Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hipocrite (talk | contribs) at 16:36, 17 February 2015 (→Casting aspersions: I've got 43mm reasons, and you aren't one). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user is only human. If he has made a mistake, please be civil in explaining the error. This editor also reserves the right to remove uncivil comments from his own Talk page and report personal attacks to the appropriate boards.

Additional COI edit requested for Russell Investments page

Hello Corporate M. Hope you are well.

I have made a COI request for edit on the Russell Investments page, which you have edited previously.

If you have two seconds to take a quick look I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

Here's the request for ease of reference:

COI request for edits to company ownership information

Northwestern Mutual is no longer the parent company of Russell Investments. The London Stock Exchange Group completed its acquisition of Russell on December 3, 2014.

Press release issued by LSEG is available here: http://www.lseg.com/resources/media-centre/press-releases/completion-acquisition?_ga=1.64066927.1317695618.1423507001

Kosterberg (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 18:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Kosterberg (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Question about Violin Memory page edits

Hello CorporateM.

I noticed that last week there was a question about Violin Memory information that I added to their wikipage. As requested, I was trying to make the updates to follow Misplaced Pages guidelines for information and found it had all been taken down and replaced with older (and now incorrect) information.

Would it be possible to reinstate the new information? If there are concerns about the info posted, please let me know so I can address them.

My concern is that the information as listed now is wrong - for example - the company is public, is located in Santa Clara, California and the CEO is Kevin DeNuccio.

Please let me know how we can resolve this together.

Thank you in advance for your time.

Cyndib810 (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)cyndib810, Feb. 11Cyndib810 (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@Cyndib810: I restored an infobox from a prior version of the article, not realizing the information was incorrect. I've corrected it now. CorporateM (Talk) 20:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM: Thank you for your quick response. However the information is still not entirely correct. Under Key People, Donald Bastille is listed and he's no longer with the company. And the company no longer resells PCIe and SAN tech, so I wanted to update it with what is currently correct for the company. Is it alright for me to do this? I want to make sure I comply with Misplaced Pages guidelines to provide correct information. Please let me know the best way to make updates. Cyndib810 (Talk) 20:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you affiliated with the company? Generally even if you are, correcting infobox data is ok. Most of the content in there such as current CEO, revenues, etc. can be updated using primary sources like the annual report or website. CorporateM (Talk) 20:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Cyndib810 (Talk) 20:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Wild Games Studio

Hi CorporateM, hope you are doing well. I have a bit of an interesting article to run by you that discusses questionable corporate behavior, and I am interested in what an expert in Misplaced Pages articles of corporations has to say about it. The situation is this: I learned of some questionable tactics of a video game developer called Wild Games Studio while reading about it a year after the fact, then went to the article of their corporation and also the article Day One: Garry's Incident, the video game they developed. I saw that both articles were a slight mess and simply tidied them up and thought no more about it. Today I remembered them and wondered if the articles in their current form comply with all the expected Misplaced Pages guidelines regarding corporations. Since I find stories of corporate malfeasance interesting I wondered if you did also. If you feel like it, let me know what you think. Prhartcom (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: Most of the client work I accept are orgs with positive reputations, because those are the ones that will be happy with a neutral article. So I enjoy the idea of working on corporate corruption-type content, but I often find the editing environment to be too toxic. Many editors on those pages have agendas, strong views, or COIs. For example, I really want to bring astroturfing up to GA, but then I know I would have to fight against every editor that tries to add some trivial, not historically significant example, of astroturfing that they are personally offended by, but has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia.

Anyways, you'll see my comments on the AfD for the org page. Weighing in at $7 million in revenues and a few years of history, I'm not sure they are actually notable. Regarding Day One: Garry's Incident the current article seems to focus exclusively on the topic of attempts to censor or manipulate online reviews and the Plot section has an unacceptable source. As a starting point, I'm wondering if the article should be renamed to something that focuses exclusively on the controversy, like Day One: Garry's Incident Controversy (hopefully something better if anyone can think of one). Then we can remove the "Controversy" section that dominates the article and just make each sub-section a top-level section-header. CorporateM (Talk) 17:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, the environment can be toxic all right. (The only reason I ever started working on that other article that you reviewed for me last month was because I had been fascinated at all the toxicity; that one used to have terrible COIs in both directions and I made it my project to try and neutralize it all, which I believe I somewhat achieved there, but of course later found out that is not the same thing as presenting a complete, good quality article!) This article I mention today had no COI editors; I simply cleaned it up one afternoon after the article had already stabilized (both previously had suffered from a lack of cohesion and both previously had terrible copy/paste issues: text was duplicated in both articles). Just now, what you did surprises me, but on reflection I agree with it since all the corporation is notable for is their controversy that year; there is no Corporate History section in the article, etc. Regarding the article about the game, I see what you mean; a game article would normally have a Game play, Plot, Development, and Reception section. Not sure about going so far as renaming it, though, but I probably wouldn't object (and the name you propose sounds fine since people would no doubt search for it by name of the game). I doubt I have the energy to put any more effort into the articles. Mainly I was wondering if you think the articles by any chance cross a line similar to the line we have for BLP, i.e. do the articles ever go too far when describing the controversy. I suppose you think they do not, since you did not comment about that. Thanks for taking a look at it; it's interesting to hear your opinion. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Update: I took a look at the source of the Plot section to see what's wrong with it. Hey, the last time I checked that link, that website (a software distribution company) had provided a plot summary. I suppose that's what you meant. Prhartcom (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: I haven't looked at the article closely enough yet to evaluate whether it is fair. Lets start with the article-title. I'll start a discussion.

Since this org is defunct, it is unlikely to have a COI participant from the company and making sure they are treated fairly is less important than it otherwise would be.

A large ratio of editors contributing to BLP or org pages are either the article-subject, a fan, or antagonist. None of these categories of editors demonstrate a tendency to be neutral, but they are also the only ones with an interest in the subject. The end result tends to be a lot of borderline attack content, promotion or both mixed in and not a lot of neutral articles. CorporateM (Talk) 18:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, like I said, I have first-hand, in-the-trenches experience with all those types of editors. I see your move discussion; I may stop by there later. Important note: After the day I massaged those articles, I notice that a couple of editors have come along to the corporation article and changed it to a defunct company. I still haven't checked into whether or not that is true. I recall now, I noticed later that their website had shut down, so probably so has the company. Prhartcom (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The thing about POV pushers, in my opinion, is whether they can be reasoned with. With the help of a good moderator that is confident and knowledgeable about best practices and content norms, conflicting COIs or agenda-pushers can actually collaborate in good-faith, create good articles and go on to make other useful contributions. We actually do want to recruit them and hope they contribute not only to that article, but others as well. OTOH, if they cannot be reasoned with, these are the editors we generally don't want here at all. CorporateM (Talk) 20:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for editing your proposal yesterday; that was inappropriate and I'm sorry about that. Your proposal was incorrect (and remains so) in the two ways I mention in the comment I made today below the proposal. Prhartcom (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

No worries. CorporateM (Talk) 18:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you for that, what a relief, because that really was wrong of me and I appreciate your forgiveness. I left a comment on the move proposal expressing what I absolutely believe is accuracy and, while you may not agree with it, I hope you respect me for it as much as I truly do respect you. See you around. Prhartcom (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: I think you misunderstood; I was referring to the point-of-view that there actually was copyright infringement as a potential fringe view, not the other way around. In other words, your comments are supporting, not opposing my depiction. CorporateM (Talk) 22:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

damn right it's unsubstantiated

-- did you find anything? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Busy with other stuff + I am not an expert at how socks/meats are investigated (it seems very time-consuming). However, as I was typing out my message I noticed that the two of you were consistently posting within 1-5 minutes of each other with a similar message and attitudes. It's hard to imagine that you two both happen to be online at the same time and be watching my contribs so closely as to respond within 1 hour of my posting. Both accounts have incredibly similar attitudes and have an amount of alignment that is statistically unlikely. For example, it is statistically unlikely for there to be two editors with a strong interest in a marginally notable BLP, to also have very similar views, to also stalk my contribs, to both claim their edits are up for auction, to "agree completely" with one another, to consistently be online at the same time, and to both be outliers with similar views in situations where consensus was overwhelmingly in the opposite direction.

A quick look at edit-counts and editor interaction analyzer however suggest that my experiences are representative of a generally combative editing pattern and either a lack of understanding or desire not to follow BLP. Also that both accounts do not share enough articles to exist for the sole purpose of socking (at the least). However, I did not look closely enough - just skimmed. If I had to guess, I would guess that the two of you were collaborating off-line (perhaps fellow WVU students?), but not that you are socks. CorporateM (Talk) 08:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Hipocrite: what do you think -- are we both fellow WVU students?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Not being paid enough to respond. Hipocrite (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC). However, if I were a WVU student, I would have started editing wikipedia at age 11, correct? Seems unlikely. Hipocrite (talk) 13:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Casting aspersions

It is against policy to cast aspersions at other editors. Stop doing so. Hipocrite (talk) 13:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Hipocrite: In all seriousness, can you confirm whether you are legitimately offering to leave articles alone for $1k or agree with anything an editor says for $5k? You mentioned that you have previously made it clear that this is the case, but I don't know of a practical way to find out where else you have made the offer. This seems to contradict your prior statement that it was unethical for a BLP representative to use more than one notification, while simultaneously offering your edits at auction, so I presumed this is a sarcastic comment? CorporateM (Talk) 16:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it's as ethical as - if not more ethical than - what you do, but of course it's a sarcastic comment. Further, you have AGAIN attributed to me things I have not said - "it was unethical for a BLP representative to use more than one notification." How much are you being paid to defame me? Hipocrite (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)