Talk:5W Public Relations

message: I am a VP at 5W and entered what I believe to ne a neutral entry on the firm, just as any other company that has some notable or historic fact might be listed here.  I am not writing about clients or editing client sites, if any are even listed with Wiki.
I saw the Edelman PR had a listing, so I figured 5W would be able to do so too.  I'd appreciate feedback. Juda S. Engelmayer 19:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article 

message: :(response to :User talk:Ytny#5w Public Relations)
I think the biggest distinction between Edelman and 5W isn't the size, but that Edelman has actually been a center of controversy, and has been a subject of mass media coverage beyond industry trades. 
This isn't to say industry trades aren't worthy sources, but mainstream sources do give a better idea of why a corporation is significant enough for a Wikipedia article. From reading this article, I can't tell what makes 5W notable to people who aren't in the PR industry the same way someone might be interested in Edelman because of its involvement in fake blogs and payola for Wal-Mart (and Edelman article does need a lot of work, it looks like). 
Looking at WP:CORP, I think the article needs more independent sources talking about the firm's significance.  Ytny 16:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion 

message: If Judae1 really is Juda S. Engelmayer and the Vice President of Government and Corporate Issues Practice at 5W Public Relations he should refrain from editing 5W Public Relations as this is in violation of WP:COI. This article is basically spam for his firm. --Agha Nader 17:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI 

message: :Image:5W Logo.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:5W Logo.JPG

message: This page needs to be protected, as it seems to have a lot of questionable actiivty as well as questionable edits from non neutral users on all sides.  I am not sure why some see the desperate need to track every instance of ths subject of this article and eradicate it from Wiki.  Bizarre.  Bizarre. MaClainDiesHard (talk) 03:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the scrubbing of details from the Agriprocessors section and the addition of plagiarized, unfomatted material are annoying, but I don't think it's worth protection - my guess is that it's just a work of a single editor who's using multiple accounts and IPs. But if you think the situation is beyond repair, the protection tag won't do anything - you actually have to request protection at WP:PROTECT, and admins will assess the article. --Mosmof (talk) 04:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Article has been semi-protected for three days by administrator  based on this request. — Satori Son 22:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi Protected

message: This is getting (more) annoying. If you're going to plagiarize http://www.5wpr.com/about5wpr/history.cfm, at least do it right - at least take the trouble to format it for Wiki. Better yet, don't do it at all - taking material wholesale from the firm website is against not only WP:COPYRIGHT, but also WP:RS/WP:V. Please stop.
As for the ongoing attempt to scrub names from the Agriprocessors section, please cite a policy-based rationale for removing names of the relevant parties in the incident. Otherwise, please leave it alone. --Mosmof (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Policy comes from your page - 7 lines is more than enough.  The individual accused of the scandal isnt noteworthy nor is the fact that they are Iowa based.  More than enough detail appears there.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.137.37 (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scrubbing of information and wholesale copy-and-pasting of firm website 

message: Unless edit drama is the goal, please stop this cycle of editing the same content and blaming editors when it is again reverted. You have received suggestions and offers to get help, so please ask for help or use the following resources for assistance.
For the issue about naming names, there is WP:BLPN. For issues about editor intent, actions and prejudice, there is WP:COIN. For issues concerning the quality of sourcing, there is WP:RSN. For disagreements about specific edits that involve just one other editor, there is WP:3O.  As for issues concerning undue weight or balance, I am unsure of the best place to get feedback from uninvolved editors, but I hope other editors will provide the best noticeboard. After that, there is the dispute resolution process that is explained at WP:DISPUTE. And since it's pretty clear 5W is still actively editing Wikipedia articles involving themselves and clients/special interests, I again suggest WP:OTRS as a resource for this particular article, while at the same time pointing to WP:OWN and WP:LUC, as other edits and articles need to stand on their own notability and verifiability.
Please note my observations about 5W editors isn't a warning, a condemnation or a revelation of under-the-radar contributions; I can only assume that such wide swath and obvious tracks are meant to be noticed.  Flowanda | Talk 04:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Those who wish to ban anonymous users are absurd.  Masking ? Lets all come clean about our names.  Absurd.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emetman (talk • contribs) 20:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Emetman, I suggest you read, comprehend, and implement WP:CIVIL into your future responses quick, fast and in a hurry. The suggestions Flowanda made are perfectly valid and there's zero reason for your snide comment. The only absurdity I've witnessed on this page is the alarming amount of sockpuppetry, ownership issues, 3RR violations, COI, and the outright abuse that good, long standing editors have suffered in their valid attempts to defend the project. By the way Emetman, you might want to learn to sign your name after you leave messages on talk pages. Curiously, 207.237.137.37 has that same problem. Perhaps you both need to brush up on basic Wikipedia policies (i.e, formatting references properly, NPOV, signing talk pages, etc) before you comment on the absurdity of anything. Pinkadelica (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit insanity and getting help 

message: See a complaint about this article at the 3RR noticeboard. Please try to reach consensus on some of the disputed topics during the two days of protection. Now that the activities here have come to the attention of administrators, we will be looking forward to calm and settled editing in the future with good rationales provided on Talk.  EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected from editing for two days 

message: As a result of the report filed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Emetman, numerous accounts that have edited this article recently have been indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Such disruptive editing resulted in the article being temporarily protected from editing, and made it difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate current consensus. Editors in good standing should now carefully check recent edits to insure this article complies with the polices of Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. I have tagged the article as requiring attention, and said tag should be removed after the article has been evaluated and, if necessary, corrected. Thank you. — Satori Son 14:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have had a fairly serious go following this request to change this into an article about 5W rather than hype about its growth. Over to someone else I think (but I will still watch this for POV socks). --BozMo talk 15:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notice of checkuser investigation results

message: It seems that what makes 5W notable is its techniques. I think we can add a section on activities, reputation and examples using the sources already included in this and the Ronn Torossian articles, and it would provide context to the Controversy section. Although there's been discussion about drawing distinctions between 5W and its CEO, the articles and clients sometimes don't. Flowanda | Talk 00:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on techniques 

message: I don't disagree with the removal of current edits, but I'd like to see a concise description of the People magazine product placement added to the article if there are other similarly sourced notable examples. The info was sourced to a Washington Times article specifically about PR techniques and provided details about 5W and quotes from Torossian. Flowanda | Talk 01:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I (who took them out) am more than happy for you to put something back in, in some form, without the hype. I agree they make some notability level but the overall balance of the article was out of kilter presumably because people had mainly fished for positive press. --BozMo talk 09:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the info doesn't fit, and there were enough searches made over past few days to determine there are probably no examples/sources for now. If the article link isn't a good fit for the external links section for now, I'd like to add it here for future reference. Flowanda | Talk 20:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

text: This is, like most Wikipedia articles, a work in process, and there was much cleaning up to be done. One of the suggestions above was to integrate the Agriprocessors section into a more general "techniques" section, which seems like a reasonable idea. Mosmof (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So falsehoods are ok in the meantime ? 5W isnt a member of PRSA ? and why is Iowa relevant ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.137.37 (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I had assumed 5W was a member, since a 5W exec sits on the board. I've removed the bit, since it was unsupported by the cited source, but I restored the other edits the IP editor removed. Mosmof (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

text: This account 207.237.137.37 has been blocked as an obvious sock. I will revert their edits.  --BozMo talk 12:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

text: This account, 12.103.203.218, also blocked for block evasion. Their edits to the article have been reverted, but a neutral review of those edits is requested. Thank you. — Satori Son 14:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Client examples 

message: It strikes me as odd, looking back at this history and the company itself, there have been several, if not many controversial matters with this firm.  The processing company was but one, and a relatively small one in the scheme.  it was about blogging and sockpuppetry?  So what.  Lots of companies have done this, others advertise that they are paid to do it everyday.  The point is, shouldn't there be a controversy section that contains tidbits of all of them, like representing both Tadic in Serbia and Kossovo for its independence?  Perhaps the other one about a magazine editor complaining in his public forum about this company for sending unwanted emails?  Please someone tell me why this one has its own section and all others were taken out?  They used to be there and this on was a big to do for a while in Jewish papers.  One passing mention in the Times.  Than the company issues an apology that was accepted and it doesn't make the cut here either.  Someone - other than 5W's people, please look this over and edit.  I cannot as this site is limited to edits for only certain users.
Thank you  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.87.6 (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[5W_Public_Relations#Agriprocessor_controversy]]

message: Someone please explain why Agro has so many details ? names of bloggers ? Does this now remain so relevant ? 
12.103.203.218 (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: This seems adequate, focus and a few - I agree that the one is overblown

message: The company has been involved in several controversial tactics that generated media attention and peer criticism.  In 2006 5W was retained by an organization that is advocating for independence for the province of KosovoBlic Online (Serbian Media's English Translation Pages)"In political fight for Kosovo, only lobbying agencies in USA are sure about profit - Yesterday for Serbia, today for independent Kosovo" from Serbia, while a year earlier, 5W was retained by a group representing Serbian President Boris TadićNews about 5W and Tadic, to help establish an image as a friendly democracy.
On November 5, 2007, following a controversial article written on the use of spam in the public relations field by Wired Magazine’s editor Chris Anderson[ http://www.longtail.com/the_long_tail/2007/10/sorry-pr-people.html Anderson’s Blog], the NY Times followed up and referred to 5W as a “leading” public relations firm alongside Fleishman-Hillard, Ogilvy & Mather Worldwide and Weber Shandwick.New York Times, Things Turn Ugly in the 'Hacks vs. Flacks' War, By Andrew Adam Newman, November 5, 2007
In July 2008, the blog Failed Messiah discovered 5WPR sockpuppeting in the reader comment, and also impersonating critics of a 5WPR's client, Agriprocessors, a kosher meat processing company that was under federal investigation for worker abuse and hiring illegal immigrants. Comments placed under the names of Hechsher Tzedek founder Rabbi Morris Allen and other Agriprocessors critics to IP address used by a senior vice president and executive responsible for the Agriprocessors account. .
 Over Labor Day Weekend 2008, 5W issued an apology for the incident.9http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffailedmessiah.typepad.com%2Ffailed_messiahcom%2F2008%2F08%2Fbreaking-5wpr-a.html&ei=MGDzSPWDJJaKxAHKk-DHBA&usg=AFQjCNFW_q6dodBsS3ZQ5GSvw2RPe7sopA&sig2=2o6YPtYGNXRY7TaduWfTbQ 5W apologizes]
:Hmm. If this is supposed to be proposed text for the article, no way. Read WP:Peacock, we don't do puff pieces. --BozMo talk 13:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No one wants a puff piece.  My question is why is one controversy weighted over another and how is that decided?  Also, why is so much credence lent to the one?  It is as small a part of the company's issues as these others.  Yet, the others, particularly the Tadic issue, seems like it can have greater consequences as per newsworthiness and even effecting world issues - if only to a small degree.  Instead of merely brushing it off, can this issue be discussed? TLVEWR (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Try it now?TLVEWR (talk)
The organization's work for Angel Food is very high profile and relevant.  Has been added. 
Furthermore, Agroprocessors shortened and updated. (12.103.203.218 (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversies

message: If the only thing this firm has done is the blogging matter, it seems it the place doesn't rise to the merits of an article at all.  I am uncertain, reading the back and forth and the history here, why this one issues makes or breaks the piece here for some people.  The meat company, according to many news accounts, has many problems that go way beyond this small incident.  There was no lawsuit, no real harm done and just a lot of chat on blogs, which are not reliable Wiki sources anyway.  The company makes an apology and that does not get covered.  They make a deal with two foreign leaders to convey messages that appeal to a world body and that doesn't make Wikipedian heads heads spin?  Gee, it's certainly and odd thing this article and the controversy on the article.  Maybe that needs its own article here.  TLVEWR (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy Section 

message: what is the rule on tags and when are they removed?  It seems that this piece is quite skewed and weights on controversy.  If that is the Conflict of Interest, a person or group on Wikipedia choosing to only talk about conflict, that may indeed be a conflict of someone's interest, yet if anyone is saying this the designer of the article making sure the article looks as it does, I disagree.  The tag should be removed.  87.70.85.111 (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  When will this change?62.50.199.254 (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion on this Talk page shows that many editors have come here desiring to present the company in a positive light. There have been numerous edit wars and some sockpuppetry that led to an WP:RFCU and blocking of accounts. The time to remove the COI tag is when the article has returned to calm and settled editing and appears reasonably neutral. (i.e. not going out of its way to either promote or disparage the company; just giving the facts as recorded by the published sources). If you believe the article gives too large a share of space to a specific controversy, perhaps you could add some new well-sourced material. That would help reduce the percentage devoted to controversy. EdJohnston (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

text: That it what appears above.  Sourced material on other issues, including the kosher company, but equally weighted and not overly played.  The suggestion above - which I am reprinting below - does just that.Handle in the Wind (talk) 08:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: COI Tag

message: The company has been involved in several controversial tactics that generated media attention and peer criticism.  In 2006 5W was retained by an organization that is advocating for independence for the province of KosovoBlic Online (Serbian Media's English Translation Pages)"In political fight for Kosovo, only lobbying agencies in USA are sure about profit - Yesterday for Serbia, today for independent Kosovo" from Serbia, while a year earlier, 5W was retained by a group representing Serbian President Boris TadićNews about 5W and Tadic, to help establish an image as a friendly democracy.
On November 5, 2007, following a controversial article written on the use of spam in the public relations field by Wired Magazine’s editor Chris Anderson in which 5W played a role[ http://www.longtail.com/the_long_tail/2007/10/sorry-pr-people.html Anderson’s Blog], the NY Times followed up, further talking about the issues between PR firms and the media, also using 5W as a reference.New York Times, Things Turn Ugly in the 'Hacks vs. Flacks' War, By Andrew Adam Newman, November 5, 2007
In July 2008, the blog Failed Messiah discovered 5WPR sockpuppeting in the reader comment, and also impersonating critics of a 5WPR's client, Agriprocessors, a kosher meat processing company that was under federal investigation for worker abuse and hiring illegal immigrants. Comments placed under the names of Hechsher Tzedek founder Rabbi Morris Allen and other Agriprocessors critics to IP address used by a senior vice president and executive responsible for the Agriprocessors account. .
 Over Labor Day Weekend 2008, 5W issued an apology for the incident.9http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffailedmessiah.typepad.com%2Ffailed_messiahcom%2F2008%2F08%2Fbreaking-5wpr-a.html&ei=MGDzSPWDJJaKxAHKk-DHBA&usg=AFQjCNFW_q6dodBsS3ZQ5GSvw2RPe7sopA&sig2=2o6YPtYGNXRY7TaduWfTbQ 5W apologizes]
Angel Food Ministries major national issue.  Relevant and added. (12.103.203.218 (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversies

message: I suggest removing the COI tag. Most of the POV edits have been dealt with, and the article is on enough watch lists to keep it clean. Flowanda | Talk 18:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and removed it. Pinkadelica Say it... 21:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI tag removal -- October 2008 

message: Some edits to the 5WPR page are in order.  Adam Handelsman is no longer with the firm.  In fact, most of the firm is no longer with the firm -- they're down to 40 people now.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.203.134.50 (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some edits 

message: I realize, spin is your profession, and the people who think they own this article and that I "slandered" it by tagging as advertising.  It remains the case that this article is full of non-neutral and promotional text:
:Beginning inside a Manhattan-based travel agency with three clients and two employees, the company grew to roughly 90 employees and a second office...
:The company's roster of clients has been described as unusual, eclectic, and cross-cultural...
The Horatio Alger story told by the opening paragraphs does little to prepare you for the parade of convicts and foreign governments you learn about from the actual meat of the article.  This is still full of rose-colored spin.  - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to read through the extensive edit history and talk page discussions to see the number of editors who have contributed to this article (including me, and I have no COI) and the very lively (to say the least) discussions about edits. For the most part, I think the article statements are supported by WP:RS, but I'm sure it could use editing. No one "owns" this article, so please have at it! Flowanda | Talk 05:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Now, this was a sneaky little edit, wasn't it? --Mosmof (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is rank advertising 

message: This article has been addressed and discussed ad naseum as per this page. Dont make radical changes pre discussions. Billybruns (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: <Small>Ad nauseam actually. – ukexpat (talk) 13:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ad-Naseum 

message: Lets review your edits further: 
-- "5WPR has supported a number of controversial clients, including  Aish HaTorah, an orthodox organization that supports Jewish settlement in the Arab section of Jerusalem, and Agriprocessors, a Kosher meatpacking" Nowhere is there a source, nor is it accurate to find anywhere aish hatorah in the Arab section of Jerusalem. Seperately why would this be in lead of 1 of Americas biggest PR firms isnt clear. 
-- Clarion Fund has been discussed earlier on this page. Shouldnt be admitted as stated. 
-- 1 source from an Israeli paper for a minor issue isnt relevant but this too has been discussed ad naseum. 
65.112.21.194 (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your comments. While I find a number of factual inaccuracies in your comments, I respect your intention to discuss improvements to the article constructively. I am calling for an RFC. Let's see what other editors have to say - editors whose interest in Wikipedia extend beyond articles about 5WPR and its clients. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 05:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism & Untruths

message: As per the SPI here , another round of socks of an indef blocked user has been editing this article. I've extended good faith here, but now that's it's confirmed, I'm rolling the article back to include the sourced negative material they deleted. If anyone has a problem with that, feel free to discuss it here on the talk page, and hopefully we can find a way to handle this article according to policy. Dayewalker (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Round Of Socks 

message: A new user, NYCdan, has rewritten the Clients section as a list, contending that other PR agency articles use this format. He is right. Change accepted. --Ravpapa (talk) 10:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The list format is cleaner and easier to read anyways. - SudoGhost (talk) 10:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of clients 

message: The more I investigate this article, the more astonished I become. The contention that 5WPR was "Boutique agency of the Year 2005" was sourced to a link to the Holmes report. The link was dead. A listing on the site of Boutique agencies for the year 2005 did not include 5WPR.
Previously, I deleted one reference showing that El Al is a client. The reference did not mention El Al. Fortunately, El Al had a second reference which did mention El Al, so I left the text.
It seems that we will now have to go through every one of the references on this page and check it out. Or perhaps some of the new editors popping up can find the correct link. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need to check for dead links as we have automated tools that can do it quickly. Thanks for offering, though. SudoGhost is the person who removed your link to http://www.odwyerpr.com/pr_firm_rankings/beauty.htm but I'm not sure why. The edit summary said "Removed WP:SELFPUB", but you are right, it is the same type of link cited earlier in the page. SudoGhost will have to check it out and provide more details. --Diannaa (Talk) 19:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thought I'd clarify, there's nothing wrong with your link, the problem was me. I removed that link by mistake.  I'm not sure how it happened, but I mistakenly reverted the wrong edit (possibly 'too-many-tabs-open' syndrome).  I've restored the edit, and I'll pay more attention that what I'm doing next time, sorry. :) - SudoGhost (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliability of sources in this article 

message: A source was removed because the page was no longer available, but I was able to find the link archived , but I wanted to make sure that archive.org links were appropriate before adding it to the article. - SudoGhost (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely--using archive.org links is preferable to losing the reference.  Qwyrxian (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Just wanted to make sure before I added them.  I've re-added a couple of links that were 'dead' with their archived counterparts. - SudoGhost (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to be a nudnik, but it is not enough to restore the dead links. We have to read them, to make sure they support what the article says. The link proving the El Al is a customer never mentioned El Al. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure which link you're talk about, but I've checked both links that I've restored, and they've verified what was written in the article. - SudoGhost (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning a removed deadlink 

message: http.//holmesreport.com , *.http.//holmesreport.com . On and on, but none of these links, current, future or wayback meet WP:RS or WP:EL. Flowanda | Talk 11:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you explain why?  There's discussion in the section above, and we're still looking for answers.  If you have a specific argument why these are RS or EL, please give details.  Qwyrxian (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:EL|Non-notable website]]:  [[Holmesreport.com]] , [[Holmes Report ]], [[Holmesreport]] , [[HolmesReport ]], etc. etc. etc. 

message: Explaining edit to page and adding clients. 
Greenbay: Until reading your post, I thought that you and your chums were one person. You all write with the same typos and bad grammar, you all make the same arguments about the same articles. Yet I now begin to doubt this. Not only might you not be the same person, I am not sure you even talk to each other.
I say this because of this discussion at the 5WPR talk page. In that discussion, we suggested to theNYCdan that he rebuild the client list based on reliable secondary sources, which he partially did. And here you are, listing a bunch of reliable secondary sources saying who are 5WPR clients, yet you haven't added these to the client list at 5WPR.
Greenbay, get on the stick! Add these guys to the client list at 5WPR. Do some good for your boy, for a change! --Ravpapa (talk) 06:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Ravpapa on BLP page

message: At first, GreenbayNYCAbigail objected to having clients described in text. Well, not exactly text, mostly fluff. We trimmed out the fluff and tightened it up, but that was no good. They wanted a list. So the Clients section was deleted, and they made a list. Never mind that the list was wrong, full of bogus entries. That problem got straightened out. But now they have added the text sections back in, so that they have both a list and text. The text is once again mostly fluff.
Guys, make up your minds. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: All you did was move and convert the list into prose-like form, removing a couple of entries. I guess it's an improvement though. Danger (talk) 12:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Great thanks and hopefully this page can be put to rest for a while. greenbay1313 (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is far from being put to rest. You have reintroduced much of the fluff and extraneous garbage that had previously been removed. When I get time, I will reclean it. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Would appreciate a discussion here before you make radical changes. If there's a sentence you think should be removed can discuss but Dow Jones and WWD are surely relevant. Legit sources and fair. greenbay1313 (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to stop trying to dictate when/how people make changes.  Wikipedia doesn't work that way.  Ravpapa cannot, of course, edit war to keep the article in a certain way, but, other than that, xe is completely allowed to make any changes xe thinks relevant without getting your permission. If there is disagreement, we can seek consensus, but there is no requirement that someone seek the approval of a single, specific person first prior to making changes.  The only real exceptions to that are for highly contentious articles (simply because it just ends up with reversion and increases tension) and featured articles, where some deference (but not blind obedience) is given to the state in which the article achieved featured status.  Neither apply here, and you do not own this page or the contents that you added.  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am concerned about 3RR and consensus. I am trying to establish dialogue so wouldnt it make sense to discuss before a big disagreement ? is that not reasonable ? greenbay1313 (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What aspect of 3RR is concerning you? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curiouser and curiouser 

message: Suggested by Mr. Torosian: Company profile on Inc.. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This cannot be used per Wikipedia guidelines at WP:RS. 12:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested source