.

• The "Strayer Education, Inc" section now contains all the information about the company, separate from information about the University since these are two separate entities.

Something to note is that the information in this section about current chairman Robert Silberman's salary was actually incorrect, since the salary cited was not for one single year, but included stock grants that do not vest until 2019. I’ve clarified this by adding Strayer Education's proxy statement as a citation, where the details of the salary/stock grants are explained.

I eagerly anticipate feedback from other editors, and I will watch this page and respond to any questions as quickly as I can. --Hamilton83 (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for the lack of response to this section. It's a bit late now, but tomorrow i'm going to poke the other members of the project to get them to be more involved in this page. Silverseren^C 02:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I've notified an admin to look over the draft for neutrality and to implement it if they think it's fine. If they have any concerns, they'll bring them up here. Silverseren^C 05:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that, for the most part, the new version is much better. The only thing I disagree with is the removal of the Strayer Education, Inc information. If the company had its own article, I would be comfortable moving it all to that. But since it doesn't (and shouldn't have one--it's not notable enough for one), the correct place to "merge" that information is to the article on the university. At a minimum, the final sentence in that section is directly about the University, so should be incorporated somewhere into the text. I'm not going to move it in myself, because that implicitly gives me (the non-COI editor) an unfair advantage. Please feel free (including Hamilton83) to disagree. If there is no consensus here to include that section, then I'll move the draft over as is (without the holding company info), and start an RfC on the talk page. I'm going to notify the current talk page that there's an open issue here, just in case. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

So are you just referring to the final sentence in the current article in the Strayer Education, Inc section? The 52% of the revenue thing? Looking at the source, it appears to be talking about the college and not the corporation, so that should probably be somewhere else in the article, yeah. Silverseren^C 04:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm also looking at it--I have a few additional changes which I will make. And fwiw, we do always include info on former presidents. Most important, I agree with Qwyrian about the information on the Strayed Ed. Inc. It must stay in until it justifies a separate article. will move it in, as I think not just the two of us , but anyone else uninvolved, would also agree--it's very much standard practice. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, DGG. Silver seren, I meant that I think the whole section should be moved in, but I would be willing to hear arguments to the contrary; the last sentence of that section definitely needs to be moved in, and I would be surprised if someone could convince me otherwise. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait, i'm confused. Are you saying that the whole text of the Strayer Education Inc section should be somehow integrated into the text of the article without having its own separate subsection? Because the draft has it as a subsection right here, the only thing different from the current version is the removal of the last sentence regarding the 52%. Silverseren^C 17:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Um...yeah. So, I don't know how I missed that. I guess the only thing needed is to get that 1 sentence incorporated into the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and suggestions here. Regarding the 52% figure, I may have missed this as it was a relatively recent addition to the article. I've added the figure to my draft, however I do not believe that it is accurate. I'd prefer for the figure not to be included, but defer to other editors' views of whether it is necessary to include. So that all discussion is in the same place, and easy to find for everyone, I've added a full response on the Strayer University Talk page. --Hamilton83 (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi again all, since my last note I have updated the draft in my userspace per notes from DGG and explained the changes in full on the Strayer University Talk page. I haven't heard back yet, so I wonder if other editors who have reviewed the article would mind taking a look?

Regarding the 52% figure that has been discussed here, I've been looking into this a bit more and have found several sources from November 2011, which explain that the Senate Committee's findings were based on incorrect data. As you can see in this Businessweek report and this article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, the committee based their findings on two years of data rather than one.

The article begins:

A U.S. Senate committee corrected a September report about veterans benefits collected by for-profit colleges because it relied on incorrect data and overstated the amount the companies received.

Considering the cited newspaper report is based on incorrect data, I wonder if the claim should instead be removed. I'm not aware of any corrected version of the article.

But if you still feel that this data should be included, I believe that it belongs in the Strayer Education Inc. section. The holding company reports all revenues and profits, not the University. Also, the Businessweek report refers to SEI, not Strayer University and a previous Senate Committee report on the same topic also refers to SEI, rather than the University. (I have not been able to access the 2011 report as the website hosting it is not working.) For the moment, I have added this information to my draft, at the end of the Strayer Education Inc. section but would prefer not to include it if you agree this is ok. --Hamilton83 (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you've explained well enough why the sentence shouldn't be used. I agree with its proposed removal. Silverseren^C 21:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and have removed the sentence from the draft. I need to research how to do histmerges when there is overlapping history. I should be able to move it over no later than 12 hours from now. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. It was done basically as a regular merge; the draft copy is sitting on a subpage of the article's talk page, at Talk:Strayer University/Draft version. I did remember the categories this time; feel free to fix anything else i missed. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I really appreciate all of your help. Hamilton83 (talk) 12:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Robert X Browning

{{Request edit}} I'd like to request a review and update of one more page on behalf of C-SPAN, about the director of its archives, Robert X Browning. The current article is basically a stub, contains no citations and provides little information about Browning other than a list of his academic achievements and a (confused) sentence on his role with C-SPAN. I've aimed to expand the article to provide more encyclopedic detail on Browning's career, and particularly his role with C-SPAN. The existing version and my proposed replacement may be compared here:

• Robert X. Browning
• User:WWB_Too/Robert X Browning

The main differences between the current article and my draft:

1. My version refers to him correctly, per the sources, as Robert X Browning (with no period after the X). So the article should also be moved before or after the changes are implemented.
2. The new draft includes a short introduction, based on the current first sentence of the article.
3. Using information already in the draft, in addition to new, reliably sourced material, I've created two new sections:
   1. Education and academic career outlines Browning's academic achievements and provides new details about his role at Purdue.
   2. C-SPAN Archives details the history of Browning's involvement in developing the Archives and his current role. This is mostly new material, providing a clearer explanation of his career with C-SPAN.
4. The current Publications section has been renamed to Books in my draft. I've limited this section to Browning's books, as otherwise it could become quite lengthy if we included all his published papers.
5. To standardize the article, I've also added an infobox and renamed the Resources section as External links.
6. I've included as much encyclopedic detail as I could find in reliable sources. Most details of his academic career are taken from his bio on the Purdue University website and his c.v., also hosted on Purdue's website. Although primary sources, I believe they are appropriate for this kind of uncontroversial information.

Questions or comments? I look forward to others' feedback. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Pretty staightforward improvement. I've asked DGG to come and give a second opinion though. Oh, and DGG, if you think it's good, could you go and do a histmerge on it? Silverseren^C 19:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy reply, and great news. I'll keep a close eye on this page for any questions from DGG. WWB Too (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I made some changes to the faculty aspect of his career, in accordance with the way we normally do articles on academic faculty: Included his peer-reviewed articles (including deliberate red0links where we need articles) , clarified the nature of a publication, gave slightly fuller refs for his book, added title of the PhD thesis and name of his supervisor. I also tightened up wording a little, and replaced some of the uses of his name with "he". The use of primary sources was fine--but we would really like to add three pieces of personal information: Hometown, name of high school--we link to the article on him from the articles on the place and the school as Notable people from.... , and birthdate (or at least year of birth) . Ready to go. DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Changes look fine to me; I've adjusted some formatting, but otherwise I think it's ready. Having reviewed all of the public sources of information about him, I'm afraid some of that early life background information isn't available. Perhaps it's something I can suggest they make available at some point in the future. WWB Too (talk) 03:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I history merged the draft with the article, then moved it to Robert X Browning per the request on my talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for merging the article over. There are still a couple of final things:

• Looks like the move to Robert X Browning didn't take; I still find it at Robert X. Browning.
• Finally, a typo introduced in the editing process: where is currently in the 2nd graf of Education and academic career should be where he is currently.

With these small fixes, should be done. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 13:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I was rushing and didn't check my work. It should be correct now (and I got the typo too). Qwyrxian (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Super-close: the categories are still disabled... WWB Too (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I took care of it. Silverseren^C 21:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Article Approval?

Hello everyone. I've recently completed an article for a client at User:I'm Tony Ahn/Articles/Rajo Laurel. According to the protocol I've set up and am testing with various stakeholders, I'm asking if an editor with no COI could please evaluate the article and if it passes your review, please move it to mainspace. I invite you all to learn more about this public relations professionals editing process, which is in trial mode. This is the first article to be released under this protocol. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, just at a first glance, I note that most of the Galas, exhibitions, and collections section is unreferenced. You should probably fix that and really try to reference it with secondary sources and not primarily to his website. Silverseren^C 18:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Completely unsourced articles are put up as stubs, and that's okay, because anyone can improve them. The reason that PR professionals can't directly edit is primarily because of WP:NPOV and WP:N concerns. That's what people should be reviewing for. If its notable and neutral, it should be okay to move. Unless the reviewer is a deletionist, I suppose. Regarding your specific concern, his website is an appropriate source as per WP:SELFSOURCE. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

That's true. I was just thinking it would be a stronger article if that section was sourced, since it's the biggest section in the article. But the notability of the subject is quite clear from the sources you do have in the article, so you're right that it doesn't need to be sourced right this moment. Silverseren^C 00:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The one bad thing about it not being fully referenced is that it can't be submitted to DYK. And it's certainly long enough for it. Silverseren^C 00:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Fully sourced now. Thanks! I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

? Is reference 4 meant to be for all of the Galas section? Silverseren^C 01:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, all of it except the list, which is cited separately. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think its ready now. Anyone want to do the honors and move it? I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 00:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I extended ref #4 to cover all the paragraphs in that section. It looks good to me now. I'm going to go grab someone for a second opinion and then i'll move it over myself if they're fine with it. Silverseren^C 03:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Move completed. Silverseren^C 20:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Brookfield Residential Properties

I work with Brookfield Residential Properties as a consultant. Earlier today I created a page for Brookfield Residential Properties Inc. Forgive me, I'm new. I understand now I should have requested someone else create the page for me.

The article has been flagged for notability, primary source references, and needing to be re-written from a neutral point of view.

I would like to get assistance in making improvements to remove these flags. I've added my comments regarding these flags on the talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brookfield_Residential_Properties_Inc.).

I appreciate your help and guidance. Mandatea (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll start looking over this after I get up in the morning. Silverseren^C 06:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Silverseren. My request has been resolved. Mandatea (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Update to Emergent BioSolutions article

To editors on this help page, I am writing here on behalf of Emergent BioSolutions with a request to update the company's article to reflect the announcement that Fuad El-Hibri has retired as the head of the company. The retirement has already been the subject of third-party news sources, which may be used as citations.

Being aware that I should not make this edit myself, I have placed an edit request on the article's Talk page with suggested wording and citations. I would also like to ask here if any editor could make the appropriate changes. Thank you. --Stellatarum (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Already fixed by the time I got there, but I updated Fuad El-Hibri as well. Thanks for letting us know. :) - Bilby (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Michael Feldman

{{Request edit}}

I'd like to propose the creation of a standalone article about Michael Feldman (consultant), a former adviser to Al Gore and a co-founder of The Glover Park Group. It's on behalf of GPG that I researched, wrote and propose this article. My draft is here: User:WWB Too/Michael Feldman (consultant)

There should be enough coverage here to pass WP:NOTE and there is certainly enough to write a reliably-sourced account of his political and business career. This includes his most written-about moment, as one of the top campaign aides who persuaded Gore to challenge the 2000 election and go to a recount.

As per usual, I've disabled the categories, so if someone does move it, please re-enable them. Let me know if there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

As usual, it seems perfectly fine to me, well referenced and everything. If one other person could weigh in on being okay with this, i'll move it myself. Silverseren^C 00:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Silver. I belatedly realized there already is a Michael Feldman on Wikipedia, so I've moved my draft and updated the above link accordingly. WWB Too (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Due to the lack of response, i've gone ahead and taken responsibility for the draft and moved it to mainspace. Silverseren^C 02:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Very much appreciated. WWB Too (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

EduCap

I'd previously mentioned on this page that I've proposed a new draft for a company called EduCap. While at first I received a helpful response (from DGG), discussion has slowed, and I'd like to invite others to weigh in. Nothing whatsoever against DGG, he just seems pretty busy and I don't want to burden him with being my sole interlocutor.

For anyone just coming to this topic, my proposed draft is here, and my explanation / our discussion of it on the EduCap Talk page is here. Please note that I'm not adding a {{Request edit}} tag because I've already placed one there. Questions or comments? WWB Too (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I have not approved the draft: I have approved the draft if the necessary changes are made, either before the merge or after it. They have not yet been made. Since some of the material in the rewrite does come from the original, it has to be done as a history merge, or an ordinary merge, not by replacing the article entirely. Obviously, if it needs a histmerge, it'll take an admin, but if is an ordinary merge, is there any reason why WWB Too cannot make the edits themselves after it's been approved.? It seems quixotic to do this in a way which makes us do the mechanical work. I'm asking this as a general question, because the same problem arises whenever a replacement article is presented to us. DGG ( talk ) 17:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, DGG, I think the current situation does only make more work for helpful non-COI editors like you. But when the question—"Direct editing or talk page recommendations only?"—came up on this project's discussion page, I lamented that in asking for minor changes I've felt like I was pestering the good folks at WP:COI/N, various WikiProjects ... and so forth. For this comment I was rewarded with a reply from Jimbo about how it's critical that people in your position be completely restricted from making edits in article space. Prior to the re-opened discussion of paid editing and the creation of WP:CO-OP, I would often make direct edits following the agreement of an uninvolved editor; Dee Dee Myers is a good example. Now I don't dare, and I wish I had a better answer. WWB Too (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I've made a number of edits to the proposed draft based on DGG's feedback, and I have posted an explanation with links to diffs on the EduCap Talk page. WWB Too (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

After the multiple drafts, I've gone ahead and completed a merge. Please note though that I do have a question on the article's talk page about a possible undue imbalance. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

JESS3

{{Request edit}} On behalf of the creative agency JESS3—for whom I helped to create Jesse Thomas (graphic designer) with assistance here, and to improve Leslie Bradshaw previously—I've drafted a new version of the company's article, available now in my userspace: User:WWB Too/JESS3

The current article has become outdated and contains some information that is no longer accurate, while more recent notable projects and organizational developments are not mentioned. Also, the structure of the current article is confusing: several different sections focus on projects (Notable projects, Data visualization and Other projects) but there is not a clear distinction among them.

With the new draft, I've aimed to restructure the article to improve its clarity and to address the out-of-date information. In addition, I've extended the Background section to provide a better overview of the company's history and operations, and removed the unsourced and inaccurate Global hubs section, moving information about the company's locations into Background.

The following is a summary of the changes I've made in the new version:

1. Updated the introduction and infobox with accurate company information.
2. Extended the Background section, providing a more detailed overview of the company's history and incorporating details of the firm's current staff and locations.
3. Created a new Projects section that includes subsections on Data visualization, Video and Design and social media. This section incorporates information from the current Notable projects, Data visualization and Other projects sections. I have summarized some of the existing projects to focus only on the most notable information and also added details of newer notable projects.
4. Updated the JESS3 Labs section to include noteworthy non-client projects, i.e. those which received press and industry coverage.

All new information is cited to reliable secondary sources and also to JESS3's website where necessary for basic information about the company. This draft provides, I believe, a greater overview of the company than the existing article. If anyone here would like to review this article, I'd greatly appreciate it. If anyone decides to move it, please note that the categories and non-free logo image have been temporarily disabled. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I did a side by side comparison and it all looks good. Your organizing of the projects section is especially well done. I did a scan through the references too and, while you certainly used some obscure stuff in there, I checked a few of them out and they all seemed like reliable sources. It looks good to go. Silverseren^C 03:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Done! Thanks! Woz2 (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you! And just one more thing: as I mentioned on Woz's Talk page a moment ago, there is a missing space between "Facebook," and "ESPN" in the introduction. Upon closer review, I am chagrined to note there are several instances of missing spaces that somehow did not survive the copy-paste (note: they are present in my original draft). These would probably be the least controversial of non-controversial edits... but probably still better I don't. Here's the full list:

Resolved requests
Facebook,ESPN includedNike forSamsung howGoogle ofcloud andGowalla Forbesannounced Forbesmagazine Spilland theirweb Artsmagazine

If someone else can add one, that would be great. And if anyone knows how to avoid this in the future—although this is the first time I'm seeing it—that would be great, too. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 12:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll do it. The copy-paste did something funny to line breaks. Woz2 (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again, Woz. Very much appreciated. If I can ever be of help, don't hesitate to ask. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but one more minor thing: the categories need to be re-activated. I tend to agree that this type of stuff is the "least controversial of non-controversial edits", but still would rather not do any direct mainspace edits myself either. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   13:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, good catch. I mentioned this in the initial request, but didn't think about it this morning. I've already bothered Woz2 with enough minor changes today, so I'll leave this here for now as a standing request. For any non-COI editor reading this, would you please re-enable the categories on the JESS3 article?

Relatedly: perhaps WP:CO-OP could use a checklist, both for editors proposing new articles (remember to disable non-free images and categories in userspace drafts) and for editors approving them (remember to re-enable). Could be a useful section of the main page, linked at the top of the page here. WWB Too (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

And I see that Qwyrxian has done so. All set, then. WWB Too (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Lifestyle Lift‎

If anyone has some time, there's a new paid editor at Talk:Lifestyle Lift‎ and the corresponding article who could seriously use some guidance. I suggested he post here, but he seems to prefer the article talk page, and I'm short on patience this weekend and can't muster up enough to give him the heavy dose of help he needs. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk)

Hi FlufferNutter, I asked a more experienced COI contributor WWB Too to mentor the floundering Carguy911. Hope this helps prevent our FlufferNutter being turned into an UtterNutter :-) Woz2 (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I've just left a note on Carguy's Talk page, offering some advice on how he might better communicate his concerns here. So, I'll see what I can do help steer him back on track. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yesmail proposed deletion

Today the Yesmail articles was proposed for deletion, because of a claim of "inaccurate information". This seems more like an edit request, so I thought it might be relevant here. Note that I have no connection to the company, today being the first time I've heard of them. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   19:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I added an edit that I hope helps. Woz2 (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Noticed you also added a {{coi}} tag to the article. The {{coi}} cleanup backlog is huge, with over 6000 articles in the que. One way to help is to always add a message to the article talk page explaining why you added the coi tag. This will help other volunteers with cleanup. Thanks. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   05:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Done! Woz2 (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

New proposed article: Mindjet

{{Request edit}} On behalf of software company Mindjet, I've written a new article with the company as its subject:

• User:WWB Too/Mindjet

While one of the company's software products, MindManager, has its own article, there is no article about the company itself. I believe that the draft I've prepared shows that it meets the notability criteria in WP:CORP, as Mindjet is a large international software company and has been profiled by various third party news sources. The draft primarily relies on reliable secondary sources including Bloomberg Businessweek, TechCrunch, BBC News and InformationWeek. I have used Mindjet's website only to confirm basic details such as the company's leadership.

While there may be additional details about the company that other editors will want to include later, I've aimed for this draft to provide an overview of the company's history and current operations. Aside from the introduction, infobox, references and external links, the proposed article comprises two main sections:

• Company history includes details of Mindjet's founding, its funding and acquisitions. This section also provides information about the company's employees, locations and leadership.

• Products and services outlines the type of software that Mindjet develops and markets, including an overview of its two main products: MindManager and Mindjet Connect. This section also includes information about number of users and notable organizations and companies using its services.

I'd like to invite editors here to review the draft and provide feedback. If you agree that the company is notable and the article is neutral, I'd appreciate it if someone would move the draft into the mainspace. As always, I have disabled categories in the draft, so they will need to be restored once live. And I'll have a logo to include at that time, as well. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Done! Woz2 (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! WWB Too (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

lifestyle lift

Hi my name is David Kent and I am a facial plastic surgeon. I have been trying to add content to the Lifestyle Lift web site and trying to follow the "rules" but it seems like everyone has a different idea of the rules and everything I edit or add is rejected. I worked hard to add a section on NBC lawsuit with links to legal documents etc for weeks and then found someone just took it down. Now I am not a paid editor but for some reason everyone comments that I need to understand what the client wants. I am the client and know more then the editors about plastic surgery etc but I cant seem to get anywhere. I cant even find out how to talk to these people taking down everyhting I write. Help me please Im just a doctor. Please dont say read the help section etc as Ive dont that many times. can anyone help me? thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carguy911 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, David. I think editors involved with the page detected that you had a close personal interest in the article, and perhaps leapt to conclusions about your relationship to Lifestyle Lift. That said, this is a pretty good place to find assistance, and I'd like to recommend you read this information page which addresses some of the reasons you're having trouble getting your edits to stick.

Meanwhile, perhaps you can help us understand your situation. Can you explain, in as few words as possible, what is the situation? Think of the question not as what do you want to add to this article? but what is missing or inaccurate with the current version of the article? With that, we may have a better chance of finding a satisfactory compromise. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 22:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

thank you WBB. Let me start by saying Lifestyle Lift LL is the largest group of plastic surgeons in the world. The unique business model is totally disrupting the plastic surgery world. WHat has happened to our site is competitors have come on and turned out basic site into as much negative as possible. for example the second heading is claims and not about the business model and claims should be what the company claims ie what we do but other surgeons turned it into trademark infringement and a link to a NBC negative story. what does that have to do with claims. why cant I add the 40 other newscasts that claimed good things about the company. then it jumps to negative legal issues all put in by competitors and whenever I add a legal issue which the company prevailed it is removed even though I have the right links to the online legal documents. so its all just negative.

Next what should be on it is truely what people would want to know about lifestyle lift such as what procedures offered surgical and non surgical and the unique way they are performed a heading about our innovation center and projects we are researching as its the only one in the country for facial surgery. They are about to do the first robotic face lift- truely something important and revevant demographics and scientific survery results our unique business model

but none of that is in it and it just goes to end with a negative opinion of some doctor on branded face lifts which has nothing to do with us and no refrences etc.

SO I want to follow the rules and add the right language but even when its done right it is removed. IM very frustrated. sorry David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carguy911 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, good, so now we know what you want to add. Now to add it, we need reliable sources. We would like to minimize the amount of primary sources (ie information directly from your company website) and focus on using secondary sources (ie news articles, published books, academic papers, ect). Therefore, the next question is, do you know of any secondary sources that discuss the information that you would like to add? We can help you look, if you'd like. Silverseren^C 23:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is a section that had 2 outside refrences and was totally removed because the guy said it didnt have refrences News NBC Lawsuit - - LIFESTYLE LIFT sues NBC10 - - The plaintiffs (collectively, "Lifestyle Lift") originally brought suit against defendants NBC affiliate WCAU-TV L.P. (a.k.a NBC 10), NBC Stations Management, Inc., NBC Stations Management II, Inc., NBC Universal, Inc., reporter Lu Ann Cahn, undercover agents Jane Doe I and Jane Doe II (collectively, the "NBC defendants"), and Dr. Louis Bucky on a variety of claims arising from a newscast critical of the Lifestyle Lift procedure. The Court finds that the plaintiffs LIFESTYLE LIFT have come forward with sufficient evidence establishing that the six statements are defamatory because they are arguably false and the plaintiffs plainly have suffered actual harm as a result of the defendants' conduct. Second, there is ample evidence from which a jury could determine that the patient's description of the procedure was substantially false. The nature of the procedure, "a short-flap, variable incision SMAS-plication facelift," Resp. Br., Ex. 1, Kent Aff. at ¶ 10, is basically undisputed. If a jury credited this testimony, it reasonably could conclude that Cahn (NBC 10) acted with actual malice when she published the statement suggesting that Lifestyle Lift misrepresented the risks and benefits of the procedure to patients. Link -

This is where it gets a bit more complicated. First off, whoever it was was wrong, because you do have referenced, that is clear. However, there is a certain way to format then, which i'll get into later. For now, let's focus on the references themselves. The FindACase link doesn't appear to work in the first place, though I assume it is court documents just like the Citmedialaw one is. The problem with both of these is that, since you're discussing a court case, the court case documents count as primary sources, because they are the actual subject material. What we need in a situation like this is news coverage or other kinds of coverage about the case that is not official documents. Also, the section is a bit too detailed, but that can be fixed at another point. Silverseren^C 18:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I've gone through some of the citations in the "Astroturfing" section, and it turns out that quite a few are primary sources, several of which are now dead links. From what I can tell, the two significant sources here are "Suit ties death of woman to face lift" in the Boston Globe and "Company Settles Case of Reviews It Faked" from The New York Times. Moreover, the header "Astroturfing" is a value-laden label and, I think, inappropriate. I haven't studied the Lawsuits section as closely, but it seems that there are similar issues. At a glance, "Cosmetic surgery gets cheaper, faster, scarier" in USA Today covers some of these controversies. I do think there is something of a WP:COATRACK situation going on here; these topics deserve to be addressed, but at this length and in this detail? I'd propose a rewrite here that would be much more concise. Also to clarify: this note is primarily for Silver or another editor; don't worry if you don't understand all of this, David. WWB Too (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you I appreciate your help but I dont understand and what should I do to help? Can I hire someone to rewrite? or what else? thanks David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carguy911 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

WWB has helped by supplying some news sources covering the information. How you can help is by finding more news coverage of Lifestyle Lift. Any more news coverage about the lawsuits would also be useful. Silverseren^C 22:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Is wikipedia for Lifestyle Lift about lswsuits or about the company, doctors, unique business model, procedures etc? Is the goal to give readers usefull information or to have a place for competitors to wrtie about lawsuits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carguy911 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

About the company, obviously. Like I said, any more news coverage about the company that you can link to would be extremely helpful. The news sources on the lawsuits are helpful in making sure those sections are accurate and not defamatory. Though I think WWB has that covered, now we need more news sources about the company itself. Like this one. It's just a bit harder because so many news sources are focusing on the controversies. It looks like Highbeam is going to be helpful though, I just found this, this, this, and this. Silverseren^C 19:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Silver, I could probably write up an alternate version of those sections, although I wouldn't be able to get to it until the second half of the week. And as I've indicated above: it would be a lot shorter, too. I do think the sheer number of words included, and details selected, are highly POV and intended to paint the company in the worst possible light. The same incidents could be described in more neutral language, which is what I'd plan to do. I don't have Highbeam access, but whatever you might find there, I could surely find on Nexis. Want to suggest some links for me? Oh, and it probably would not hurt for me to note that I am not working with Mr. Kent, and have never communicated with him outside of this thread and on his Talk page. WWB Too (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You should really apply for Highbeam access, like Woz said below. Anyways, i'll just do full citations for them:

Rochelle Nataloni (January 1, 2008). "'Lifestyle' lifts". Dermatology Times. Retrieved May 9, 2012.

"Debby Boone Becomes Lifestyle Lift Spokesperson and Infomercial Talk Show Host". Entertainment Close-Up. December 14, 2011. Retrieved May 9, 2012.

Staff writer (August 5, 2009). "Lutronic Becomes Official Laser for Lifestyle Lift". Biotech Week. Retrieved May 9, 2012.

Jessica Fargen (March 15, 2006). "Mini-facelifts have big fans - and big foes". The Boston Herald. Retrieved May 9, 2012.

That work for you? Silverseren^C 02:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep, thanks. I've got started a bit already, so I think I can post up a draft section by tomorrow afternoon. WWB Too (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

WWB Too and Silver seren, Thanks for helping Carguy911. Side note: You might be able to get a free one-year Highbeam account at WP:HighBeam/Applications hth Woz2 (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite of Legal issues

OK, I think I've put together a pretty solid, neutral overview of the "controversy" sections, which is shared in the collapsed box—both formatted and as markup—here:

Proposed replacement

Complaints Marketing practices In 2009 Lifestyle Lift reached a settlement with New York state over claims it had posted false customer endorsements on third-party websites, including RealSelf.com, and on some websites the company had created for the purpose. Lifestyle Lift was ordered to pay $300,000 dollars to the state, and it agreed to cease the practice. In 2010, the Florida Attorney General's office opened an investigation to determine whether Lifestyle Lift's marketing practices constituted deceptive advertising. Lifestyle Lift claimed its procedures were safer, less expensive, with faster recovery times. According to USA Today, Lifestyle Lift's advertising used the term "revolutionary" to describe a variation on longstanding face-lift procedures. Safety issues In 2008, an Orlando, Florida plastic surgeon filed a complaint with Florida Board of Medicine, seeking payment for emergency room services he provided to a Lifestyle Lift patient; the company denied that it was negligent in the case. Lifestyle Lift was also the subject of a March 2010 lawsuit filed by the family of a Massachusetts patient who died as a result of complications with local anesthesia in July 2009. The suit alleged that doctors failed to monitor the woman's vital signs during the procedure; in a statement, Lifestyle Lift responded that the the woman had failed to disclose pertinent medical information. In an August 2011 lawsuit filed in Broward County, Florida, a patient claimed she developed keloid scars within days following a Lifestyle Lift facelift, and that the doctor had lied about the risks of scarring. In a statement to the press, Lifestyle Lift indicated disagreement with the "accounting of events" described in the suit, and said it remained supportive of its surgeon. References ==Complaints== ===Marketing practices=== In 2009 Lifestyle Lift reached a settlement with [[New York]] state over claims it had posted false customer endorsements on third-party websites, including RealSelf.com,<ref name=Miller>{{cite news |title=Company Settles Case of Reviews It Faked |author=Claire Cain Miller |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/technology/internet/15lift.html?_r=2 |newspaper=The New York Times |date=15 July 2009 |accessdate=9 May 2012}}</ref> and on some websites the company had created for the purpose.<ref name="O'Donnell">{{cite news |title=Cosmetic surgery gets cheaper, faster, scarier |last1=O'Donnell |first1=Jayne |url=http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/basics/story/2011-09-14/risks-low-cost-cosmetic-surgery/50409740/1 |newspaper=USA Today |date=20 September 2011 |accessdate=11 May 2012}}</ref> Lifestyle Lift was ordered to pay $300,000 dollars to the state, and it agreed to cease the practice.<ref name=Miller/> In 2010, the [[Florida Attorney General]]'s office opened an investigation to determine whether Lifestyle Lift's marketing practices constituted deceptive advertising. Lifestyle Lift claimed its procedures were safer, less expensive, with faster recovery times. According to ''USA Today'', Lifestyle Lift's advertising used the term "revolutionary" to describe a variation on longstanding face-lift procedures.<ref name="O'Donnell"/> ===Safety issues=== In 2008, an [[Orlando, Florida]] plastic surgeon filed a complaint with Florida Board of Medicine, seeking payment for emergency room services he provided to a Lifestyle Lift patient; the company denied that it was negligent in the case.<ref name="O'Donnell"/> Lifestyle Lift was also the subject of a March 2010 lawsuit filed by the family of a Massachusetts patient who died as a result of complications with local anesthesia in July 2009. The suit alleged that doctors failed to monitor the woman's vital signs during the procedure; in a statement, Lifestyle Lift responded that the the woman had failed to disclose pertinent medical information.<ref name=Saltzman>{{cite news |title=Suit ties death of woman to face lift |author=Jonathan Saltzman |url=http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/03/04/suit_ties_death_of_woman_to_face_lift/?page=1 |newspaper=The Boston Globe |date=4 March 2010 |accessdate=9 May 2012}}</ref> In an August 2011 lawsuit filed in [[Broward County, Florida]], a patient claimed she developed [[keloid]] scars within days following a Lifestyle Lift facelift, and that the doctor had lied about the risks of scarring.<ref name="Bekiempis1">{{cite news |title=Face-Lift Permanently Disfigures Broward Woman, Lawsuit Claims |last1=Bekiempis |first1=Victoria |url=http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2011/08/lifestyle_life_surgery_keloid.php |newspaper=New Times Broward-Palm Beach |date=30 August 2011 |accessdate=11 May 2012}}</ref> In a statement to the press, Lifestyle Lift indicated disagreement with the "accounting of events" described in the suit, and said it remained supportive of its surgeon.<ref name="Bekiempis2">{{cite news |title=Plastic Surgeon Plans on Fighting Disfigurement Claim |last1=Bekiempis |first1=Victoria |url=http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2011/09/plastic_surgeon_plans_on_fight.php |newspaper=New Times Broward-Palm Beach |date=1 September 2011 |accessdate=11 May 2012}}</ref>

About the changes: I think the heading Legal issues is a bit vague; all of these stories are indeed complaints (some but not all are lawsuits) so I'd suggest Complaints as a parent section. As previously indicated, I think "Astroturfing" is prejudicial, whereas Marketing practices describes one type of complaint, while Safety issues describes the other. Other variations may work, too.

Of the topics addressed in the article now, some form of each remains, save for the Mary Faktor suit; I couldn't find any reliable secondary sources about it, plus it was apparently dismissed. I focused on the reliable sources in the article's current version, as well as one other that I found; I looked around for later coverage of the same incidents, without much luck. As is often the case, the original filings were accompanied by news coverage, but for all but the New York AG case, any subsequent resolutions apparently have not.

So, I think that's about it. I'll leave it to someone else to decide whether to use some or all of what I've prepared. And please feel free to move this over to the Lifestyle Lift discussion page, if need be. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and implemented the section. It's very clearly a better summary of the complaints and controversy, with better referencing, and it doesn't go into such undue detail like the prior version did. Silverseren^C 22:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

There was a tiny error on two of the refs (missing | before last1=). I went ahead and fixed it as a NCE[7][8]. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 08:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Silver and Eclipsed. Much better! WWB Too (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Updates for PG&E article

Hi, I work for PG&E, whose article is in need of updating. Based on what I know about Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest, I probably shouldn't be the one to make edits to the article, so I'd like provide suggestions and work with anyone who is willing to help.

Right now, I am trying to seek help updating the article's infobox with financial information and employee numbers for 2011. I have added a message to the article's Talk page with the new information and citations, but there have been no responses so far. Would someone from this WikiProject make this edit for me? I'll keep this page on my watchlist, as well as the PG&E Talk page, so replies on either page are fine. Thanks, --PParmley (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like this was completed. Silverseren^C 02:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

AT5

Hi folks. I created a proposed stub for AT5, a television station in the Netherlands. (The station already has an article in the Dutch Wikipedia.) Could folks give it a look over in regards to all the usual NPOV/Promotional wording/notability/etc. I've added myself as a Connected contributor on the talk page, with a {{Request edit}}. Please see User:Eclipsed/AT5. Thanks! -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 21:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I just went ahead and moved it. It's short enough and the information straightforward enough that I don't see an issue. Silverseren^C 02:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to help out with expanding the article, too. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 06:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I finished the AT5 citation review, and added another Request edit on Talk:AT5#Requested_citation_updates. This time it's kinda a big list, 20+ proposed changes to a variety of diffferent articles (see User:Eclipsed/AT5 citations) I kinda feel bad about submitting such a large request, and I would not hesitate to help with updating the articles if there was a consensus on the talk page that it would be helpful for me to do so. Thanks. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 15:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Updating page along guidelines for college and university articles

I am a PR professional who does work for Stevens Institute of Technology. I made an ask on the Stevens Institute of Technology Talk page and placed a Request Edit tag in that ask about two weeks ago, but since it hasn't had a response yet, I thought I would include a link to that request on this page. Please see link below for the details. Thank you for the assistance! QueenCity11 (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stevens_Institute_of_Technology#Updating_page_along_guidelines_for_college_and_university_articles

I'm going to make a post on the Administrator's Noticeboard to get some of them to start working through the Request Edit backlog. Hopefully that will get someone, or several someones, to respond to your request. Silverseren^C 05:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! An administrator who often works with university articles started reviewing the page and provided feedback which I'll be working through. Thank you again. QueenCity11 (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)