User talk:WWB Too/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

WikiProject Cleanup

Hello, WWB Too. You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Center for Copyright Information

Of course, I can't make any promises, but I'd be happy to take a look at your Center for Copyright Information draft, notes, or whatever and offer feedback, at the very least. Is it safe to assume you have Copyright Alert System ideas as well? :) Anyway, feel free to create User:WWB_Too/CCI or User:Mjb/CCI if you don't want to use the article talk pages. —mjb (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll share it when ready; it will be a complete draft, and I'll post it in my own user space. About Copyright Alert System, I do have some thoughts on it, particularly since you've moved a good bit of that over from the old CCI article, and then I see another editor has flagged it as undue. Likewise, I can't make any promises about my next focus, but I would like to help improve that one, as well. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Oops

A long time ago I meant to apologize for accidentally getting involved in one of your articles. I didn't know it was you, because the username belonged to a new editor you had hired.

I reverted myself here after seeing it was another article under your wing in a COI capacity.

I just wanted to let you know both times were completely by accident. I would consider it highly inappropriate for me to get involved in your articles. Just didn't know. CorporateM (Talk) 14:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry CorporateM but I felt obliged to revert your revert, see the article talk page for explainishments. Herostratus (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

So, this is a pretty unusual situation. To both of your edits / comments, I have more than one opinion. In the first place, CorporateM, I do prefer that you not edit my articles, since we are competitors at least in theory. To that end, I have my concerns about you mediating other PR and COI editors' requests, but I only mention it because the topic has come up here; I don't particularly wish to interfere with your business (as it were) either.

And Herostratus, I think you have an interesting take on edits as non-withdrawable even by the same editor, although I don't share it. If I had reverted the edit without explanation, I think that would have been a WP:OWN violation, and I would have been in the wrong (also, I don't directly edit client articles). But I think CorporateM reserves the right to change his mind about an edit for any reason. (That said, I'd be interested in hearing additional views on the subject.)

Now, leaving the realm of theory, and discussing the actual changes to the article: the truth is, I don't have a problem with them. The short list of noteworthy clients in the lede is arguable, and so is the order of sections. Solely on a content basis, I think it's a perfectly reasonable change, and I have no intention of contesting them. Anyhow, very interesting here; consider me interested in hearing further thoughts from either of you, or anyone else who might be lurking. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 12:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't responded, will do so soonest. --Herostratus (talk) 07:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Responded on the article talk page. Herostratus (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject C-SPAN?

Greetings fellow Wikipedia editor -

I am leaving you this note because I have reason to believe that you are interested in C-SPAN. (I may have made this assumption based on your C-SPAN user box, or perhaps for some other reason.) If this is not an interest of yours, please feel free to read no further and delete this message.

If you are in fact someone who is interested in C-SPAN, then let me put forward an idea that I have been kicking around for a while. What if we started a C-SPAN WikiProject?

The parameters of this (potential) project are up for discussion, but it could include some or all of the following (as well as things that may occur to you that have not occurred to me):

• Creation, maintenance, and improvement of articles and lists directly related to C-SPAN and its programming.
• Use of C-SPAN programming in citations for various topics
• Inclusion of unique and targeted C-SPAN video links for various articles. (Doing this with respect for established guidelines at Wikipedia:External links.) (Example: If you are interested in the submarine USS Wyoming (SSBN-742), then having easy access to the eight hours of programming taped while a C-SPAN crew were guests on that submarine could also be of interest to you.)
• Inclusion of (and possible further creation of) templated links such as {{C-SPAN|laurabush}}, that will easily take article readers to a link of all C-SPAN Video Library links for the person about whom the article is about.
• What else?

I don't know exactly how far we may want to go, nor in what directions, but I do believe (as I have long noted on my user page) that C-SPAN and Wikipedia are both...

...fantastic vehicles for the free exchange of ideas and information in a non-sound-bite manner, and they both invite the participation of any parties (expert or amateur) who are interested in taking the time to absorb and/or contribute to the ideas and information offered. C-SPAN and Wikipedia go together like peanut butter and jelly, and I want to help give other Wiki users easy access to the great work that C-SPAN has done on a variety of topics.

Now, I should mention that I have never started a WikiProject before, and I do not know the best way to go about it. (Perhaps one of you do?) Let me offer one of my sandbox pages, User:KConWiki/sandbox/Wikiproject C-SPAN?, as a gathering area for comments until such time as we gather enough steam to start our own WikiProject page.

Thanks for reading this far, and I hope that you will give some consideration as to whether this is something we ought to attempt. Please feel free to pass this message on to others you know whom might be interested, and please let me know your thoughts and comments.

KConWiki (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Heh

You actually took my advice to heart about wikilinking newspaper names in references. That just makes me happy, I don't know why. <3 Silverseren^C 21:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Silver! It might sound a bit cheesy, but I'm always trying to hone my craft. And that was an excellent suggestion. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: John Mackey (American football)

More than happy to have a look. Again, your handling of your conflict of interest is beyond admirable. Cheers, Stalwart111 23:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I really appreciate that! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 01:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done with some notes on the article talk page about the arrangement of sections. Cheers, Stalwart111 08:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

JESS3?

Someone just updated the article with this. Is this true? If so, then I think our article needs to be updated a bit. Silverseren^C 03:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

True indeed, I'm sorry to say. And as you might expect, I am no longer working with JESS3, but I agree the page should be updated, and I'm happy to help—in the same hands-off capacity. That said, the only reporting about the latest developments has been this Gawker article, so I'm not entirely sure what should be changed at this point. What do you think? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 03:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure. An IP recently changed the number of employees to 0, which I reverted because I thought it was vandalism, but it looks like that may be accurate. So, is the company completely shut down at this point? If so, at the very least, we need to make sure everything is changed to past tense. Silverseren^C 03:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the Valleywag/Gawker article itself is accurately reported, but the change you mention implies too much (if it's only Jesse, then it's 1, not 0). In the case of that infobox parameter, perhaps removing it for now would be the best thing. But it's safe to say the company no longer employs 30 people. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 03:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Sandbox

Here is one source] from my ftp in case you have problems downloading it from Mr. Therro's sites as I did. I have a few more RS that are formatted on the talk page of the other sandbox. All the images just choked at OTRS because I had forwarded all the license emails from my email address. There are all legit so the OTRS volunteers should accept them without having to send emails back to ten photographers. Chanel actually produced most and has the rights but contacted her photographers for licenses anyway to keep things more kosher. Those are the ten I forwarded. I can see your point at the article needing to be far shorter than it is. I think we can keep those nice tables that I spent hours formatting though. Once it goes live and her fans find it then we may have a huge edit fest from IPs. That is all part of Wikipedia fun though. I will try and datamine the net some more for new sources in the next few days. It is always media season in California so there should be more out now.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I haven't done any work on the draft in my userspace yet, but I have some early thoughts after looking at the sources: the best sources by far seem to be the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal and Playboy, although I didn't speak up in time to get a HighBeam account, so I'm not able to see what's in there. The Elite Daily website may count, although I found something a bit concerning: the text contains a significant degree of overlap with Alwayz Therro. I'm not sure what I make of the former site, but the latter magazine seems unambiguously self-published, and in either case it seems likely that it may have come from her press kit. Meanwhile, I don't see much value in the ComiCon interviews, since they're mostly focused on the convention experience and then just a little about her acting roles. One more thing: the KJTV-TV interview looked promising, but the Veoh link doesn't seem to work. But hey, your tables are very nice! All told, I'm not sure how much that helps, but I'd be happy to take a stab at a version if the text from Playboy can be retrieved. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I am just writing her an email now about the images. I will see if she can send pics of the Playboy article text and any RS we don't have. I will try WP:RX again and see If I can get the Veoh link working. I have come across the same text repeated like a 'press kit' as well. Do these people carry around a copy of their best article I wonder? I think this person used his Wikipedia article. He was rather upset when it got knocked from 12,631 bytes down to 3,729 bytes with an edit summary: "wikipedia is not a resume hosting platform rem unsourced content".--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

1924 Rose Bowl

Hello, WWB Too. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Peer review/1924 Rose Bowl/archive1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for your great review. I believe I have addressed all of your concerns/comments. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 01:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Microstrategy draft implemented

Thanks for your polite patience while I took a break from Wikipedia! Check out Talk:MicroStrategy#New proposed draft for an update. Dreamyshade (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, no problem on the wait! You know, I've actually been working on another draft since I got Qwyrxian's comments, which I've been looking to implement, as well as additional feedback from MicroStrategy. So I've actually got to head off for now, but I will look at what you did, and maybe we could update it again? Talk more soon! Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, sounds good. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

EDMC-2

I have replied and edited some, was waiting for hopefully others to involve themselves. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 01:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Microstrategy

Apologies, I'm 90% certain I won't have the time to handle a task of that magnitude any time in the next several weeks. I'm only getting on every few days, and I spend the majority of that time just running through my watchlist. Sorry! Qwyrxian (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, I appreciate the note. If you do find time later, even just looking at the Products section would be appreciated, since that especially was rewritten with your points in mind. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 00:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Winton

Thanks for the note; would have been happy to help out, but looks like you're sorted now. Good to have these factual issues addressed in a non-COI way. Robma (talk) 10:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Done

I updated Mr. Snyder's article. I emailed Chanel after all of her images were deleted at commons. After she gets that sorted through OTRS then we should be able to move an article to main space. Are you in the Washington area? Commons may have a problem with the images in the National Statuary Hall Collection because of copyrights held by the sculptors. If any created between 1963 and 1977 don't have proper copyright notices on the statues then we can host them. The ones from 1978 and after would need permission from the sculptors to host here or they will probably be deleted. The ones before 1963 would need copyrights renewed that we can search records for. I think there are only eight between 1963 and 1977 that need to be physically checked for marks. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:FOP and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Material_in_the_public_domain have more details.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Canoe, thanks much! I will give Mr. Snyder my regards when I see him again later this month. Sorry to hear about Chanel's images, though I'm not shocked to hear it. Did you ever find a print version of the Playboy article? (Is it on HighBeam?)

You are correct, I live in Washington, DC, and I'm intrigued by your question about statutory hall—though I'm not quite sure what you're asking. (And I do understand the freedom of panorama issue, especially as it relates to Commons.) Let me know what you're suggesting, vis-a-vis a visit to the Capitol. Sounds like a worthy project. Let me know? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Basically all images of statues in the USA are copyright protected by the sculptors. Ones before 1923 are public domain because of age. Between 1923 and 1963 they would need a copyright renewal 28 years after creation that we can check at: http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/ Between 1963 and 1977 they don't need to be registered but do need a copyright mark on the statues themselves. The circle C or the word 'copyright' as well as date and creator. The only ones we can't check online are the eight between 1963 and 1977. The marks need to be clearly visible and not on the bottom of the statues. I created http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:National_Statuary_Hall_Collection_1963_to_1977 to put these eight in. After we check the 1923 - 1963 ones online then we can move the cleared ones to a new category 1923 - 1963. The ones after 1977 would probably need OTRS to my fledgling http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Canoe1967/Sculptors I will see if I can get the eight that need to be in the 63-77 category so they can be checked and verified.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

This is very cool. I've visited the Capitol a few times in the last couple of years, and while I should have no trouble getting a visitor's pass, I also have friends / close acquaintances in Hill offices who could help me find the right office to make the visit a bit more official, and speed the process. Do you want to finish the pre-1963 list first, or would you be ready for me to make the trek anytime in the near future? And do you have a list of the eight handy? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I just added the eight to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:National_Statuary_Hall_Collection_1963_to_1977 The pre-1963 we need to check online as they don't need marks on the statues themselves. The Academy award is also copyrighted so we need to get a picture from one of four known FOP countries that have them on display. Two in the UK, and one each in Germany and the Netherlands. File:Oscar statuette.jpg we can't really host here if we can get a free license image from: List of Academy Award trophies on public display.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

All righty, thanks for updating that page. I'll start making inquiries about visiting the Hill sometime in the next few weeks. This should be fun! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Ɱ's talk page.

EDMC draft

Hi WWB Too, apologies if I wasn't clear on my previous comments, my opinion (thou not strong in any way) is that the article is pretty much done except for a updating tweek here and there. I am not opposed to your drafts however it may be prudent to get some others involved in other wikiprojects prior to much more editing. If after a week or so there is still no involvement I'll be happy to add your draft with any of my revisions that you see as compatible. I do appreciate your effort and pathos on this. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, that's totally fair. It actually is my intention to offer improvements to the rest of the article: while Programs and the lead are not as bad as the big lawsuit section once was, they still could be be better. And I've started looking for additional editors' input, so fingers crossed there will be more along soon. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Cool I'll check back in about a week with my take on things and if no discussion ensued I'll add it with some reasonable revisions. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 21:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds great. I'll still look for additional help, but yours is very much appreciated. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Ɱ's talk page.

More on your DC plate

See: Talk:National_Statuary_Hall_Collection#Frederick_Douglass. We should actually check to see if any of the statues had sculptor rights transferred to the States that commissioned them and then to the Feds. If you do pop over to the Hill you may wish to inquire at the Hall's help desk. I don't think any of the images are causing a big issue now but if enough sculptors request the images removed then the article will look rather bare after the 12 post-1978 creations are gone.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

All right, sounds good. I was thinking of taking an afternoon next week, provided I can get through to the right folks and arrange to visit for the purpose. I will let you know! Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested edit

I saw your note on DGG's talk page (I had left him a note about something else) and thought it might help if I made the requested edit to Blackboard Inc.. The edit was a minor one and given our previous cooperation, I'm aware of the high-quality stuff you produce so didn't have any concerns. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to help. Cheers, Stalwart111 05:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Stalwart! Thank you very much for doing so, I really appreciate it. Since you asked, I've had a similar problem getting someone to look at my last few suggestions for the article Winton Capital Management. To be fair, where my asks on DGG's page were truly of a technical nature, these have some editorial aspect—though as you may soon see, they are small changes. (Yet I've had such trouble getting help with them, I emailed OTRS this week.) If you can handle them, I'd be in your debt—direct link here—and that would be tremendous. Let me know? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 06:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Happy to take a look! Stalwart111 06:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've made the first suggested edit with the addition of a few wikilinks. I've held off making the second and have posted a query on the article talk page. Should be easy to resolve, then I can make the second edit. Hope it all makes sense. Cheers, Stalwart111 08:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that amendment was good, so I've made the second edit too. Cheers, Stalwart111 06:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks so much for volunteering to help finish that up! Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Any time! Thanks for the star! Stalwart111 15:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

3rd opinion

I've created a dedicated discussion thread on the talk page [1] you may use this URL in your 3O listing as this new talk page thread also contains a copy of our discussion at my talk page. I've also asked Silverseren to join the discussion since he is already active on the WCM talk page. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hedge Fund Systemic Risk

Hi, WWB Too. Sorry to take so long in getting back to you; I was on vacation, then behind in catching up. And of course I'm still behind, so I don't know if I'll be able to take a look at this or not. I'm more of an expert on American law governing hedge funds than on systemic risk issues anyway, so while I can look at those issues like any other knowledgeable editor, I don't bring anything special to the party. John M Baker (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

NFLPA Game

My apologies for not responding sooner to your note on my talk page. I was away from the internet for much of the past month and my time resources for Wikipedia are still substantially limited, but I will post a comment on the article talk page. Best, --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

CSPAN material

Hi WWB Too, I have a few things piled up with the coming end of my Wikibreak, but I'll be happy to help you out on C-SPAN if you haven't found anybody in the next week or two. Sorry you've had so much trouble finding someone to work with you on this; I appreciate your diligence in disclosing your COI. Ping me on 7/27 or so if I haven't remembered and come back to discuss with you by then. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks very much for the C-SPAN barnstar. I will try to make some comments by the end of the weekend.

DPL bot gave me a dab notice for the C-SPAN edits, so I pasted it on the talk page for the article (I think it would be fine if you fixed them, since presumably you know which meanings are meant).

Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

First Solar

I wish you would take a look at the First Solar article. It reads like an advertisement. Indeed, the company's annual report would have more critical statements about the company. There not only is no detailing how the company is dependent on government subsidies, the article misleads the reader with comments like, "Beginning in December 2011, First Solar has shifted away from existing markets that are heavily dependent on government subsidies and toward providing utility-scale PV systems in sustainable markets with immediate need." It list its source for this sentence as a WS Journal article which is far from favorable about the First Solar. In the least, this article needs to be hit with a POV tag.TL36 (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Howdy, TL36. Sorry about the delay, I was in Hong Kong for Wikimania this past week. I haven't had any involvement with First Solar since summer 2011, so I don't have any special insight about the current article. Best I can say for now is: be bold! My only suggestion would be to fix what you think is POV rather than merely tagging it, or, if you do, at least leave a note on the Talk page explaining your concerns. Good luck! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Secret Service

File:Flag of the United States Secret Service.png If you have an office in your area could you see about taking a picture of the flag? A picture of their silver badge may help even better so we can create a flag that isn't copyvio. The version I uploaded isn't copyvio but it also isn't accurate. --Canoe1967 (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Canoe! Yes, the Secret Service is certainly based here, so I think this may be possible. By flag, do you mean the flagpole I assume is outside of the building, or something else? I'd be inclined to call them up and see if I could schedule something, especially for the badge. Which reminds me! I emailed the Capitol Architect's office last month, and never got a reply. I am going to try again, and then call them if there's still no response. Don't think I've forgotten about the statues, either. And I've just got back from a week's travel with no plans to leave DC in the next month or two, so I will follow up soon! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The main problem is the photograph of the badge that was used to create the second version of the flag. We need the photographer's permission and it was a shot ripped from the net. A square-on shot of just the badge section of a flag should suffice. If you ask to photograph one of their badges that may be too much for them to handle and possibly get you another vacation in Gitmo. The badge section I added to the latest version isn't a correct rendition of the badge or flag. Even if we get a square shot of the badge center we should be able to photoshop it into the existing. You would probably need a strong wind to get the flag flat. Someone holding the flag out would work but then two of you may end up in Gitmo.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

More C SPAN

I can try to do the edits. I have just been very busy in real life and apologize for my slowness Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, if you can, that's great. I'll wait to take it to FAC until early next week. If you still don't have time, also fine, I'll post it up and there's still time. I'll point to our discussion on the Talk page then, and see what others think. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 04:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, WWB Too. You have new messages at Tazerdadog's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tazerdadog (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, WWB Too. You have new messages at Tazerdadog's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tazerdadog (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

1924 Rose Bowl

I'm not sure if you remember it, but back in May you reviewed my article, the 1924 Rose Bowl. Thanks for the review. The article now is at FAC. I was wondering if you had the time, that you might review it again, this time at the FAC. The nomination hasn't received very much attention, so I was hoping you might return to look at the article again. Thanks, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 20:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I definitely remember, and I'd be happy to give it another look. Would it be OK if I followed up with it later this week, possibly over the weekend? I'm just back from overseas travel (to Wikimania, actually) and still catching up now that I'm back home. Let me know! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

That's definitely fine. I was just a little concerned that the review wasn't getting any attention. I really want it to pass after all the work I've put into it, and I'm going to try to get this as TFA for January 1 (its 90th anniversary), and I'll be a lot less stressed out the sooner this is passed. Review it anytime you want. Thanks for the help (again) :) - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 16:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, WWB Too. Just checking in. Review the article whenever you want. Just checking up, since you said you might have been able to review it over the weekend. The nomination still hasn't really been checked out. It's near the middle of the page now. Just a friendly check-up/reminder. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 21:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

My apologies! I've done more than my share of asking for others to review my drafts, so I'm sorry I didn't follow up on my promise yet. I will get to this before lunchtime Eastern Time tomorrow, and thanks for the nudge! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the review. I've responded to all of the concerns you've expressed. Thanks again, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 01:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello. This is just a reminder that I have addressed your concerns at the FAC. Thanks, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 02:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

C-SPAN

I should be able to look at it in the next 24 hours or so. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think you missed this comment at the FAC - Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Scope and limitations of coverage - In the same section, I looked at all the refs cited and none mention the Supreme Court, so a ref is needed for that part of C-SPAN continues to expand its coverage of government proceedings, with a history of requests to government officials for greater access, especially to the U.S. Supreme Court. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

C-SPAN Featured Article Nomination

Thank you for letting me know about the C-SPAN article's nomination for FA-class status. Although I am largely uninvolved with Wikipedia's Featured Article nomination process, I am willing and able to make any improvements I can think of to that article. From the perspective of a Wikipedia administrator, would like to commend you for voluntarily disclosing your connection to the subject of that article. --TommyBoy (talk) 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Explaining

I patrolled your page. I went through the enormously-backlogged list of newly-created pages and confirmed that your page was okay: not spam, not an attack page, not a copyright violation, not any of the other reasons for which I would delete someone's page without asking. Then I clicked "patrolled" to remove it from the list of "pages that have not yet been patrolled", and moved on to the next entry. That's all. DS (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Argosy University  Done
--ɱ (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hobby Lobby

I just wanted to say that it was a masterful way you handled editing the controversial incident with Hobby Lobby. You obviously have a lot of experience editing on Wikipedia and know its policies and guidelines well. Considering how inept most companies are when they try to edit their own articles, Hobby Lobby made a smart move by hiring someone who was familiar with Wikipedian standards and practices. Thanks for the transparency! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Liz! You're right, I'm hardly a newbie (first joined in 2006) and COI compliance has been a special interest to me—I worked at a social media agency at the time, so it came naturally. Figuring out how to help Wikipedians and companies understand each other? Not always easy! But it very much can be done, and I think it's fun, too. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 23:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, you completely changed my perspective on the misnamed "paid editing". It is definitely preferable to have someone who knows the culture, expectations and standards than having the conflict that almost always arises when a company tries to "manage" their public image. Let's frustration for the company, less tearing hair out for WP Editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Have you followed the debate much? It's evolved considerably over time, and may be again as of this week: there was a story in The Daily Dot yesterday about an unethical firm which was caught sockpuppeting Wikipedia (massively). Last night I was on Wikipedia Weekly to discuss it (otherwise I would have replied to you already).

Anyway, it's a big subject, and one the Wikipedia community has, over time, dealt with in fits and starts before kicking down the road again. If there's any silver lining from the scandal emerging this week, maybe it's a renewed discussion about how to persuade other PR people who approach things as I do, and provide the support necessary to make it work. Always happy to discuss more, if you like. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

 Hello. You have a new message at Ɱ's talk page.

 Hello. You have a new message at Ɱ's talk page.

1924 Rose Bowl, again

Hello WWB Too,

I have yet again nominated my article, 1924 Rose Bowl, at FAC (nom page here). I'm going to try to finish my review of C-SPAN for you. Since you supported the article previously, I was wondering if you could look at it again. There have been no changes since the last FAC, since I was able to address everyone's concerns. Much appreciated, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 04:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. I have replied to all of your concerns at the 1924 Rose Bowl FAC, and look forward to your continued review, or possible support. I also replied to your answers at C-SPAN, and made the changes you suggested. The article looks good. Looking forward to the next FAC. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 04:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Ɱ's talk page.

Statuary Hall

Thank you very much!. The one statue with the copyright mark is the only problem. If you look at Talk:National_Statuary_Hall_Collection#Frederick_Douglass you will see that someone thinks that the copyright was transferred to the Feds at the time of commission, which I doubt. The worst case scenarios are an email from the sculptor's people to have the image removed from commons or someone at commons tagging it for deletion. We could contact the sculptor at http://www.ganthonisen.com/ with a link to the details at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Canoe1967/Sculptors . You don't need to upload the pictures but you could leave a note on the discussion/talk page of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:National_Statuary_Hall_Collection_1963_to_1977 stating that you and a staff member only found one statue legally copyrighted. The other 7 are public domain because they lack the proper markings. See: http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm --Canoe1967 (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

You know, we walked past the Douglass statue, which was noteworthy because of it being new, and contributed by the District, but I didn't think about inspecting the base. Anyhow, I will leave a note at the page you mention. One note: I'm going to do so from my primary account (User:WWB) because I generally reserve this account for COI projects. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Constance Stokes/archive1

If you wanted to take another look: i have now explained my reluctance to reduce the background, and have come up with subheadings for the main section. Let me know what you think. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to. It'll take me a day or two, but I'll definitely respond this week. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking another look. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

"The Unnatural" FAN

Hello! My FAN for "The Unnatural" got closed due to lack of comments. Is there anyway you could drop by the (newly created) FAN for the article and drop some comments or a vote? I implemented almost all of your corrections from the last time. Thanks!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi there Gen. Quon, no problem! I've just left a comment on the current request, voicing support for FA status. Good luck, and let me know if I can help again! Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Returning the favor

I was wondering if I might ask for some of your time for an article creation review. I've been asked by a friend to write an article for the company she works for. I am not getting paid, but still want to be cautious due to the NPOV issues of my relationship. I created the article in my name space and I laid out the two key questions on the talk. If you find it to be notable as I have, I ask that you move it to Wikipedia main space. I don't mean to ask for a quid pro quo for anything other than a review for a review, so if you don't think it is notable, feel free to say so. The article can be found at User:Dkriegls/Stage 32 and I thank you for your time thus far. Cheers, --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Dkriegls! I'd be very happy to. One thing which jumps out immediately is that half the sources are from Stage 32 itself, which seems to run up against WP:ABOUTSELF. So the first question which comes to mind: how confident are you that you've found all the third-party coverage that's out there? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. As for the sourcing, I tried limiting use of their own site to facts about the site (e.g. Products offered) Which is permissable under aboutself. However, using it to reference notable people who blog with them, might not be a "fact" about the site. I do agree that having half the references be their own site is bad. Perhaps it shouldn't reference individual sections, just create one reference for the site in general. I am fairly sure this is all the sourcing that currently exist, however there was more material I didn't pull from the sources because I was trying to avoid putting my own POV on it by keeping it simpleDkriegls (talk to me!) 14:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I follow your point about unexceptional facts, which a list of recent projects may be. That said, I tend not to use a company's own website as a measure of what's significant about the company. For that I look to third-party sources. However, I am exceedingly cautious because I'm always expecting maximal scrutiny; I tend to be just as careful when I'm working on articles for fun, like Terwilliger curves.

So anyway, the first four citations appear perfectly RS to me, which I think satisfies "multiple reliable sources"—if just barely. I'd be inclined to move an article that was shorter, based on just those four. If you feel that those alone don't communicate an accurate picture of the company, then it may just not be ready for a standalone article.

Then again, if you'd like another opinion, you should definitely take it to WP:AFC. They've always got a backlog, but in a few weeks you'd find out what someone else thinks for sure. What do you think? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the great feedback. I've been in NYC for the past week with just my smart phone. So I was only checking wikipedia when I got an email update. Sorry I missed this. I agree with you completely and will scale back or find alternative sources for the material referenced to their site. I'll get home tomorrow and will likely get to it this weekend. Thanks again.Dkriegls (talk to me!) 15:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I took a stab at it. I removed one "notable project" and two "notable bloggers" that were only self referenced. I added independent sources for most of the other stuff. They're not the best references, but I think they're fine for the information covered: a "nofilmschool" article, a "The People Project" article, and a "Yahoo Voices" article. I don't know if any have editorial oversight, but they are independent and not wikis. The only self reference I left in was about the 2nd phase of development. The apps in Itunes and Google play are also mentioned in this sentence but I thought linking to Itunes and Google Play was redundant. Looking forward to your feedback. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 22:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Dkriegls, at a glance this definitely looks better. I'll take a closer look later tonight or tomorrow. Assuming I move it, I'll probably do so from my similarly named non-COI primary account, since I (perhaps fanatically) try to stay out of mainspace with this account. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, WWB Too. You have new messages at Talk:Stage 32.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

1924 Rose Bowl

Hey, WWB Too. Sorry about not helping out with C-SPAN, I've been overwhelmed in real life. I finally have a break, so if there's anything you need me to help out with for the article, I'll be glad to help. My article, 1924 Rose Bowl, is back at FAC for the third time. After getting so close last time, I really want it to pass now. Since you've supported both previous times, I was wondering if you'd look at the article again (nom is here). Thanks, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 21:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

No worries about C-SPAN; I have been working on improving the references, but same here w/r/t being overwhelmed by real life: with travel and the holidays, I just haven't been able to put the time in. And, as of this morning, FAC has closed due to inactivity. I will also try again at some point in the future. Would you be willing to help me with the references before I resubmit it? (I also have half a mind to ask Jimbo if he's really serious that someone with a professional relationship with the subject should not even update references. Funny enough, my contract with C-SPAN runs out tomorrow. So do I still have a conflict? Unexplored territory, for sure!) Anyway, enough about that for now. If you take a look at the FAC page, you'll see I've lent it my support again (while also seconding the suggestions which appear there now). If I can help with it again, please just ask. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I'm ready to help you with references. Just inform me when you need me to do something. Thanks, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 01:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Draft revision

Hi again WWB Too, I hope you enjoyed your holidays. If you may recall, I had inquired if you would be willing to take a read-through of a draft of the article Briarcliff Manor, New York that I have been working on, once the bulk of the writing was completed. And now that I have, I would appreciate your criticism. The draft is on my sandbox page, here: User:Ɱ/sandbox7. Just a few things to mention:

• I may have some redundancies in the text, and fewer and poorer photographs than I aim to have, I am waiting for spring or summer to shoot and re-shoot some further.
• In case you find something that perhaps looks uncited – nearly all of the information has citations, either at the end of the sentence or the paragraph.
• None of the external links are dead, I checked that recently.
• The 'example' image on the infobox will be File:BriarcliffSealOld.png, but I can't add that to the draft because I can only mark it as a fair-use image. I'm pretty sure it's a PD one too, and I'm trying to verify that.
• The above point also extends to File:BriarcliffRose.jpg replacing File:Roses renoir.JPG.
• I have been using various good and featured articles as references, as well as the WikiProject Cities US Guide to include relevant information. Because it is such a small village, the sports, government, and media sections, as well as the Literature and film subsection, are all pretty thin. I'm not sure what the best way to remedy this is, honestly few village articles go to the detail that I've been striving for.
• The article, at 47kbs of readable prose, is close to the recommended article size limit, I may consider making an article for the village's history, but I'm hesitant to turn one project into two.
• Among many things, I would appreciate advice on rewording for improved prose.

As you could probably tell, I have been working on this draft for a while, and therefore I am in no rush to complete this. Feel free to spend as little or as much time as you would like in reading this over. Thank you. --ɱ (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello there, Ɱ! Wow—WOW—this is a very big and very well-considered update. To say I am impressed is an understatement. Before I begin looking closely, can I ask why you haven't simply updated the existing article? Myself, I stay out of mainspace on articles where I have a financial COI, but I'll make big updates myself (from my User:WWB account) on articles of personal interest. Is there a reason why you are holding back here?

I ask in part because my impression, upon comparing the two versions, is that your expanded draft appears to be much, much stronger than the existing version of the article. Much more information, many features (like climate data) not currently included, an amazing improvement in terms of RS citations, and more. The structuring of sections is logical, the detail selection is appropriate, and the tone is likewise even-handed.

Perhaps the worst that I could say is that it includes more information than most articles about towns of its size—not really your problem, I would say—and while I haven't looked at the research myself, it appears to be verified and encyclopedic. At a glance, your draft looks like plausible GA material, where the existing article is probably C status at best.

Is there anything you'd like to hear from me otherwise, or look at specifically? Because my advice to you would be to be bold and make the change. I'm all ears, but my first response is: I'm more than impressed, I think it should be live now. If you would like me to read it further to address the points you've detailed above, I would be more than happy to do so then. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 06:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind complements. I suppose that the article is a bit lengthy for me to expect anyone to read it carefully through in one sitting, and if you have time over a few days to look over the whole thing, that would be most ideal. I've read many articles on locales that read through better than my draft. As for why I decided a draft, to my surprise, a few people have been wondering. Here's my best answer: I suppose that I did not make direct changes because I felt it would be easier to first complete a draft, and then publish all of the changes. I also had to experiment with several unfamiliar templates, which isn't very good to do in the main namespace. As well because I incorporated temporary images and text from the Albany, Irvington, and Chadderton articles. If you look in the draft's history from about a month or two ago, you'll find several less-local images and paragraphs. As well, the seal and symbol images will be changed - I hope to secure the images into Creative Commons or public domain licenses. In addition, I aspire to make this into a featured article, which should take a good deal more work, and I would like to polish this work considerably before I make any attempt at a GAN and then FAR. So please, as little or as much as you decide to read through will be considerably helpful.--ɱ (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I follow that. I acknowledge my compliments are based on a survey approach while only reading a few sections as a spot check, so I very well may have additional suggestions. I would be happy to go further, but it may be a week or so before I find the time to do it right. That said, I see no reason why this shouldn't replace the current version now. Whether you move it or not, I will give it a look soon. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I owe you one, thanks.--ɱ (talk) 12:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, WWB Too. You have new messages at Dkriegls's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Price list for paid editing

Hi, thanks for your time. Could you post a price list for your paid editing services? Having trouble getting price info from another editor. Maybe you can help instead? Thweeder (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Thweeder, I'm afraid it doesn't work like that. Every potential project is different, and I don't take every one that comes my way. Importantly, I have to be satisfied that a project is compatible with Wikipedia guidelines before I can agree to it. And I should clarify, just in case: I am not affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation, but with an independent company that provides consulting services. If you'd like to reach me by email, there's a link in the left margin of this page. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: EDMC etc. concerns

Hi WWB Too, I will take a look at the articles re: your concerns. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 02:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Brevan Howard Page Update

Hi William,

I see you have had previous engagement with financial based Wikipedia pages and I'm getting in touch as I was wondering if you could help me out with the Brevan Howard article? They're one of the largest hedge funds in the world, but their Wikipedia page has a number of factual inaccuracies in it. The talk page clearly identifies all of the inaccuracies, all backed up with sources. The user page of the previous editor who was helping out says he is taking a long break from Wiki, and the page hasn't attracted any new editors since October 2013.

It would be very much appreciated if you could lend a hand on this --Jenny.barrett (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jenny, thanks for getting in touch, and I'm happy to see that you're taking this approach: by reaching out on Talk pages, rather than making direct edits yourself. Keep it up—you're doing it right!

I'd be happy to look over your suggestions and offer feedback, but as a "conflict of interest" contributor myself, I avoid direct edits from this account. This is especially true in this case; I have ongoing client relationships with the hedge fund industry, so I have a direct conflict here. My advice would be to find a volunteer editor to review as well, and implement the changes, if they agree.

If you're having trouble finding someone, I'd suggest going to WikiProject Finance and/or Paid editor help. Happy to help give advice as I can, just let me know. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jenny, If you are looking/referring to me in your comment above regarding Brevan Howard, I finished my wiki-break a few weeks ago and can help with updates if you need them. Alternately you can post at the Finance project as WWB Too has suggested. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Briarcliff Manor, New York

Hi again WWB,

I finally published my draft of Briarcliff Manor, New York, and would greatly appreciate if you would reassess the article.

Thanks! --ɱ (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Great! And you know, I might even have some time this morning. I'll give a read-through and share back any thoughts I have. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 12:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've replied to your comments on the article talk page. --ɱ (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Cracker Barrel

I think this is a client of yours? In relation to a specific GA review, I was looking at FA articles under WikiProject Companies and in doing so noticed that the section titled "YouTube Videos" has a link labeled "Video tour at Cracker Barrel" but what it actually is, is a video about Craftmade ceiling fans. A glance at the article History shows that there was some persistent vandalism by an editor along these lines, suggesting that this item may have fallen through the cracks due to its misleading label. CorporateM (Talk) 06:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

At one time yes, though it's been more than a year now. Looks like the vandalism is also related to those ceiling fans. The video link should be axed, it seems to have nothing to do with Cracker Barrel. I can let them know there's been some trouble with the page, thanks. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 12:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Yup. I almost deleted it myself as vandalism, which is what I would normally do even on pages where I have a COI... CorporateM (Talk) 19:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Summit Series (conference) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Summit Series (conference) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The articles will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Leve until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. UW Dawgs (talk) 02:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

COI at South Beach diet

I trust you are aware of our WP:COI guideline, as well as our WP:NPOV policy and WP:FRINGE and WP:TPG guidelines. Please be aware that the writing of "puff pieces" and advertisements is prohibited. I would ask please that you make a full declaration of the nature of your COI for this topic. Thank you. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Alexbrn, I did indeed make a full declaration of my COI when I first appeared on the South Beach Diet page. I just now saw it has been archived, but you can read it at the link above. I did the same when reaching out to User:Jytdog on his Talk page where you and I first traded messages; I titled this section Help with a COI topic?. Please note that I am very specifically avoiding making direct edits for just this reason; besides the policies you cite, I also follow Jimbo's "Bright Line" advisory, informal though it is. Anyway, I think we've got off a bit on the wrong foot here. Hope we can work together. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Look, sorry for being snippy, but we just need to be really careful about anything which states or implies a medical benefit from this diet which isn't sourced to impeccable sources. I don't have a strong view either way about branding information/history (so long as it's sourced, etc.). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Michael Feldman (consultant) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Feldman (consultant) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Feldman (consultant) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. CorporateM (Talk) 03:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Terms of Use

Just to ask you to confirm, as a paid editor here, that you are fully convestant with Wikipedia's terms of use, as they bear directly on your activity here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 22:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I led an ad hoc industry effort to put communications agencies on the record saying they would follow the updated Terms of use. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Cool, so I'm looking for the disclosure of you "your employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to the SBD brand. Please clarify where exactly the money is flowing from. I want the name of the entity which disburses the funds. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 22:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The contract is between my firm, Beutler Ink, and the South Beach Diet Corporation. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The "South Beach Diet Corporation". Am I correct in thinking you had not identified this entity before? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 23:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

From my very first appearance on the SBD Talk page, I have always made it clear I was working for the company behind the SBD books. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 23:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I was aware of your general statements yes, and there you say you had been "working on behalf of the editorial department at the South Beach Diet brand for the last several months". For the avoidance of doubt would it be correct to say, to fulfil Wikipedia's ToS requirement, that you are employed (?) by a PR firm (Beutler Ink) which had entered into a contract with the "South Beach Diet Corporation" with regard to Wikipedia editing? I'm wanting get clarity here in line with the ToS requirements. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 23:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

With the exception being that I don't make direct edits on behalf of clients, yes. The general statement is entirely consistent with the more specific one you are seeking to elicit here. I'm afraid I don't see what difference it makes. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 23:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I just wanted to understand exactly what was happening, which I think I now do. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)