Talk:Michael J. Saylor

Untitled

Update to the biographical information on Michael Saylor was made by a MicroStrategy representative.

One might make links to verifiable information, and other internal pages on wikipedia:

Link to 2005 MicroStrategy 10K at Edgar Online at: [1] CvS 11:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Working to add in references from reliable press, and links to other internal pages. Crysb (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible autobiography with questionable notability

This article appears to have been written by Saylor himself or by his company. It does not appear that there is any coverage of him personally in reliable press. The company he heads receives coverage as it is publicly traded, but that does not equate to coverage of Saylor personally. OccamzRazor (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Reads like a PR piece

Article lacks a neutral point of view, slants comments to the positive and fails to give equal time/space to SEC charges. 76.14.37.163 (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest concern

See this COI noticeboard post for discussion. I went over the article and removed some of the promotional sentences, but it still needs a lot more work to become a neutral article with a balanced account of accomplishments and stumbles. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

New proposed draft

Following the note immediately above, and as the warning tags atop this article correctly indicate, an employee of Mr. Saylor's firm, MicroStrategy, has contributed significantly to this article. The current version is too promotional, among other ways it strays from Wikipedia guidelines. This person was (fairly) admonished by a volunteer Wikipedian, and the company has since hired me on a consultant basis to figure out what to do.

It's my estimation that the current article would need to be substantially reorganized and rewritten remove the promotional tone, resolve overuse of primary sources, focus on more encyclopedic details, and make it easier to read. Because of my conflict of interest, I will not edit the page directly; rather, I'd like to find a volunteer willing to review a new draft I have prepared, offer helpful feedback, and perhaps consider moving this version into the mainspace. Here's the draft, currently in my userspace:

• Michael J. Saylor (proposed replacement draft)

And here's a more detailed list of what this draft seeks to accomplish:

1. Adds infobox with key details. (I'm working with MicroStrategy to find a good photo to release under the correct license.)
2. Introduction is streamlined, provides a better overview of his career; I removed mentions of patents, for which I simply couldn't find third-party sources.
3. Re-organized the article into Early life and education, Career (under which MicroStrategy and Writing career are subsections), Recognition and awards, and Philanthropy.
4. Early life and education—longer than present version, adds more information about his early life and a little more about his time at MIT, although I've removed details about his thesis (no reliable sources) and the class he took which inspired software at MicroStrategy (moved into the section about MicroStrategy).
5. Career—More detail on his early career, including aspiration to be a pilot. Section on MicroStrategy is now more focused explaining Saylor's role in the company since it's foundation.
   1. Have clarified the details of the 2000 SEC investigation and his subsequent loss of net worth.
   2. Removed details about his interviews and profiles in the Washington Post, Fortune and The New Yorker, instead used these as sources to verify encyclopedic information.
   3. Trimmed out details that are out-of-date, such as MicroStrategy's 2008 revenues, office locations in 2009 and Saylor's share of the company in 2010.
   4. Made the section focus more on Saylor than on MicroStrategy, particularly around the mobile technology developments, where I removed details about the company and explained his role.
   5. Moved details on The Mobile Wave into their own subsection, providing an overview of the book.
6. Recognition and awards—new section for awards that Saylor has received, also moved detail about People "most eligible bachelor" into this section, rather than it appearing under Career
7. Philanthropy—replaces current Charitable donations section and is split into two subsections: The Saylor Foundation, explaining the foundation and its aims, and Other philanthropic efforts covering his donations and involvement with other charities. Removed the detail about The Edupunks Guide to a DIY Credential and otherwise reworded information about The Saylor Foundation and Saylor.org to be less promotional and more encylopedic.
8. External links are to his official website and company website, and I've removed Saylor Foundation, which is already included on the Wikipedia article for the Foundation itself.
9. Categories are currently disabled, and would need to be re-enabled if the draft is moved into the mainspace.

That about sums it up. Although I'll ping the editor who had tagged this in the first place, I'm open to working with anyone who would like to help bring the article in line with Wikipedia's standards. I have this article on my watchlist now, and I'm looking forward to any and all feedback. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks good, better than the current version. Il'd just go ahead and post it. FurrySings (talk) 07:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, FurrySings. As I mentioned on your user Talk page, I follow Jimbo's "bright line", so I'd better not be the one to move it. If you'd prefer not at this point, I'll seek additional editor feedback. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Since no one else is answering, I guess I'll be the one to move it over. Sorry it's taken so long, been away for a while. FurrySings (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much! I just noticed that the categories are still disabled, so that will need to be done. No rush, though: I'm also helping the company find an image to share with OTRS for inclusion in the infobox; once that's ready, I'll have another request to share. Thanks again, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up edits

Following the last update, I have two small requests to add. As a reminder, I'm involved here on the behalf of Mr. Saylor's company, so I'd like another editor to consider making the following edits:

1. Mr. Saylor's company agreed to release a photo of him as CC-BY; this has been reviewed and approved by OTRS, and the photo is on Wikimedia Commons (here, specifically). Can this be added to the infobox, at an appropriate size?
2. I had disabled the categories in my draft (so it would not appear on category pages) but they were not re-enabled when the draft was moved into the mainspace. This still needs to be done.

If someone else can take care of this, I'd greatly appreciate it! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Done! FurrySings (talk) 04:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Cite error

Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Jaffe00" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page). Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Jaffe00" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

Exactly. I tried to correct by myself, but afraid to make worse. Anybody care? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.124.253.215 (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Request to add photo

Greetings! The photo of Mr. Saylor was deleted from this article and Wikimedia Commons on October 29. I have since uploaded the photo again—filename is File:Michael J Saylor 2016.png—and MicroStrategy has sent a permission ticket to OTRS confirming that it is the copyright holder. I'm here asking editors to place the photo back into the infobox, as I have a financial conflict of interest (I am here on behalf of MicroStrategy through my work at Beutler Ink). Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested revert on BLP grounds

Within the past 24 hours, an account with no prior history made a very large edit to this page, which was automatically tagged as a possible BLP violation. It sure is: there is now a large section called SEC Controversies that goes into a lot of detail about a controversy already mentioned in this article, and is likewise discussed in more detail at the article about his firm, MicroStrategy. I believe this edit should be reverted. I do not do so myself only because, as previously disclosed on this talk page, MicroStrategy is a client of my firm. Would another editor have a moment to look at this and make this edit if they agree? Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Thanks for removing the long middle section. There is still the second paragraph of the introduction that was added by the same editor. Also seems very WP:UNDUE. Do you agree that should come out as well? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

 Implemented The added text has been removed, as it violated WP:COPYRIGHT. However, as the material is germane to the topic, there is not much to stop the eventual addition of it at some time in the future, provided it is sufficiently paraphrased. The only thing preventing its addition to the article now is the editor in question's preference for cutting and pasting text, over the laborious work of rewriting it.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  22:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the help. I think the topic is adequately covered already, but of course we'll see what happens in the future. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I've just noticed this discussion page and read up some of the policy pages pointed out to me by another writer. Now since this article has been actually extensively overwritten by several employees of MicroStrategy Inc who have declared their conflicts, this article is "advertising" for Saylor and his company. Because this is a Living person biography article (or BLP) with special legal requirements I am affixing a policy based "Disclosed Paid Editor" template-tag into the article itself to deal with a few of the Conflict of Interest issues mentioned in Wikipedia covert advertising policy and until this article is properly reviewed to eliminate all covert advertising for Saylor / MicroStrategy Inc. 08:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC) Israelpetersen (talk) 08:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Israelpeterson: there is no "covert advertising" here. Nothing I have done is covert, as my disclosed requests make plain, nor is there advertising: Wikipedia is WP:NOTADVERTISING and only suggestions that Wikipedia volunteers agreed with have been included on the page. FWIW, my draft was accepted more than four years ago, and the current article includes content from many other editors (see this diff). Meanwhile, there is no policy encouraging a "disclosed paid editor" template on articles to which a COI contributor has been involved; this template is less than a week old, and debate about it is just beginning. I suggest both templates on the page be removed. Thoughts, Spintendo? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Both of these templates are fairly old (not in the article itself, but rather, in general usage on the site) and are not used that often. Recently, there has been some debate over their usage (you can read that debate here). For those not caring to read all of it, the bulk of the discussion and ideas expressed there were between two opposing camps: one, which felt that the increase in editors being paid to contribute meant that keeping the template was good policy, as it demonstrated Wikipedia's resolve to combat paid editing. The other camp felt it was too vague, and carried no weight. The end feeling was that it would be kept as a sign, perhaps, that an article (which carried the template) would then be given extra scrutiny by editors. My belief is that since you've already established your connection to the subject through postings here and on your talk pages, the use of these templates is overly punitive.

Which brings me to my next point. I believe this may go beyond the problem of paid editing, in that the editor who placed the templates there was simply upset that their attempts to place information from 15 years ago on the page have been frustrated by other, more concrete policies, such as WP:COPYRIGHT — as evident from this conversation. Placing the templates in the article may have been their way of satisfying their desire to be, in someway, heard — as we all do. The problem is that back and forth editing is disruptive to the article and Wikipedia as a whole, and I won't encourage that. What is needed for the article is for a consensus to be established over the use of these templates, and for a consensus you need more editors to get involved in the discussion. I suggest that you make contact with editors whom you've dealt with in the past here (or by requesting a third party to specifically intervene through WP:DRR/3) and ask for them to enter the discussion. If the editor who placed the templates refuses to be a part of that discussion, that will be on them. From then on, any difficulties with that editor may easily be handled by WP:ANI. Hope this helps. Regards,  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  23:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Appreciate your considered take, Spintendo, including the observation that the tags appear punitively applied. This, combined with their redundant usage, and that all eight of the apparent WP:SPA's edits are on this topic or arguing on your talk page, makes me hope you'll remove the tags. That said, I certainly understand your not wanting to be the sole volunteer responsible for mediating this article. If you don't respond or edit the page again in the next 12 hours or so, WP:DRR will be my next stop. Thanks for weighing in.

P.S. Indeed, one of these templates is a few years old, although the other was created about a week ago, and that one is currently under debate elsewhere. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 23:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Reply and confirmation of participation

In response to the previous statements, I confirm my intent to participate in discssing the contents of this biography entry in a civil way under wikipedia policy and guidelines etc. The tags were not affixed punitively but were applied in terms of wikipedia policies and guidelines. Saying I applied the tages punitively is to attribute bad faith to me. The tags (written by other editors) exist for this very purpose, ie. to caution readers of this advertisement for Michael Saylor that it is actually written by employees of Saylor/MicroStrategy and is not a normal encyclopedia entry written by uninterested peeople. Such tages are also a legal requirement under the new FTC norms of 2015 and other legal requirement describe in WP:COVERT. Relating to the COPYRIGHT, the copyright for the bulk of this entry is with MicroStrategy since it is actually written by their employees. Hence this entire entry should be reverted to a clean version before the MicroStrategy employees took over, if this is done I agree tags can be remove. Lastly there is a claim that this article is not advertisment for Saylor but the discussion elsewhere by senior adminz of wikipedia is clear that this would be deeemed an advertisement by FTC etc. Thank you. Israelpetersen (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Advertisement / DPE tags

• WP:COVERT says FTC defines Advertisements or promotional messages are deceptive if they convey to consumers expressly or by implication that they’re independent, impartial, or from a source other than the sponsoring advertiser ...

• WP:COVERT says readers cannot be expected to seek out user and talk pages to find editors' disclosures about their corporate affiliation

• Usage of 2 tags is not "redundant". They signify different things. One tag discloses the "paid editing" whereas the other tag invites readers to improves the entry. Israelpetersen (talk) 04:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Stated for the record

In reply to both comments above: there are many Wikipedia entries about people, businesses, and nonprofits where someone connected to the subject has made changes. This is one, though it's noteworthy all the changes I have suggested were implemented by volunteer editors, and this page is far from the type of promotional article that warning tags are meant for. Meanwhile, your personal interpretation of the FTC's digital advertising guidelines are merely that; they make no mention of Wikipedia, and the current on-wiki discussion about them has just begun. That question has no specific bearing on Michael J. Saylor as opposed to any other article, so I will be continuing the discussion. I'm glad to hear that you'll participate. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

WWB_Too As I notice you use another account to represent your "paid editing" cause at current on-wiki discussion, this seems to me for evading WP:SCRUTINY and for WP:GHBH editing. You also refer there to "my team will abide by whatever the community decides", this seems to me to violate the Wikipedia policy called WP:SOCK and its specific section on "Meatpuppetry". I also discovered you are regularly violating the "brightline" guidance for conflicted editors by directly contacting cooperative editors to insert your edits instead of waiting for volunteers using "request edit" tags (there is a 5-6 month backlog there), it seems to me you are in a good hurry to earn your pay. Now because the consensus at current on-wiki "Advertising" discussion and DPE tag discussion is that these kinds of paid advertising edits are impermissible (with or without tages) - especially on BLP articles, I am implementing that consensus immediately here to revert this BLP entry to its state just before any Microstrategy employee edited it, and under such situation I am also removing the DPE tags I affixed. Hope this mutually resolves this entry till some other neutral editors take over. Cheers. Israelpetersen (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by new user account

Israelpeterson, there is no consensus to remove seven years of edits to this article, including significant verified, useful and encyclopedic information approved by multiple volunteer editors. Moreover, your characterizations of my activity impute bad faith for (talk page-only) participation long recognized as legitimate—all from an account created on December 11. By all appearances, you are an WP:SPA whose motivation is intended to WP:HARASS and undermine my involvement with Wikipedia, which has always been consistent with content and behavioral guidelines. Smallbones should be aware that his speculation about the FTC is being used to justify wholesale removal of content without discussion. Spintendo, I know you wanted to back out of this, but it's getting serious. I am also placing an edit request on this entry likewise seeking others to weigh in. The more eyes on this, the better. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 02:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I was perfectly happy to just restore this entry to the last good point before Microstrategy paid editors / paid consultants took it over and walk away and remove my tags.

• Can you explain why your own preferred version of this article includes all the content from sockpuppeting blocked undisclosed paid accounts Molly_tharrington and Tbenzinger. In fact you went out of your way to "canvass" another editor to restore flattering Microstrategy supplied content inserted by the latter blocked account after it was deleted from this article ? Since these are indisputably Microstrategy linked accounts and you are also admittedly paid by MicroStrategy why should all your accounts not be blocked under policy WP:SOCK ? I dispute that you are consistently operating under Wikipedia policy and cite an administrator's comment I recently went through some of the articles your firm created on BLPs with Drmies, and they were obvious promotional biographies written in violation of the promotion policy (commissioned work, current version). No neutral editor would have ever constructed them in that way .. at this diff. Israelpetersen (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

By "flattering Microstrategy supplied content" I suspect you are referring to the infobox photo which it does seem like someone from the company may have previously added without going through OTRS. I don't have anything to do with the two accounts you've linked to, and I didn't ask; if it is the case, it wouldn't be the first time someone went about it the wrong way, and then sought my help to do it right. The photo was a positive addition to the page, and the editor who added it, Ser Amantio di Nicolao, seemed to agree. If editors take issue with specific content, I'm frequently around and always happy to discuss it; I'm sorry that TonyBallioni and Drmies haven't brought specific concerns to my attention or that of my colleagues. Regardless, I submit your revision of seven years' edit history is extreme and unhelpful in the project of building an encyclopedia, and that other editors will weigh in soon. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 03:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I mean, we raised them on the talk pages at Talk:Jonathan Karp and Drmies (who is absent for medical reasons this week) made similar edits on his own at David Trone. I'd looked through several others written by Jason, and they most have the same issue of containing excessive detail to the point of being promotional. I think Israelpeterson's concerns here likely have merit, and looking at the version of the article before their restoration, I can't blame them for their assessment. Maybe reverting wasn't the most effective way to deal with the issue, but it was certainly good faith. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: If you had linked Jason into the conversation, I'm sure he'd have showed up. As I've stated elsewhere, we strongly believe that volunteer review is necessary due to our financial COI, both before and after content is placed. Meanwhile, there has not been a real discussion about what was wrong with this article prior to this controversy; the only evidence we have is Israelpeterson's initial attempt to add extreme POV-pushing to the article (which happened to be the first-ever edits from this account) when the basics were already covered. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 04:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to agree with Israelpeterson's concerns that the previous version was essentially advertising. Most of the career section could have been cut down. The philanthropy section was also effectively an advertisement for his charity. As I said, I'm not sure I would have gone with a full revert, but a few thousand bytes certainly needed to be cut. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, this article has evidently been the subject of very long-term WP:SPA activity by MicroStrategy accounts like Wendecover. A neutral volunteer editor OccamzRazor had carefully reviewed all those biased / promotional edits and I restored it to that point. Yes, it was extreme but necessary since the next version "ghost written" by WWB_Too was also policy incompatible as it was much biased and so surreptitiously slipped into article space by a canvassed user without properly complying with WP:PAIDATTRIBUTE and the associated COPYRIGHT issues. Now such "deceptive advertisments", which misuse and trade on Wikipedia's reputation as a reliable encyclopedia, cause many readers to be confused and eventually harmed through significant misrepresentation to many consumers in the United States and elsewhere. The question WWB_Too must ask himself is "Would I be editing this article if I were not paid for it ?". Israelpetersen (talk) 04:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

In reply to TonyBallioni: FWIW, the last version that I take responsibility for was this one in 2013. That said, I strongly disagree that the career section should be severely cut down; MicroStrategy is a company that has received a lot of coverage through its history, Saylor has led it the whole way, and his career has included other endeavors as well. Even in the most recent versions, I believe everything (or almost) was cited to reliable sources, and neutrally phrased. Perhaps some details of the latest version of The Saylor Foundation should be trimmed. I'm open to suggestions, so long as it's still an informative summary. (As for Israelpeterson, it's clear that you have a larger complaint with me, and not this page, which should be dealt with in another forum.) WWB Too (Talk · COI) 04:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

This is a biography on him, not his resume or a corporate history. We should highlight the most significant parts of his career, not give a minute-by-minute account of his time there. If you look at Steve Jobs, a much more significant tech CEO, you'll see a noticeable difference in style and formatting compared to even your 2013 version. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, and what we are looking for here is appropriate weight of the events of his career in light of his life. As it stood, we had a promo CV, Israelpeterson raised valid concerns, and while I would have preferred to excise content from the latest revision to a full revert, I also think asking what should be restored after problematic content is boldly removed is typically better than asking what should be removed. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggest a MERGE of this article with MicroStrategy article since Saylor himself is not very notable except for his SEC controversies and a high flying lifestyle which got grounded after DOTCOM crash. Saylor controls 70% of MS voting so is synoymous with co. Israelpetersen (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

A merge would be absurd, as Michael J. Saylor's notability is obviously very well-established. It's also at least the SPA's fourth strategy on this page, following POV-pushing, warning templates, and reverting seven years of edits. TonyBallioni, I appreciate that you've raised concerns about this user's behavior elsewhere, including the SPI. I also take your concerns about the article seriously; obviously, consensus can change, and what seemed OK in 2013 may require reconsideration. However, since it's increasingly obvious the SPA's motivation is to harass me and destabilize this page, I'll again suggest that someone restore the article to the version from December 8, and start from there. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd suggest you stop claiming that someone harasses or has harassed you, because you may be asked to provide diffs, and if you fail to then you may be blocked. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

A CheckUser is currently being run. Let's wait to see that outcome, and then evaluate in line with their explanation. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

TQP, I suggest reading Israelpeterson's unfounded claims against me within this very thread, and then review this brief history of similar actions by other SPAs in the last few months. Yes, it seems very plausible that someone is using throwaway accounts to undermine my participation here. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

My advice is good advice whether the other person is naughty or not. I am not a checkuser, but I know that Tony isn't stupid. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm very aware of WP:AOHA, and that's why I'm showing evidence of my concerns. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JDLaw. Now we can talk about the article, instead of this offtopic stuff. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

As far as the edit request template activated above, for those of us attempting to clear the backlog I'm going to close it for now and clear it off the board. Of course if there was anything missed, please feel free to reactivate by switching the "ans" parameter from yes to no. Thank you everyone.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  18:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Spintendo. I won't re-open the template, nor post another one just yet, however I do have to ask: do TonyBallioni's concerns that the entry as of December 8 contained too many favorable (albeit neutrally-phrased) details of Saylor's career outweigh the problem of seven years of edits having been removed by blocked SPA Israelpetersen? More than half of the current article text is concerned with a controversy from nearly 20 years ago, like the 2010 draft it's identical to, besides which it's missing the 30+ RS sources supporting a great deal of relevant information added following volunteer review over the past seven years—including the controversy the SPA claimed to be concerned about. Put another way, the current entry is both extremely out-of-date, and in certain details entirely false. Given as well my willingness to discuss further changes, wouldn't it be better to restore it to the current version and resume the conversation? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 02:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, it's been done after all. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• WWB Too, I'm sorry, but this is a puff piece. I don't know how much of this you are responsible for, but it needs pruning. Are you also responsible for the associated articles--the foundation, the book, the company? At the risk of missing out on my monthly payment from Beutler (at least I got my million dollar Christmas bonus in!), I gotta say that this needs serious pruning. You know I'm fine with paid editors who play by the rules, but that also means the writing has to be appropriate. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I have posted a source below. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not offended; opinions will differ on what is the "right" amount of detail. I'll be around to discuss anything, and perhaps offer suggestions of my own. (And to date, I'm pretty sure I've only worked on the company page besides this one.) WWB Too (Talk · COI) 02:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

source

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/microstrategy-ceo-michael-saylor-is-no-stranger-to-criticism-hes-facing-it-again/2014/02/23/78faf83e-9800-11e3-8461-8a24c7bf0653_story.html (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

More source of high flying robbery

Here is another on CEO high flying lifestyle robbing the common shareholders

• The Life Fantastic: Michael Saylor’s All Expense Paid World — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.20.72.234 (talk) 07:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

More IP edits

@Drmies, TonyBallioni, Spintendo, Gamaliel, and Oshwah: Calling attention to everyone who's made edits since the now-blocked "Israelpetersen" account first showed up. Overnight, two IP addresses appeared, making major changes to the article, including numerous deletions by an IP beginning "103.30" out of the Haryana, India. This is the same range, and same location, as another "103" IP editor that deleted material from Robert A. Mandell, a past client of mine, a few weeks back. I recognize other editors think there had been too much detail about Mr. Saylor here in some regards, however all of these edits are very clearly made by the same person who has been wiki-stalking me and making false claims against some of you. So, I'm hoping someone is willing to revert their edits and even possibly block this problematic IP range. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

WWB Too - I'm taking a look now. I've dealt with this person more than once before... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

WWB Too - Alright, I've applied a range block that should hopefully make their efforts more difficult. If you spot any more, let me know. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Oshwah—what about their edits? Worth rolling back on account of general disruption? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

WWB Too - Well, I'll assume that whatever edits are reverted, the user will just revert and put back... if anything, it'll make a paper trail in the logs and get the attention of other users / admins who can help. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Which I suppose sounds like a reason for putting Drmies' last version back in place. My reasoning was that a blocked IP's edits should be undone as not to reward the bad behavior, and to let editors with a real interest consider changes to be made. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, Oshwah. Pain in the neck. WWB, I saw your brief response to my brief criticism, above. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
• Update: ha, you are Beutler! I had no idea. WHERE'S MY CHECK!!!???? :) Drmies (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Revisiting recent content removals

I waited a couple of days for this article to quiet down, and now that it seems to have done so, I'd like to focus attention on two specific diffs from the past week, each of which removed information that I believe should be restored or amended:

• This good-faith edit by Drmies removes information about Mr. Saylor's aeronautics and science focus at MIT, including graduating in the top 1% of his class. All of this is reliably sourced, to The Washington Post and Washingtonian, and the only reason given in the edit summary is that it's "irrelevant" to the reader. This is at least debatable, considering Mr. Saylor's career leading a technology company. Surely the detail about his graduating position is significant—very few are admitted to MIT, far fewer are recognized for their class rank. Even if this is not restored, it looks like mention of his graduation was snipped on accident, and the sentence starting "In 1987," is incomplete and ungrammatical.

• This edit by an IP with six total edits—all of them major deletions of content from this article—removes significant information related to Saylor's leadership of MicroStrategy. I think it's entirely possible other editors may find some of these details to be too much about the company and not enough about the man, but all of it was neutrally phrased, reliably sourced, and germane to the topic, not to mention it's such a sweeping change by a problematic user without any discussion that I'd like to propose it be rolled back for further consideration.

A lot has changed since the previous stable version, so I may catch something else in the coming days. For now, however, these are the changes I thought went too far. Happy to discuss any specifics, and a reminder for anyone coming across this for the first time: I have a financial COI here, as my firm worked for Mr. Saylor's company in 2013 and is now working with them again as of late last month. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Reply

1. I see your request for adding to the article a claim that Mr. Saylor graduated "at the top 1%" of his class. I'll place that in the article if you can provide me with a reference from MIT substantiating it. I see you've provided other references for that claim, but I'd like one from MIT.
2. In your second request you ask "All of it was neutrally phrased, reliably sourced, and germane to the topic, not to mention it's such a sweeping change by a problematic user without any discussion that I'd like to propose it be rolled back for further consideration."

 Question: What does it refer to? Please advise. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 18:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The content the IP removed. But those edits are an improvement, so we shouldn't do that. WWB Too can ping Drmies about #1. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Since when is The Washington Post not a sufficient reliable source? The Quixotic Potato What prompted you to add the COI warning template? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Spintendo didn't say it wasn't. If you want to talk about point number one then I recommend pinging Drmies. Because a major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject (please correct me if I am wrong). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

As I read it, Spintendo said he would add it back to the article provided a source from MIT; ironically, the WaPo story cites its MIT source. (And, I pinged Drmies in the original request.) The template on the article is not meant to be a disclaimer but is meant to call attention to a content discussion the applicator believes needs to be had. We are having it now, so what do you think needs to be changed for the template to be removed? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Have you read WP:BOGOF? This is an encyclopedia article, we need to get rid of hagiographic puffery, not add more to it. The neutrality of the article is obviously disputed. Do you have a proposal to make the article more neutral? So far you haven't exactly worked in that direction. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm only just learning of WP:BOGOF right now—no surprise, it's an essay written entirely by one user in July of this year. The nutshell says it is about undisclosed paid editing, which is not what I do. Finally, as I did not add the template, it's not my responsibility to tell you what you meant by it. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Then you can ignore the nutshell, and read the rest of the essay. It's not my responsibility to put food on your table. I didn't ask you what I meant. I asked you the following question: "Do you have a proposal to make the article more neutral?" I've removed some of the worst crap, but I am a volunteer here, and I am not getting paid to clean up the mess you got paid to create. Thanks for that. Most of the stuff that I've looked at so far was bad (claims that were not in the reference given, hagiographic puffery etc.), so I'm pretty sure that I'll find more bad stuff when I dig deeper. We also seem to be missing quite a bit of information that can be found in reliable sources but may not reflect as favorably on Saylor as some would like. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I found User:WWB Too/Michael J. Saylor and that. You wrote that hagiography, and then you convinced someone to post it. I'll also have to check the work of User:16912 Rhiannon, User:Inkian Jason, User:Danilo_Two and previous team members User:Heatherer, User:ChrisPond, and User:Morzabeth] because I am afraid that this is the tip of the iceberg. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

On your userpage you've disclosed the account names of 3 former team members, and 3 current teammembers, and yourself. 3+3+1 = 7. The company consisted of 18 people at some point in space and time. Are you sure that all Wikipedia accounts that have been used by your company are mentioned on your userpage? People are not allowed to share a Wikipedia account. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I called this article a hagiography, Drmies described it as a "puff piece".

To make a long story short, there are 2 options:

1. You didn't see the flaws in the article
2. You did see the flaws in the article, but money is money

Both are problematic. It is unlikely that you'll claim that #2 is correct, so that means that the edits made by your WWB account should also get checked. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The article still needs loads of work. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

General response to The Quixotic Potato

TQP, most of your replies above are focused on issues not directly related to this article's content, and therefore not appropriate for discussion here. I have posted a more detailed response over on your talk page outlining my thoughts, which I invite others to read, if they are curious.

For you and anyone else who may come across this discussion, I want to note a couple of things briefly. First, my company does much more than Wikipedia engagement; the majority of the team focuses on non-wiki projects (per our website) and the only team members active on Wikipedia for clients are those listed above. Second, it's important to note that there is no content on this article or any other that my team has worked on which was not previously approved by a member of the Wikipedia community exercising their own judgment. While you (and others) may disagree with specific details, I strongly object to your characterizations of my work here and in general; it's always my goal to help make Wikipedia the best information resource for its readers that it can be.

Finally, Christmas approaches, and I have technically been on vacation since yesterday afternoon. It's my intention to stay offline as much as possible until after the break. Barring significant developments, I'll return to Wikipedia discussions late next week. Happy holidays, everyone. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas/happy holidays (whatever you prefer) and I'll have a response ready by the time you get back. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Sentences

We can re-insert these sentences, but for now I'm not sure where. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

In September 2014, Saylor cut his salary from $875,000 to $1 and did away with his incentive cash bonus.

In 2015 and 2016, Saylor participated at the Forbes 400 Summit on Philanthropy.

Remove COI tag?

Nearly five years ago, I was hired by Mr. Saylor's firm to improve this article from where it stood at the time and, in doing so, I followed all the standard COI procedures: I wrote a new draft, disclosed my connection fully, requested a review of the proposed content, and the draft was accepted by a volunteer editor. The work concluded, and I had nothing to do with the page until late 2017, when I was retained by Mr. Saylor's firm once again.

In December, I requested the addition of a new photo, which was accepted, and within a few days this article became the focus of heavy editing by, among others, a now-blocked confirmed sock, as well as a particularly argumentative editor later indeffed for separate reasons. FWIW, when I first worked on this page in March 2013, I had included a number of details that I thought were interesting; within the last month, some editors in good standing expressed the opinion that it was excessive. I've come around to this point of view, and as far as I understand from the previous conversation, all of the contested material is now removed (a comparison to the article as of today vs. the one before the controversy can be found here).

While I expect to have content-related suggestions in the future, for now I just want to focus on the COI template. As far as I can tell, the current version resolves the problems raised by editors including Drmies, Spintendo, and TonyBallioni. The COI tag is meant to suggest problems with the article, but the indeffed editor left it in place after making these changes. For these reasons, I'm hopeful others will agree its inclusion is not warranted. Thanks in advance for your consideration, and I am available to answer any questions or help with any further changes if needed at this time. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• Hmm, I don't have much of a problem with removing the tag (there's a tag here on the talk page), and I'm looking at Quixotic Potato's edits (whose status is not of importance here)--OK, the only thing I would quibble with is the "Recognition" section, of which some of the content can probably be saved. Does that help? Drmies (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
• When these rich guys sit down for a photo, do they make sure their Rolex is showing? :) I want to be rich, but I'll be sporting a 1960s Favre Leuba. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Haha. Thanks for following it up. Indeed, some of the content deleted may be worth restoring; I will probably post another request in the future so that can be considered separately. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Question about restoring some previously-removed content

Following up on the changes to this article in December (see discussion above), there are some content restorations I think would improve this article from where it stands now:

• The lead section formerly, and accurately, stated Mr. Saylor is "co-founder, president, chief executive officer and chairman of the board" at MicroStrategy. Now it just says he "co-founded" the company—which leaves open a possible misreading that he might no longer still lead the company. I'd like to request a change to the introduction making clear that indeed he does. The simplest solution would be to simply restore the specific titles, but if it is felt that the complete listing was excessive for the purpose, saying "who co-founded and leads" would be a good alternative.

• An editor no longer participating opined above that two excised details could be restored, but for the right place to include them, and had identified these as the following sentences + citations:
  • In September 2014, Saylor cut his salary from $875,000 to $1 and did away with his incentive cash bonus.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Krantz|first1=Matt|title=Why this CEO slashed his paycheck – to $1|url=http://americasmarkets.usatoday.com/2014/09/10/another-bites-the-buck-ceo-cuts-pay-to-1/|publisher=USA Today|accessdate=12 September 2014}}</ref>
  • In 2015 and 2016, Saylor participated at the Forbes 400 Summit on Philanthropy.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbespr/2016/06/08/forbes-hosts-fifth-annual-forbes-400-summit-on-philanthropy/#53393103d989 |title=Forbes Hosts Fifth Annual Forbes 400 Summit On Philanthropy |work=Forbes |accessdate=21 September 2016}}</ref>

For what it's worth, I was not responsible for either of these sentences to begin with. However, they seem like reasonable inclusions. I suggest these might find a place at the end of the third paragraph of the section MicroStrategy. Alternatively, the second sentence could be placed at the end of The Saylor Foundation section.

As noted before in a disclosure template at the top of this page, I have a financial COI with the topic as Mr. Saylor's company is a client of my firm, Beutler Ink. Pinging Drmies, Oshwah and TonyBallioni, as they had engaged with some of this content before, but also including the request edit template in hopes of getting some fresh eyes on it. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• We can't insert that statement about the salary without providing some context--why? and how does he buy groceries and pay the bills? The second one, well--participating in a summit, where we have no idea what he was doing there and where the verification is in the publication that that sponsored the summit, I don't see it. But maybe others feel differently. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• I'd oppose including the summit thing. It's minor and the reference is from Forbes itself. If neutral and intellectually independent people actually consider it worth mentioning, then we could include it. Otherwise it just exists to make him look charitable and like a leader when the conference really was insignificant. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Arguably, decisions on adding charitable / philanthropic works are better-informed through the unofficial suggestions found at WP:NOBLECAUSE. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 23:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Appreciate you adding "and leads" Drmies, and for the comments, TonyBallioni and Spintendo. Certainly the one-dollar salary is a known thing for executives whose wealth is derived from the company they founded; the articles for Sergey Brin, Mark Zuckerberg, and David Filo, among others, actually include this in the infobox. Might there be support for restoring it in this way? As for the Forbes conference, no problem. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

* This request hasn't received any feedback for 3 days. I believe it may have stalled. If you wish to reformulate an earlier, unaddressed request as a new edit request, please do so at your earliest convenience. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 00:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

That's fine, I was just curious whether there was support for adding any of this back at this point. I'll have a think on it before making further suggestions on the page. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Request to re-include mention graduation ranking

I suggest we re-insert the following at the end of the second paragraph in Life:

In 1987, Saylor graduated in the top one percent of his class.<ref name=Glasser96/>

This was removed late last year, when there was a flurry of editing activity, and I think its removal was in error. The Washington Post story, which is already cited in the article, states: He finished in the top 1 percent of his class with a 4.8 grade-point average on a five-point scale, according to Saylor's senior thesis adviser, John Sterman.

When this was previously discussed, Spintendo had expressed openness to doing so if I could provide "a reference from MIT substantiating" the claim. But a primary source from MIT is unnecessary because, per the quote above, the story attributes the information to Mr. Saylor's senior thesis adviser at MIT.

Since I am here on behalf of MicroStrategy and Michael J. Saylor and have a financial conflict of interest, I will not edit this article directly and am seeking other editors' input and assistance in posting these categories. Also pinging Drmies, as I had previously said I would. Happy to answer any questions if need be. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's take a look at the claim being discussed here. "The top 1 percent of his class with a 4.8 GPA". The problem with this assertion is who it comes from. Anyone with a deep understanding of how colleges work would understand that a thesis advisor would have no way of knowing who represented the top 1 percent of an entire year's class. A 'thesis advisor' does just that - they advise on matters pertaining to a student and their dissertation. It is very likely that the thesis advisor was part of only one department and would therefore not have access to other students dissertations let alone their grades, enough to know who represented the top part of that year's student body (what is meant by "the class"). While the claim is originating from MIT, and while you are correct that I initially stated that this claim would need to be substantiated by someone at MIT, what I meant was the claim ought to be substantiated by someone in the registrars office, the only person on the entire campus who would have complete, unobstructed access to evidence for this claim. Unless I'm mistaken, this claim is originating from only one person - the thesis advisor (according to the WP, which did not independently substantiate it ["according to Saylor's senior thesis adviser, John Sterman."]). Unless someone else can prove me wrong, I don't believe that the thesis advisor is in a position to be making this claim. Regards, Spintendo      19:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Spintendo, all of this speculation on your part is tantamount to WP:OR. Meanwhile, we have a highly WP:RELIABLE source that even went so far as to show its work in asserting the claim. There's no reason to think it false, and the burden is not on me to prove that the Washington Post should be taken seriously. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

None of what you've stated counters the difficulties that these types of WP:NUMBER1 claims carry, making them almost impossible to prove. Spintendo      20:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Spintendo, none of what you've said impeaches the Washington Post as a reliable source for this information, nor have you provided a sound reason to doubt the veracity of the claim itself. Besides, WP:NUMBER1 is part of an essay about Notability, so it's neither here nor there. If you won't reconsider, I do hope another editor else will review this and decide it's not so controversial as you're making it out to be. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Saying that an essay is "neither here nor there" demonstrates your lack of knowledge about the importance of WP:ESSAYS in reaching decisions on this site. As for my reasoning, I've made it perfectly clear in my post above. This isn't the Post itself making this claim, this is the Post quoting one person making the claim. There is a huge difference between when a paper makes a claim as an organization versus when a paper repeats a claim made by a singular person. The former implies that the paper has combined multiple sources in order to arrive at a position, and any burden inherent to that statement is carried by the entire paper as an organization. The latter implies that the claim originates only from the person being quoted, in this case John Sterman, and any burden inherent to the statement is carried by Mr. Sterman alone. When looking at assertions where the burden is carried by only WP:ONESOURCE, Wikipedia ought to look at the quality of that singular source, and should doubt sources which are singular quotes from one person, especially when that assertion has the side effect of increasing the prestige and vanity of the article's subject. Please understand that your conflict of interest is preventing you from seeing this request in that manner, but I'm telling you, that is the way I see it. But you are free to ask other editors if you like. I will keep this template active for 48 hours to garner other's input. Spintendo      21:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for re-opening it. What if the statement said, According to the Washington Post, Saylor graduated in 1987 in the top one percent of his class.<ref name=Glasser96/>? Notwithstanding your speculation, the Post found it worthy of inclusion. Surely they would not have stated the claim if they did not believe it to be accurate. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

1. It's not according to the Washington Post. Rather, it's according to John Sterman. A quote must be verifiably attributed to a reliable source, not by a reliable source. This has the reliability factor resting not on the Post, but on Mr. Sterman and whether he is reliable. As a thesis advisor, Mr. Sterman had no purview over the eventual outcomes and rankings of students. Making a determination of what percentage someone occupied over their entire graduating class is not a claim he would have been in a position to make, as that was not his primary purpose at MIT. Therefore, he is not a reliable source for this claim.
2. Even if his claim was verifiable, there is no mandate that everything verifiable be included in an article. In those instances consensus determines which information improves an article, and the burden for that is on those seeking to include the claim. Unless anyone has anything additional to offer, the discussion of this topic from my point of view is completed. Spintendo      01:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• OK, if we're going to be picky, we might as well ask for a transcript/MIT document, since it's possible that the WaPo wasn't able to fact-check the statement, etc. That the WaPo reported on it is a good argument for inclusion, by the way, and I'm not opposed to it: apparently it's a Big Deal, and I suppose that it's a Big Deal to the paying customer here, in a sort of Trumpian way maybe. And I also suppose it's a big deal at MIT. Now, it is not true that Mr. Sterman--hold on, that's not "Mr. Sterman", that's Dr. Sterman, the Jay W. Forrester Professor of Management; Professor, System Dynamics and Engineering Systems; and Director, MIT System Dynamics Group--it is not true, I say, that Dr. Sterman could not know whether he was in the top 1% or not: given that Saylor graduated in the 1980s (right?) and the WaPo interview with Sterman was likely done in 1996, and that Sterman (who remembers the thesis) probably followed this guy's career a bit and may have calculated this himself after crunching some numbers from the registrar, etc. etc. ... No, it is entirely possible that he knew this correctly. I mean, it's MIT, for crying out loud: if they can't do that, then how can we do it at my third-rate satellite campus?

  But the question remains, is it worthy of inclusion? Well, Sterman is a big shot, and the WaPo is a big paper, and the detail is one of only three mentioned about his college career, so really, I don't see why not (even though I think it is silly that a grown man would pay to see to it that this detail ends up in his bio--for the record, I only made one B in all of grad school, and the rest was all As: booyah!). Cullen328, you're a pretty independent kind of guy; what do you think? Drmies (talk) 03:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Well, I am even less qualified to comment, Drmies, since I have no graduate degree at all but just a crappy BS degree from the mid-tier Jesuit University of San Francisco. I too got all As except for one B, but completely forget the exact (though high) GPA of my low level academic drudgery. As for the Saylor factoid, it is well-referenced and I cannot think of a genuine reason to exclude it. But it seems a bit unseemly for Saylor to pay WWB Too to lobby to get the factoid in. My vote is "meh". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments—and even a bit of the snark—Drmies and Cullen. Speaking as one with an English B.A. from a state school best known for a shoe company sponsoring its football program, it's nice to see some levity after this request turned contentious so quickly.

I might as well state for the record that Mr. Saylor himself is not specifically clamoring for its re-inclusion. Its removal bothered me at the time, just on a why-was-this-verified-statement-removed level, so it was something I had kept on the list to ask about once things had calmed down.

It also goes without saying I think the claim is a significant one in his personal biography, relevant to his career history, and the Post (via a knowledgeable MIT source) is as reliable a source as one will find. If in fact Spintendo really has disengaged, would one of you consider adding it? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

WWB Too, I didn't see a date (1987, you say) in the WaPo article. Can you confirm that either I missed it or we can retrieve that from elsewhere? Sorry to be picky, but if we're going to be picky... (and thank you Cullen328.) Drmies (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: The sidebar in the Post story says, "Education: BA from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1987". There is also this story in Washingtonian, which refers to "his MIT days, 1983 to 1987". Washingtonian is currently referenced within the article as <ref name=Jaffe00/>. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit looks great to me, and quite literally more than I'd have asked for. Thanks, Drmies. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Categories

Greetings! I'm Andrew with MicroStrategy. Several months ago, Wikipedians added a number of extra categories to the MicroStrategy article to help group it with similar articles, at the request of User:WWB Too who was working on behalf of MicroStrategy. Can the same be done here? Are the following categories applicable for the Michael J. Saylor article? Thanks in advance for your assistance!

• Category:American technology company founders
• Category:American technology writers
• Category:American writers
• Category:Chief executive officers
• Category:Philanthropists
• Category:Technology business executives
• Category:Technology company founders

As a member of MicroStrategy's digital marketing team, I am the company's current sole representative on Wikipedia. Per Wikipedia rules of engagement, I will not be making edits to MicroStrategy-related articles and will be making suggestions on article discussion pages. Regards, Andrewggordon84 (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I added Category:American technology company founders and Category:American technology writers. I don't feel comfortable adding Category:Philanthropists without a citatioon to a reliable source. Has The New York Times or Wall Street Journal called him a philanthropist? If not, he doesn't really belong in that category. The others are redundant. For example, all American technology writers are already a subset of "American writers". You can use {{request edit}} if you have more requests. That will put the request in a queue, and you probably won't have to wait as long. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks NinjaRobotPirate! And thanks for explaining the redundant categories. As for Category:Philanthropists, I have not seen any NYT or WSJ stories that specifically refer to Michael J. Saylor as a "philanthropist". Just so you can understand my thinking here: Saylor established a charitable foundation and launched the non-profit Saylor Academy, which has been mentioned in The Washington Post, Inside Philanthropy, and Inside Higher Ed, among other places. On that basis, I'd argue that he should be considered a philanthropist.

That said, I do understand if there's a specific requirement to meet in order to call him a philanthropist on Wikipedia.

Regards, Andrewggordon84 (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the article in Inside Philanthropy looks good to me. I don't like labeling people with positive or negative terms unless a prominent source can back them up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again, NinjaRobotPirate! Really appreciated.

Regards,

Andrewggordon84 (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Saylor Academy

The Saylor Foundation now goes by "Saylor Academy" (Sources: The Chronicle of Higher Education, U.S. News & World Report, and Time). The Wikipedia article on the organization was moved from Saylor Foundation to Saylor Academy in February, but this article still uses the old name. I have some ideas on how to update this.

• Change "The Saylor Foundation" to "Saylor Academy" in the introduction
• Change the heading of "The Saylor Foundation" to "Saylor Academy"
• Update the first sentence of The Saylor Foundation
  • Live article: "In 1999, Saylor established The Saylor Foundation, of which he is the sole trustee."
  • Suggested update: "In 1999, Saylor established The Saylor Foundation (later named Saylor Academy), of which he is the sole trustee."
  • Source supporting "later named Saylor Academy": The Chronicle of Higher Education

As a member of MicroStrategy's digital marketing team, I am the company's current sole representative on Wikipedia. Per Wikipedia rules of engagement, I will not be making edits to MicroStrategy-related articles and will be making suggestions on article discussion pages.

Regards,

Andrewggordon84 (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: What do you think of updating "Saylor Foundation" to "Saylor Academy" in this article? As a member of MicroStrategy's digital marketing team, I will not edit it myself. I ask you directly since you helped update the categories a few months back. I kindly thank you.

Regards,

Andrewggordon84 (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

You can use {{Request edit}} to request that someone without a COI make the edit for you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I added {{Request edit}} at NinjaRobotPirate's suggestion. Thanks!

Regards,

Andrewggordon84 (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Done, seems innocuous enough. The 3 sources don't actually say that the name changed from Foundation to Academy, that might be nice to support, but they do say it is now called Academy, so we should too. --GRuban (talk) 02:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Great, thanks for your help, GRuban!

Regards,

Andrewggordon84 (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Corridor Crew

I would suggest adding the recent hacking of the Corridor Crew YouTube channel for his livestream. 107.2.119.59 (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)