Talk:Icertis - Knowledge

2536:

process, we should be encouraging such behavior. If an editor has evidence of sockpuppetry they should go through the appropriate process, as veiled accusations serve nobody. I will continue to encourage and assist editors with conflicts of interest to pursue this valuable path. I've seen many an inexperienced editor meddle with requests, and understanding it's rather niche, it's always good to remember Knowledge's guiding principle of assuming good faith, while also noting that customer-interaction is a vital part of this effort. If one doesn't have the time to offer constructive feedback due to the very nature of this work, perhaps COI requests aren't an area one should be focusing on, specifically given there is no urgency around these parts. On a final note, it is an easy and rather dangerous path to be accusing somebody of suckpuppetry based off of redlink accounts that clearly were used in a different time period and probably were different employees to begin with, and there is subsequent owning of requests by what appears to be a responsible editor in charge of dealing with Knowledge requests by that particular company. I don't think anyone would suggest that they go back to having random employees just edit the article themselves instead of requesting edits, would they? Rounding back to this specific article, I don't have an informed opinion, given what I said before about merely going through a couple of detailed requests a while back and not having time nor any particular incentive to perform an article-wide copy edit. If you feel there are specific issues related to WP:PROMO, I would suggest being clear and specific to be a good guiding principle, rather than using blanket statements. Regards,

2689: 2496:

involved with seeking to update Knowledge for Icertis since earlier this year, and I don't know if any past editors were hired by Icertis. When my team decided to approach Knowledge this year, we wanted to do it the right way and follow all the guidelines. Before I set up my account, I learned about the Terms of Use and guidelines. That's why I have been on this Talk page, disclosing my COI and making edit requests for non-COI editors to review and implement. I'm the only person on Knowledge officially on behalf of Icertis.

2851:, there was nothing in that section that is not typically found in other start or C class company articles. You seemed to agree with this assessment by saying that the problem was actually in the sources. So I have more carefully reviewed the sources in the History section before you chopped it. None of the sources has been previously flagged as unreliable. All but one of the stories have bylines so there's not an obvious 191: 347: 50: 1951: 1383: 1137: 1060: 854: 471: 102: 81: 21: 413: 112: 2101: 1873: 1107: 558: 2214:. I would offer that the BI India reference is used only to confirm the company's founding date, the location of some of its offices, and a basic description of what its software does. And there are obviously 33 other sources behind the article. But I respect your opinion. I do want to ask two other editors, 1275:, thank you for adding your full comment here. I appreciate your suggestion to look at similar companies' articles. This is something that I did prior to making my drafts and I can look at these examples some more. Are there any specific phrases or details that stood out as promotional in the current article? 3551:

To reiterate, I really want to make sure that I'm contributing here appropriately and that, when I come back with future edit requests, I'm putting forward information that makes the page stronger and provides the types of details that editors are looking for. The edit summaries having clear notes is

3547:

section. Their note on that edit was that "talking about customers is promo." That's good for me to know, and I'll steer clear of that type of detail in future requests. However, in the same edit, they also deleted a few details about how Icertis's technology works, and there wasn't a mention of that

2803:

paragraphs you excised, there were references from sizable journalistic outlets like the Seattle Times and TechCrunch. Are even those articles not useful? I'm genuinely trying to understand where your bar is for sourcing, so that I can try to clear it. You also mentioned that the latest funding round

2326:

Thanks for the explanation. "Promotional" doesn't just mean coming across as promotional, it means written from the perspective of promotional based upon poor and promotional references, often with the actual intent to promote rather than create encyclopedic content. The latter is the case here. The

1195:

responded to the post I mistakenly made on my user page, informing me that: "In general, if you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. Use of your company's own press can be problematic." While that's helpful guidance, I would like to point out that I have made sure not

2778:

I would like to have a more granular discussion about how that section's sourcing can be improved, and what should be kept in it, rather than just chucking the whole thing. I did some research on software companies that are somewhat similar to Icertis, to compare how they treat funding information,

2535:

I haven't extensively looked at the article's history, my role here mainly having been to assess a few COI requests as posed by the above editor. I think whenever editors adhere to Knowledge's TOS (in this instance by requesting an edit be made when a COI has been declared in good faith) and proper

2520:

I'm aware that you find some of the page's current sourcing insufficient and I would like to help with that. If you can tell me which sources are not appropriate (I'm already looking into replacement sourcing for the Business Insider piece), I'd like the opportunity to see if I can find alternative

2179:

tag can be removed from the top of the page. I am obviously not in a position to make that judgment, because I have a COI, but given that all of the content on the current version of the page has been reviewed and implemented by neutral editors, I think it’s fair to say that the article is aligned

3535:

Hello again! I've been quiet for a little while, since I felt it was best to step back and let editors sort through their disagreements about this page's content. I'm not sure if those discussions have fully concluded yet, so for now I'll continue to stay back and allow editors to find consensus

2495:

were Icertis interns when they edited the page. I don't believe either of them were officially tasked to edit the page, and it appears they did not know the site's guidelines. I'll make sure for the future that communications interns are aware they should not be editing Knowledge. I've only been

2516:

of these editors are independent and have no connection to Icertis. I assure you that I have been acting in good faith and trying to improve the page while following Knowledge's COI rules to the letter. My aim has been to make this page more encyclopedic. If any of my drafts fell short in that

3536:

about the best content for the page. While that's happening, I'm following this discussion and editing process and aiming to improve my understanding of what makes a good page. I particularly want to make sure that if I make any future requests, I am offering appropriate and quality content.

2268:

is complaining about a sourcing problem. I don't really see a sourcing problem either. There are some low-quality sources but there are also good ones too. Somoeone may want to go through and thin out the sources but improving articles that have too many sources isn't a high priority for most

2327:

solution is to ensure the article is solidly based upon clearly independent sources that demonstrate encyclopedic value. No one has done that, and I agree with you that it isn't a high priority for most editors, other than those being incentivized by Icertis, directly or indirectly. --

1165:

has added a tag to the page that says it's "written like an advertisement." While I agree that the page isn't in ideal shape, I have been trying for the past couple months to improve it by proposing content that uses secondary sources and an encyclopedic tone. For reference, here's a

3476:. Obviously promotional in nature and cited to obscure / low-quality sources. It makes no sense to document every funding round that every company has ever gone through, or to breathlessly track their valuation when the coverage is so low-quality and sparse. -- 1410:

The company has additional offices in North America, as well as in India and Europe. Its co-founders, Samir Bodas and Monish Darda, operate as CEO and CTO, respectively. Icertis is a privately owned, venture capital-funded company with minority stakes held by

3056:

hasn't reached a satisfying conclusion, so I'm going to tag them in here. I have tried to stay out of the back-and-forth among independent editors, since I have my obvious biases, but I don't think it's fair that you've decided to delete almost the entire

2770:

2746:

I've removed all the funding information. I'm not seeing much in the way of references that provide encyclopedic context. The amount of the last round may be DUE. If there are references that clearly are more than PROMO and NOTNEWS, please point them out.

938:! Thanks for reviewing. I think your tweaks are reasonable and I really appreciate you making the effort to bring the content in line with similar company articles. I realize I didn't mention this in my initial post, but my intention was to have this 1829:

I would appreciate if an editor or two could give this a review and, if they think it's up to Knowledge's content standards, post it to the page. I'm also open to feedback, if anyone believes that this draft can be significantly improved. Thanks!

873:

section that describes some of the company's more notable products and their applications. I've made an effort not to simply list everything that the company has developed, focusing only on technology that has received significant media coverage.

2174:

Hello! First, I want to say thank you to every editor who has fielded my edit requests and helped improve this page. It's in much, much better shape than it was several months ago. With all that work now completed, I would like to see if the

521:

line. The company opens new offices and closes old ones with some regularity, and the total number of offices in operation at any given time is almost never reported on by secondary sources. Having no number at all beats having an inaccurate

2795:

sections were also built largely out of coverage generated by funding announcements, so it doesn't seem like there's a clear prerogative to completely avoid this type of detail. Is there a compromise we can reach where some of the detail is

1966:

Hello! I thought I would propose an improved introduction that reflects the newly up-to-date information that's contained in the body of the article. Some of the stuff in the current intro is no longer accurate. Here's my suggested framing:

2222:, for their take on the article, given that the former has approved a few edit requests and the latter recently assessed the article for the Companies Wikiproject. I'll pause here and wait to see if they have any thoughts. Cheers! 583:: I'm working on some more significant improvements to this page and will be proposing them in the near future. If you're game to review those requests, great, and if not, thank you very much for your help on these fixes. Cheers! 1357:

If I am understanding correctly, the changes you originally suggested have been implemented / discussed. I will be closing this COIREQ; if you have further suggestions, please open a new one (and optionally ping me so I see it).

3510:

I'm afraid I don't know what to do with these comments. I've posted a simple binary question that seems clear and concise to me. I don't see how any RfC can or should be responded to without doing some research. Calling this

3365:

Is this simply a vote without regard to policy? While that's been a problem all along, perpetuating it will not create a policy-based consensus. I've already said I'll take this to POVN after giving the COIN discussion time.

486:

Hello Wikipedians! I'm an employee at Icertis and am requesting edits to this page as part of my job. This obviously gives me a conflict of interest, so I'm disclosing my COI up front (you can read a fuller disclosure on

1302:

Yes, I've gone ahead and removed the Funding section. If there's anything noteworthy about their funding, it should be mentioned. I skimmed through the references and found just basic coverage of where the company was

2195:

The extremely heavy usage of the Business Insider India reference is an indication that there is still a problem. That reference is simply a warmed-over press release. At a glance, there are many such references.

3548:

in the edit summary so I'm unsure why that was removed. (If they're able to provide a quick note on why that was cut, that would be helpful, but I'm mainly just using this as an example of where I'm struggling.)

1901:

section is missing a period. Would you mind correcting that? I also have a request below where I'm suggesting a few small fixes to the intro, if that interests you. Again, I really appreciate the help. Cheers!

946:

one, which covers some of the same ground but is in bad shape from a sourcing and content standpoint. If that sounds good to you, then I'm fine with you posting this new section to the page in its edited form.

2824:

SOAP, NOTNEWS - using this article for public relations campaign - if there's a summarizing ref, it's not easy to find - some of this may be noteworthy and worth mention especially the amount of the last

1402:

section, which is meant to provide some high-level information on the company's size, ownership, and leadership structure. Since it's only one paragraph, I will post the text and references in full here:

2718:

Are there any references that go beyond a corporate announcement that should be kept? Is there any general consensus that applies suggesting that some of the information should be retained regardless? --

2499:

My goal has been to try to fix the issues on the page, including any caused by Icertis' missteps in the past. Virtually all of the content that's on the Icertis page right now has been approved by you,

2009: 1441: 638: 1805: 664: 209: 3595: 312: 1701: 717: 1188:

request. I would like to see the tag on this page removed, given that editors seem to think it's headed in the right direction, but I understand if there are parts that are still problematic.

536:

at the bottom of that section: Samir Bodas (co-founder & CEO), Monish Darda (co-founder & CTO), Neal Singh (COO), Curt Anderson (CFO), Gretchen Eischen (CMO), and Pranali Save (CHRO).

1223:? And if anyone has feedback or thoughts on my concerns about the tag, feel free to reach out. Apologies again for the posting mix-up, but I hope I've clarified everything here. Thank you! 1172:

to what the page looked like before I started placing edit requests. I have a conflict of interest, so I know there's a degree of skepticism around my proposals, but, as you can see above,

3231:, the article reads like an advert and I think from now the coi editors need to use edit requests. I'm still half-minded to take it to Afd having looked at it when it was posted at coin. 2128:

tag to be removed from the article. If you don't want to weigh in on that, I understand, but given that you've approved a couple edits for this page, I thought I'd point it out. Cheers!

1753: 3158:

No, I'm trying to solicit another opinion to help resolve this dispute. I don't have a good track record of choosing the right venue for these things. Any suggestions are appreciated. ~

3252:

No offense to anyone, but this is a basic question to ask when addressing the possible need for an article rewrite due to POV problems. I'm not asking if it's notable, but how.

885:

here because they were so helpful with getting the infobox updates done, but if any other editors would like to jump in and take a look at my draft, that's fine too. Thank you!

3383: 2084:

If a non-COI editor could review that language and post it to the page, I would really appreciate it. Of course, I happily welcome any feedback editors might have too. Thanks!

1462: 1152:

Hello! First, I should say that I mistakenly posted a version of this edit request to my own user page instead of this article's Talk page. Sorry about that. Here's a link to

1920:. Did you happen to spot my Introduction request below? If it's not something you're interested in, I can reach out to see if anyone else can help with that request. Thanks! 1288:

Also, leaving aside the question of the tags for the moment, would editors be in favor of removing the Funding section since its content definitely doesn't seem appropriate?

1204:

section are all sourced from independent journalistic outlets, as I'm aware that Knowledge doesn't accept things like press releases and interviews with company employees.

3590: 3069:. I'm not quite clear on the reasoning but have reviewed the content and souces and don't see a problem serious enough to merit deleting the content or even applying an 2887:

Yes, but you can't just be disagreeable. You need to justify your position with something more substantial than your own personal judgement. Should we seek help from

768: 2732:

The article probably needs a total rewrite. We can move it to draft space or stub it if editors are not interested in working on writing it for the necessary. --

2349:. Your position seems to be that if an article started out with promotional material or intent, there's really no way to fix it properly without starting over. ~ 2596:

tag is intended to be used to alert other editors that discussion is necessary. We're having that discussion. Once we're finished, that should be removed too. @

878: 1042:

capabilities can read contracts and offer insight about what its terms might mean for a company's finances. It can also aid in quickly drafting new contracts.

3338:. See discussion above and edit comments for their justification for removing it. A significant portion of the material in this article was contributed by a 2859:

issue for the article if the investment community is swooning over a company. I request the material be restored and then improved as necessary from there. ~

1539: 2995:? This section addresses exactly that, and you'll note I waited a full week for an answer to my questions (with no response) before removing the content. -- 2180:

with Knowledge’s content guidelines and no longer merits a tag. Again, however, I will leave that for non-COI editors to discuss and decide. Thanks again!

1257:

articles for companies like your own to get a feel for what information is and is not included in such articles and how that information is referenced." --

1019:

Icertis provides cloud-based software intended to digitize, organize, and centralize business contracts. The software is licensed to companies through the

248: 235: 1620: 3539:

On that note, I do have a small request that if material is deleted, can editors provide a couple notes in the edit summary on why that is? For example,

3404: 3010: 2948:. Sorry if you you took my statement as a personal attack. It was not intended as such. My point is it is unacceptable to remain mired in disagreement. ~ 2631:

I wasn't being sarcastic. Sock puppetry is a serious issue. I understand that we disagree, but that doesn't mean we have a consensus to do it your way. ~

1675: 1080: 691: 168: 1727: 1565: 3580: 3145: 158: 2290:, extremely promotional content, and very poor sources. While we're making headway, I don't think we're close to having resolved those problems. -- 2061: 1649: 1211:

section. It's not terribly substantial, as it's primarily a list of funding rounds and investors, the most notable of which are now covered by the

3585: 3287: 1591: 31: 2377:

OK, so what's the justification for leaving the tag in place at this point? Can you identify specific text that you consider to be promotional? ~

1849:

edit request above, as I realized it was kind of a mess and might have been confusing for editors. Now that I've fixed that up, I wanted to ask

743: 1079:, which is currently a single sentence. My proposed version of that section is several paragraphs long, so I uploaded it to my user page here: 1479: 1285:: I'm keen to have you look at this again, too, in case there's any suggestions you'd make or notes you have from reviewing my requests above. 3575: 3459:

This RFC is malformed. Don't ask responders to do research. Narrow the issues and ask a clear and concise question. Suggest you start over.

397: 3600: 222: 134: 3428:

What a stupid and absurd RFC, asking should content that is both promotional and abusive go back into what is already a brochure article,

820: 447: 242: 3454: 3104: 1897:. And sorry for being a touch overzealous with those references. One small thing: I noticed that the end of the first sentence of the 2035: 3605: 2600:, we need some clear and specific complaints about the content of this article. Which sentences, which references are promotional? ~ 908:

I looked over your draft and made minor suggestions to the earlier part of it, based on my research of a few good company articles:

3259:, and appears notable for the attention major publishers have given to Icertis' public relations about their company and products. 2312:

based on the references. I'm also not sure how much we should be taking article history into account when making this assessment. ~

2264:

problem. The worst I found was claims of multinational customers which is supported by several references. I have removed the tag.

795: 2572:

issue. Sure sourcing can be improved but I beleive there is adequate reliable sourcing and that's usually our focus in satisfying

1167: 2430:

Looking closer, the COI problems look out of control. I've listed two accounts that use the names of employees. I'm also seeing

2155: 540:

If someone could help me with these edits, or has any suggestions as to how they could be improved, please let me know. Thanks!

1219:

cite press releases, which Hipal pointed out is not ideal. If any editors agree with that assessment, could they please delete

365: 125: 86: 2165: 1090:

Any editor help I can get, whether it's draft approval or constructive criticism, would be very much appreciated. Thank you!

1087:

section, I tried to moderate my tone and focus on aspects of the company's history that received significant media coverage.

357: 303: 1027: 3142: 1978: 423: 381: 216: 203: 61: 229: 1754:"SAP deepens partnership with Icertis, taking minority stake and committing to joint roadmap with the CLM specialist" 3308:

You don't understand, or aren't reading what's written. The question is "how is it notable", not "is it notable"? --

426:

require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see

1779: 1249:

sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. Use of your company's own press can be problematic. You may want to look at

391: 27: 1510: 491:). I promise not to edit the page directly and to do my best to follow all of Knowledge's content guidelines. 49: 3557: 3155: 3134: 2809: 2526: 2227: 2219: 2185: 2161: 2133: 2089: 1957: 1925: 1907: 1862: 1835: 1389: 1342: 1293: 1228: 1153: 1143: 1095: 1066: 1035: 991: 973: 952: 925: 890: 860: 610: 588: 570: 545: 477: 441: 361: 3498: 3464: 3399: 3388: 3097:

Icertis Laura has been and continues to be a party. I'm unaware of any "sidelined due to a COI" exclusion.

2492: 917: 387: 275: 769:"CFOs In Tech: Icertis' Curt Anderson On The Need To Evolve With Startups And How Covid Changed The Game" 1982: 1363: 1020: 431: 255: 67: 3061:

section without input from anyone else, while another editor was in the middle of trying to engage you.

2775:

section without input from anyone else, while another editor was in the middle of trying to engage you.

605:

Sure, feel free to ping me on future requests, and also open them to anyone who is available to edit.

2580: 2550:

I'm not accusing anyone of sockpuppetry. I identified two, now confirmed, undeclared paid editors. --

1986: 1853:

if they would be interested in reviewing the request? No worries if not, but you helped out with the

1407: 419: 1337:, thanks very much for removing the Funding section. I'll keep your feedback in mind going forward. 20: 3481: 2704: 1038:(AI) technology to identify problematic contract clauses and flag potential compliance issues. Its 133:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

3553: 3343: 3037: 2852: 2805: 2522: 2512:. A handful of other editors have stepped in to make small formatting changes. As far as I know, 2501: 2488: 2223: 2181: 2129: 2085: 1921: 1903: 1858: 1831: 1338: 1289: 1278: 1224: 1173: 1091: 987: 969: 963: 948: 935: 921: 903: 886: 882: 869:

Hello again! I'm back with some more substantial updates to the page, this time in the form of a

606: 600: 584: 580: 566: 541: 488: 451: 437: 371: 494:

With that said, I have some ideas for improving the infobox on this page. They are as follows:

3494: 3460: 2463:(Strikeout what can be interpreted to be an aspersion on unidentified editors, and "many". -- 3540: 3435: 3279: 3234: 2804:

should be included but seem to have removed that. Could the first step be adding that back?

2569: 1359: 1039: 375: 261: 117: 1621:"Contract management startup Icertis hits $ 1B valuation with massive $ 115M funding round" 1592:"Contract management startup Icertis hits $ 1B valuation with massive $ 115M funding round" 3412: 3371: 3313: 3283: 3264: 3228: 3209: 3112: 3073: 3066: 3018: 3000: 2967: 2935: 2919: 2878: 2856: 2838: 2752: 2737: 2723: 2650: 2622: 2555: 2541: 2468: 2450: 2396: 2391:

Specifically, all content that's verified only with the poor or promotional references. --

2368: 2346: 2332: 2309: 2295: 2261: 2245: 2201: 2111: 1884: 1461:

The named reference "BIIndia1" was defined multiple times with different content (see the

1322: 1312: 1262: 1117: 1031: 292: 3227:

The coverage here is routine business news, driven from PR and press-releases that fails

3520: 3477: 3355: 3299: 3256: 3192: 3184: 3180: 3163: 3084: 2953: 2900: 2864: 2696: 2664: 2636: 2605: 2382: 2354: 2317: 2274: 427: 268: 190: 2617:

I don't agree with your assessment of what the situation is or how to move forward. --

3569: 3339: 3291: 3041: 2892: 2830: 2565: 2440: 2434: 796:"Tech Moves: Icertis hires new CMO; Expedia Group board member steps down; and more" 3347: 3176: 3129: 2945: 2888: 2590: 1254: 1250: 1246: 1242: 2036:"Seattle-area startup Icertis now valued at $ 2.8 billion after fresh $ 80M round" 1857:

section and, since I'm a little bit stuck here, I thought I would ask. Thank you!

1075:

Hello again! I've returned with a new section draft, this time for the company's '

3179:

is the right venue so I will cancel this request. Their suggestion is to post at

2573: 2422: 1030:

platform. It allows a company to digitize and store all of its contracts in the

913: 3408: 3367: 3335: 3309: 3275: 3260: 3205: 3172: 3108: 3049: 3033: 3014: 2996: 2963: 2931: 2915: 2874: 2848: 2834: 2784: 2763: 2748: 2733: 2719: 2646: 2618: 2597: 2551: 2537: 2505: 2484: 2464: 2446: 2392: 2364: 2342: 2328: 2291: 2265: 2241: 2215: 2211: 2197: 2121: 2107: 1917: 1894: 1880: 1850: 1780:"Icertis Raises $ 80M at $ 2.8B Valuation to Digitize the Contracting Process" 1334: 1318: 1308: 1282: 1272: 1258: 1192: 1181: 1162: 1113: 107: 2517:

regard, I hope editors can share feedback so I can help to remedy the issues.

1806:"This company gives its employees the option to choose their work preference" 1676:"Contract management 'next big enterprise software category': Penny Pritzker" 692:"Contract management 'next big enterprise software category': Penny Pritzker" 665:"This company gives its employees the option to choose their work preference" 356:

to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include

3516: 3429: 3351: 3295: 3188: 3159: 3123: 3080: 3053: 2949: 2896: 2860: 2767: 2660: 2632: 2601: 2509: 2378: 2350: 2313: 2270: 1207:

Lastly, to further improve the page, I wanted to suggest the removal of the

2308:

read as promotional. This is the first time I've seen an argument claiming

1974: 1702:"After Freshworks, Icertis is looking for an IPO for next year in the US" 1540:"KPIT solves pandemic related contractual complexities with CLM solution" 1412: 718:"After Freshworks, Icertis is looking for an IPO for next year in the US" 877:

I've uploaded a draft of this Technology section to my user pages here:

3400:

User_talk:Nightenbelle#Knowledge:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Icertis

2345:

I'm afraid I'm unable to map what you have said here to what I read at

909: 130: 101: 80: 2445:. I hope that Icertis Laura can shed light on what's been going on. -- 2286:

If you'll look over the article history, I think you'll see heavy SPA

2154: 2010:"This Pune-based startup tripled its valuation in less than two years" 1989:. It also has additional offices in North America, India, and Europe. 1442:"This Pune-based startup tripled its valuation in less than two years" 639:"This Pune-based startup tripled its valuation in less than two years" 3515:

is obviously unhelpful. Please give me some actionable suggestions. ~

2788: 3350:

and was reviewed and inserted by at least two independent editors. ~

3009:

The DRN attempt has been closed. I've started a discussion at COIN:

2944:

Since you've not offered a constructive suggestion, I'll start with

1026:

The company's flagship product, Icertis Contract Intelligence, is a

2487:. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Having looked into it, 1985:

model. The company, which was founded in 2009, is headquartered in

2822:

I explained and made some suggestions when removing the material:

2780: 2062:"Bellevue software-maker Icertis pulls in $ 15 million in funding" 1650:"Bellevue software-maker Icertis pulls in $ 15 million in funding" 2283:

So are you saying that there are no poor and promotional sources?

1879:

I trimmed some of the excessive referencing, but implemented it.

1196:

to use company sources in my edit requests. The infobox updates,

3044:

but has offered the following summary of the current situation:

3493:

Agree this is malformed- should be re-formatted and re-opened.

1960: