This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
This article was nominated for deletion on 9 June 2006. The result of the discussion was delete.
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
I cannot believe this ad flew right over people's heads. Either delete it, or neutralize it. Two choices. Time to pick one. Leo-Roy!review/gb 23:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Someone brought this article to my attention off-wiki. The name didn't ring a bell at first, but when I looked into it, I worked at their PR agency at the time that I started the article in 2008 (7 years ago), before I knew about disclosure rules or was a very good editor in general. Therefore, I have added a Connected Contributor tag to add my COI disclosure. The circumstances are such that it does not make sense for me to cleanup my past work in this case, as I have done on some other pages from my early work. I do see however that the original version is probably better than this one, though it focuses excessively on its products/services in the Lead, contains an indiscriminate list of offices, features a dedicated controversy section and has some unsourced content.
My apologies that the disclosure is 7 years belated! CorporateM (Talk) 00:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
