User talk:ChrisPond/Archive 1

756:

of Accenture. Although BusinessWeek private capital's entry is referenced in the article, it isn't terribly up to date. That's okay, because enough is. It says that Accenture is based out of Chicago, with a specific street address and phone number. Your corporate website lists the same information for the Chicago office, but there is no designation indicating that that office is any different than your others, worldwide. The article on WP has Accenture in two Chicago-business related categories. I realize that Accenture is a sprawling multi-national company, but where is your headquarters and where do you denote this? It is provided by the BusinessWeek entry, a secondary source, but since that is out of date, (sometimes they aren't so reliable, but they're a lot better than nothing, so I'm by no means complaining!) is that correct, that you're a U.S.-domiciled company, incorporated in Chicago, Illinois? What is your tax status, C-corp, LLC or otherwise?

1247: 867:

cuts to the article, as you may have noticed. Parts of it were just embarrassing, about the feuding between the consulting and non-consulting group of Arthur Andersen in the pre-Accenture days. More importantly, not only were they unencyclopedic content, they were also un-sourced and conjectural, so it is in everyone's best interest to have them gone. They took up more space, in the first two or three sections of the article than any of the genuine content.

2005: 1961: 1345: 1314: 1292: 666: 31: 952:, neither of which have been completely resolved. On one of them (regarding Principal subsidiaries) there seems to be consensus, though neither editor involved in the discussion has yet implemented the agreed-upon change. The other request (under Marketing, branding and identity) has been partially resolved, although we seem to be stuck regarding how to describe Tiger Woods' involvement in the company's advertising. 2657: 1906: 200: 2317: 1468: 804:(note: link is very slow to load, but will eventually). However, Businessweek is wrong about their headquarters; although they have offices in Dublin and Chicago, they actually don't consider any particular location their headquarters as such, so that information should come out of the infobox. I can't really point to a source that confirms the lack of headquarters, but you can see in the 382: 2676:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see 1925:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see 219:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see 2418: 2102: 1819: 1726: 1181: 1093: 555: 778:, but in response to your questions here: honestly, I'm not sure off the top of my head. I'm working as a contractor for Accenture, and not a regular employee, so I'm going to check in with them and be sure that the current information is correct, and also ask about the tax status. Thanks again for your help on this! Cheers, 871:

remain domiciled in the USA! That's why I think that less emphasis, with a defensive tone, is necessary in the article. Accenture is no worse, in fact, can be legitimately said to be better, than other companies about that! I want to make that milder, but would like to replace it with it something else. Ideas? ;o)

1654:

Hi ɱ, sorry for the delay in getting back about this. I've attempted to start the GA review page a few times this week, but I have a couple of concerns (though not with the article you've drafted). First, I'm not really an expert on the topic, nor on the Good Article process, so I'm not sure that I'm

866:

I just read your note on my talk page. I'll take care of that item, regarding the revenue. I had some other questions, I need to scan through it all again quickly. I'm busy right now, but will get back to you with a note tonight or tomorrow in the morning, as I need to gather my thoughts. I made some

755:

I will be glad to help you with the Accenture article, making changes to those parts that you identified as needing attention. I reviewed your notes, and you seem thorough, straightforward. Be aware that in making changes, I will likely have other questions. One of the first is regarding the domicile

874:

Also, I found the sections about Accenture's three practices, lines of businesses and methods, or something like that, the three lists of bullet points, each in bold font, rather confusing. It is probably analogous to a matrix organizational chart, a three-dimensional one, but it is so confusing! At

303:

Considering there are already people involved in the discussion who have different opinions from yours, I would prefer to wait until a firm consensus on what should be done is established. Otherwise, people might get upset. I think you should probably prod the other editors that were involved in the

2239:

That's great news! Awesome work on this, I'm really excited!! I'll defer to you on taking it to PR first or not—I think it probably couldn't hurt, but as you say, if Wizardman didn't find many issues, maybe PR is not really needed? Also, just a heads up—I'll be traveling starting tomorrow, and will

2215:

article! He barely found any issues with the article at all. What do you think would be a better next-step for the article - peer review, or featured article? I normally would prefer to get a PR first but given how little issues Wizardman saw I think this could pass FA in it's present state (with a

1658:

Second, because I've already provided you feedback, I don't really have much else to say, so my review would just say, "Yup, this looks good!" However, I'm a bit concerned that that could appear to other editors like a tit-for-tat, where you help with projects where I have a COI, and in exchange, I

2577:

Thank you so much for your help with the Briarcliff Manor article draft. Your suggestions were very good and really helped it along. If you wouldn't mind, I would be very glad if you could write on its FA review. I had to renominate it, the first FA nomination just didn't get enough attention. Any

870:

There should be some controversies. Changing domiciles from Chicago to the Caymans (or some Carribean tax haven) to Ireland, another tax haven, is not praiseworthy, but it is legal. It is also a lot more praiseworthy than companies such as Amazon and Apple that do the tax sheltering of assets but

408:

content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about

1662:

So, I'd like to not kick off the review process. Once it gets rolling and there are other editors involved, though, I'm happy to chime in, providing my take or a 3O as needed. I'm sorry that I didn't realize any of this earlier; it just didn't occur to me until I started to think about what I'd

751:

Yes, I happened to be looking at the Booz-Allen Hamilton article (they've already won a new Navy contract for the DoD...) and found that rumor entry which was quickly corrected, fortunately. The last thing we want on Knowledge (XXG) is to be propagating rumors (false or true) of material inside

320:

Hey Silverseren, Okay, that makes sense. I'll ping the other editors again, and also try and recruit some other folks from other relevant Projects to see if they have any opinions about the matter. But thanks again for checking in on this—hopefully we'll arrive at a consensus soon!

1039:

Getting back to your message for me a couple weeks back. I am doing a bunch of other projects now, but can get back to editing Knowledge (XXG), if your changes are final. I have read that last paragraph under Statistics, and believe it should be removed, and I shall do that now.

1681:

That's understandable, and I had similar concerns. I'll be going to the NY Wikiconference this weekend, where perhaps someone will be willing to initiate the review. Also, I honestly feel like I rubber-stamp your and colleagues' drafts too readily/easily too.

1172: 2259: 801: 258:

difficult not to respond to every piece of input, but I would encourage you to sit back and resist this temptation. I can't guarantee but I do believe that this leads to a more balanced and richer discussion. I used to do exactly as you have at

631:

Hi thanks for getting in touch. I have looked at the articles categories. Some categories are put in to the "Hidden Section" as part of Wikipedias policy. I have made visable those categories which it will allow me. Hope this helps

2167:

You might enhance this article by adding further links to and from this article, and adjusting the text in the articles you are linking from to point here. I adjusted the text on some minor points - restore your version if strong

501:

Sorry I couldn't reply sooner! You are right, Reuters reported the story, however the deal was merely speculation. I always aim to add done deals to Wiki, so thanks for correcting me! All the best, and thanks for getting in touch

253:

Just a suggestion ... it can sometimes inhibit discussion for the person who initiated a discussion to respond to every response with text that is at least as long or longer than the responder's input. I know that it is

2355: 1595:

Hey ɱ, great to hear! I can certainly take a look, but I'm a bit slammed this week; it might be a few days before I get around to it. Feel free to bug me if you haven't heard anything in a week or so. Cheers!

808:

on the company's website that none is listed as a headquarters. Can you remove it from the infobox, perhaps at the same time you correct the other information that's inaccurate there, as detailed over at

153:! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Knowledge (XXG) where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Knowledge (XXG) and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! 928: 2439: 1840: 1747: 1114: 576: 759:

From here forward, I'll leave any commentary or questions directly on the Accenture talk page. I wanted to raise these issues with you here, first, though, especially my first paragraph! --

1770: 1212: 1137: 599: 386: 931:? There was never any update given on the board and I was too busy to help out at the time. Apologies for that. I hope you ended up asking some other people to help at some point. 957:

In short, if you have time and wanted to take a look, I'd appreciate it—especially on the Tiger Woods bit, where an (informal) 3O seems like the best way to move forward. Cheers,

546: 352: 283: 1655:

the right person to kick off the review. Plus, since I've previously given you some feedback on your draft, I feel like I'm perhaps more involved than the ideal GA reviewer.

1489: 1459: 355:, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article. Your draft is waiting for a review by an experienced editor, if you have any questions please ask on our 1479:

Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been

2018: 1978: 1358: 1331: 1305: 679: 1187: 211: 138: 1571:

I finished my work for the Briarcliff Manor article, and I would be grateful if you could take the time to do a Good Article review. Would you be up to that?

1298: 1291: 1262: 137: 2578:

comment you could give would be great, and there's no restriction on who can comment or their level of involvement in writing the article. Here's the link:

2517: 2365: 2046: 1408: 2378:

if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the

2688: 1937: 948:

Hey, Silverseren—well, yes and no. That set of requests is complete, but I've left the request open as I've since made two additional suggestions at

231: 2579: 1084: 2513: 672: 665: 2668: 2375: 800:

Hey again FeralOink, I just touched base with Accenture, and they confirmed the company is a PLC and is incorporated in Ireland, as per

648: 2506:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to

2348: 2335: 2212: 1404: 2453: 2124: 1854: 1761: 1713: 1455: 1203: 1128: 590: 458: 434: 405: 398: 366: 2449: 2120: 1850: 1757: 1199: 1124: 586: 430: 390: 2510:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 2492: 2398: 2240:

be away intermittently for a couple of weeks, but I'll try to respond as quickly as I can if anything comes up here. Cheers!

875:

the very least, if you don't know how to simplify it, I would like to remove the bold font, as that draws attention to it! --

2672:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 1921:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 473: 215:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 2677: 2323: 2187:

Thanks so much! I'll definitely keep my eyes peeled for other places where this article might be linked to/from. Cheers!

1926: 410: 220: 423:

articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.

348: 1634:

Hi again Chris. Please tell me if you are too busy; do you have time to take a look at the article? Thank you again.--

362: 2507: 158: 1659:

rubber stamp work you do. Now, that's obviously NOT what's happening, but I'm worried that it could appear that way.

2379: 2361: 752:

information! Reuters and the WSJ report on rumors all the time, which they clearly designate as rumors, or should!

38: 466: 462: 2093: 1743: 260: 1917: 1796: 942: 2409: 2271: 2225: 2058: 1420: 644: 622: 347:

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here:

74:

Do you have any previous accounts you'd like to disclose? Thanks for being transparent regarding your COI.

636: 389:

your contributions to Knowledge (XXG), but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things

2435: 2316: 2177: 2158: 2030: 2011: 2004: 1387: 1370: 937: 708: 691: 507: 457:

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to

310: 292: 1110: 472:

For information on how to contribute to Knowledge (XXG) when you have a conflict of interest, please see

2543: 2328: 1810: 1161: 1063:

Great, I really appreciate it! And thanks for dealing with the statistics paragraph right away! Cheers,

1836: 165: 150: 1246: 521:

is a topic you're interested in, I've posted a few other correctional edits I'm hoping to see over at

1732: 1717: 805: 483: 2369: 1099: 2613: 2289: 2245: 2192: 2108: 2077: 1790: 1668: 1601: 1552: 1439: 1235: 1068: 1013: 962: 906: 880: 844: 818: 783: 764: 727: 530: 326: 149:! Thanks for contributing to Knowledge (XXG). Please join other people who edit Knowledge (XXG) at 98: 47: 17: 1825: 2488: 2392: 2264: 2218: 2051: 1413: 999: 982: 640: 618: 572: 266: 409:

that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by

357: 2560: 2525: 2424: 2173: 2154: 2025: 1989: 1967: 1960: 1945: 1382: 1365: 1052: 932: 703: 686: 503: 305: 287: 177: 444: 1157: 416:

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

2636: 2593: 1692: 1644: 1624: 1584: 1540: 1474: 1320: 1313: 1275: 1253: 2696: 477: 239: 90: 2673: 2169: 1922: 216: 2617: 2609: 2472: 2293: 2285: 2249: 2241: 2196: 2188: 2143: 2081: 2073: 1873: 1778: 1672: 1664: 1605: 1597: 1546: 1443: 1435: 1351: 1344: 1231: 1220: 1145: 1072: 1064: 1017: 1009: 966: 958: 949: 910: 902: 898: 876: 859: 840: 822: 814: 810: 787: 779: 775: 760: 731: 723: 607: 534: 526: 522: 330: 322: 116: 102: 94: 79: 2358:. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page 443:

to the Knowledge (XXG) article or website of your organization in other articles (see

2551:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

2531: 2484: 2388: 1528: 995: 978: 561: 154: 2700: 2641: 2621: 2598: 2564: 2496: 2402: 2297: 2279: 2253: 2233: 2200: 2181: 2162: 2085: 2066: 2035: 1993: 1974: 1949: 1893: 1803: 1697: 1676: 1649: 1629: 1609: 1589: 1557: 1447: 1428: 1392: 1375: 1327: 1280: 1239: 1165: 1076: 1057: 1043:

I can implement your changes when I can devote some time for Knowledge (XXG) again.

1021: 1003: 986: 970: 914: 884: 848: 826: 791: 768: 735: 713: 696: 652: 626: 538: 511: 488: 370: 334: 315: 297: 272: 243: 181: 120: 106: 83: 2556: 2552: 2539: 1985: 1941: 1047: 173: 2445: 2116: 1846: 1753: 1195: 1120: 839:

Okay, all of that seems reasonable enough for now. I shall proceed accordingly! --

582: 2452:, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to 2123:, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to 1853:, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to 1760:, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to 1202:, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to 1127:, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to 589:, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to 2343: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2627: 2605: 2584: 1683: 1635: 1615: 1575: 1467: 1266: 2692: 2650:

Orphaned non-free image File:Screenshot of Mindjet for Windows, early 2013.png

2535: 235: 1488:

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at

894: 518: 394: 112: 75: 2216:

few alterations). Anyway, so glad to see this project of ours worked out!

453:

so that you do not accidentally breach Knowledge (XXG)'s content policies.

1884: 1495:

To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.

1477:

has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.

1008:

No probs at all! Just glad we were able to get it taken care of. Cheers,

381: 304:

discussion on their talk pages in order to get them to keep responding.

261:

Talk:Backend as a service#Revisiting the issue of company name inclusion

437:, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors. 172:

This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood

2444:

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to

2115:

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to

1845:

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to

1752:

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to

1194:

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to

1119:

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to

581:

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to

2340:, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was 193:

Orphaned non-free image File:Vertical Mindjet Logo from late 2012.png

2417: 2356:

Template:Did you know nominations/Health issues in American football

2101: 2045:

Hey, just letting you know the health issues article is back up for

1818: 1725: 1180: 1092: 554: 89:

Yes, sorry—still getting this account set up. My alternate account,

2471:

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider

2142:

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider

1872:

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider

1777:

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider

1219:

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider

1144:

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider

893:

Hey FeralOink, since we're talking about content specifics for the

606:

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider

2608:—sorry for the delay here, but finally got to this. Best of luck! 2427:, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. 2111:, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. 1828:, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. 1735:, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. 1190:, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. 1102:, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. 564:, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. 1407:

article is finally being reviewed! You can find the nomination

2311: 25: 2655: 2416: 2172:

to support the original wording. Thank you for a nice read.

2100: 2021:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

2003: 1981:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

1959: 1904: 1817: 1724: 1466: 1361:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

1343: 1334:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

1312: 1308:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

1290: 1179: 1091: 682:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

673:

Talk:Center_for_Copyright_Information#Expanding_this_article

664: 553: 198: 404:

All editors are required to comply with Knowledge (XXG)'s

2460: