Talk:Michael J. Saylor

message: 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:  CvS 11:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Working to add in references from reliable press, and links to other internal pages. Crysb (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title:  Possible autobiography with questionable notability 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reads like a PR piece 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Conflict of interest concern 

message: Following the note immediately above, and as the  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:
#Adds infobox with key details. (I'm working with MicroStrategy to find a good photo to release under the correct license.)
#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.
#Re-organized the article into Early life and education, Career (under which MicroStrategy and Writing career are subsections), Recognition and awards, and Philanthropy.
#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).
#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. 
##Have clarified the details of the 2000 SEC investigation and his subsequent  loss of net worth.
##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.
##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. 
##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.
##Moved details on The Mobile Wave into their own subsection, providing an overview of the book. 
#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
#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.
#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.
#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)
replies: text: Looks good, better than the current version. Il'd just go ahead and post it. FurrySings (talk) 07:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: New proposed draft

message: 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:
#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 (). Can this be added to the infobox, at an appropriate size?
#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)
replies: text: Done! FurrySings (talk) 04:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Follow-up edits

message: 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)
thread_title: Cite error

message: 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)
replies: text: WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:   Request to add photo 

message: 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)
thread_title: Reply and confirmation of participation

message: * WP:COVERT says FTC defines 
*WP:COVERT says 
*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)
thread_title: Advertisement / DPE tags

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Stated for the record

message: 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)
thread_title:  source 

message: 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)
thread_title:  More source of high flying robbery 

message: Calling attention to everyone who's made edits since the now-blocked "" 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks, —what about their edits? Worth rolling back on account of general disruption? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  More IP edits 

message: 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:
*  by  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.
*  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Since when is The Washington Post not a sufficient reliable source?  What prompted you to add the COI warning template? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Revisiting recent content removals 

message: # 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. 
# In your second request you ask  
 Please advise. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 18:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Since when is The Washington Post not a sufficient reliable source?  What prompted you to add the COI warning template? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Reply

message: , 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: General response to The Quixotic Potato

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

message: Nearly five years ago, I was hired by Mr. Saylor's firm to improve this article from  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 , as well as a  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 ). 
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 , , and . 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Remove COI tag? 

message: 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.
**In 2015 and 2016, Saylor participated at the Forbes 400 Summit on Philanthropy.
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 ,  and , 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)
replies: text: Appreciate you adding "and leads" , and for the comments,  and . 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Question about restoring some previously-removed content 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Corridor Crew