On 8/9/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote: A case could be made that this is just as much a vanity article as a personal bio. It's not just the number of employees that makes it insignificant for encyclopedic purposes. If it was indeed doing things interesting enough to be of encyclopedic note, someone other than the local Charlotte Business Journal would be writing about them.

On 8/9/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote: He put in a request for {{unblock}} on his talk page. Since it is highly unlikely someone would want to undo your official action, I reviewed the unblock and asked him to contact you instead.

On 8/9/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote: (Note that this screed is independent of any deal Jimmy and MyWikiBiz may've come to). This is an absurd block. He was writing perfectly fine, well-written, *referenced* articles and has so far as I know scrupulously followed the notability guidelines; would to God that we had a thousand more like him, and could ditch the bottom thousand editors. And you are banning him because the conflict of interest *might* lead to POV? Have the project abandoned AGF and the notion that one can write in a NPOV fashion even if POV oneself? Over Wikipedia's existence, there've been how many articles submitted by people being paid or who might conceivably have a conflict of interest? Then let's get rid of anything politics related by Katefan0 (who you'll remember is a professional journalist covering politics - clear conflict of interest there) or any of our resident academics who edits articles relating to their expertise (I'd mention Carl Hewitt here, but he's already banned for being incorrigibly self-centered). Or closer to home, let's get rid of [[Fujiwara no Teika]], as the Encyclopedia Project paid me to edit that article, or [[Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity]] and [[Brethren of Purity]] (ditto). If we require yet more victims for this witch-hunt and to feed our paranoia, any article ever listed on the Bounty Board is suspect. What I see here is a double standard: there's a tiny wiff of a problem and a user is indef banned, while vastly worse problems like vandals and copyright violators at least get the courtesy of the {{test}} templates. ~maru

On 8/9/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin(a)gmail.com> wrote: But this is a poor argument for indef blocking a user, appearances is. If we cared about appearance more than substance, Wikipedia'd never have been a wiki in the first place. I really doubt that the public cares whether certain articles may've been kept because of money when they are more concerned about the quality of articles to begin with (and then about stability and then about features or aspects of the community or then... heck, when it comes to appearances, people are far more concerned about vandalism - now there's something that really can change the apperance of Wikipedia, quite literally). ~maru

On 10/08/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence(a)gmail.com> wrote: Or they could, um, note it on the talk page? Rather than put yet another procedure in place which will have the effect of "why bother." Unless that's the purpose. - d.

On 8/10/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence(a)gmail.com> wrote: AfC. Steve

On 8/10/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: That doesn't seem to work, given that MyWikiBiz has just been told by Jimmy not to do this. Erik

On 10/08/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote: For one thing, we've seen the account in *his* name. It's on good behaviour. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

On 8/9/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote: Oh, dear. We have just sent out a clear message: "If you wish to get paid to write on Wikipedia, please do not use a transparent process. Please do not attempt to engage with the community, and please, whatever you do, do not tell us that you actually got paid for the article. If anyone asks, deny, deny, deny". This guy was approaching this in exactly the right way, and the outcome was good. Meanwhile, I'm sure lots of big companies *do* edit their own articles, but they *don't* tell us what they're doing, and we're ok with that? Steve

On 8/10/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote: I agree. I'm curious as to what they actually do :) "The Commission on Banking Technique and Practice comprises 400 members from 42 countries, including partners in trade finance institutions and international organizations. Membership of the ICC Commission on Banking Technique and Practice provides unique benefits and strategic advantages for companies of all sizes and all parts of the w orld. Membership in the Banking Commission allows participants to attend Banking Commission meetings and to make a personal input into the development of ICC rules on documentary credits, bank-to-bank reimbursements, collections and demand guarantees." http://www.iccwbo.org/policy/banking/id3681/index.html Really? What do companies do when they're trying to work out whether or not to do business with another company? Do they just visit their website and hope for the best? There must be some resources to allow one to research another company - and why shouldn't Wikipedia be that resource? There's no shortage of boring article topics, including most counties in the US (or communes in France for that matter). If it's not informative enough, mark it {{stub}}. Or do you think that no decent article could ever be written on a company of only 26 employees? I'm sure that's not the case, we must have articles on companies of only 1 or 2 that have some amazing product... Failed. Steve

I would have said "corporate wankery". On 8/10/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote: Something to do with "value transfer systems" apparently. This article makes an interesting test case, because it is well written and structured, using references and an infobox. The problem is it's essentially nothing more than what one would expect to find on the "about" page of any corporate website. -- Stephen Bain stephen.bain(a)gmail.com