Talk:Bill Conner/Archives/2013

Thank you for the input

Good morning. I've been working on this pg editing to improve it; looking for some deeper/more specific input on the two tags added: "needs additional citations for verification" and "may contain improper references to self-published sources." I clicked and read through the descriptions and links in the tags, spelunked about a bit on some of the editing advice pages, etc.

"Needs additional citations for verification": Are there specific parts of the article that need this? There aren't any specific sections of text marked within the article.

"May contain improper references to self-published sources": After I read through the descriptions of these terms/help pages, wanted to confirm, is this in regards to the LinkedIn profile references from Bill Conner profile on LinkedIn? And/or any other types of refs in the article? If so, I'll edit to remove/replace them, but didn't want to remove them or change them if they aren't the concern.

Thanks for your input! Casey Miller, Dallas, TX 15:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello there. "Self-published" tag refers to sources published by Bill Conner or his company (I see many citations from corporate domain entrust.com plus linkedin profile). They are OK as additional references, but what counts are the references by independent reliable sources for all the important facts.

Tag "needs additional citations" is the result of the same problem (so no need for extra work).

By the way, handy information for future referencing: Wikipedia advices against using primary sources. This means it favors "I, James Jones, inform you that John Smith saw an UFO yesterday" over "I, John Smith, saw an UFO yesterday". See this for description WP:PRIMARY. --Kubanczyk (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the input, Kubanczyk. I'll be diving in to improve the article. Best regards, Casey Miller, Dallas, TX 22:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CAMiller62 (talk • contribs)

Revision to add third-party references 1/7

A note for editor(s) following this page: With input/advice from Kubancyzk, I revised and edited to improve the sourcing of the article [per the "self-published" and "needs additional citations" tags].

• I reviewed all the reference cites
• Deleted 5 references
• Added or revised 17 references all for third-party, secondary sources.

The majority of the article's links are now to verifiable third-party sources; a few secondary references to Entrust website are included along with clearly stated text "Entrust reports that ..." or "Entrust states that ..." Thank you! Casey Miller, Dallas, TX 23:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CAMiller62 (talk • contribs)

Resume Tag

Working to make more like a bio less like a resume. looking for input thanks Cander0000 and OrangeMike for your revisions.DallasSecurity (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I just had to undo a long series of your edits because they were once again beginning to pad the article with petty stuff (local movie festival board) and inappropriate associational material ("Gee, he was at a convention sponsored by a Senator and was at the same conference as a Cabinet secretary!"). I must repeat: we need information about Conner, not about who he brushes elbows with. Not all of your edits were bad (but lose the vanity industry awards for marketing and the "before coming to Entrust" irrelevancy). Please do these more slowly, one at a time, so we can address what is and isn't appropriate (no capital letters in section headings for example). --Orange Mike | Talk 14:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, will update slowly. If I go through one section at a time and take your above comments into account will you work with me to get it to a point you feel comfortable? Does your above mean you don't care at all about national awards for work related activities or events that that are related to his companies's industry? Trying to understand on that part what is and isn't relevantDallasSecurity (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm honestly more than willing to help as I can. The "the coveted 'Silver Sow Award' (for excellence in farm news, particularly hog reports)" kinds of things are not encyclopedic content. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Great, thank you. i will go slow and will keep all you have said in mind. DallasSecurity (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Cander000 and OrangeMike, do you still feel the resume tag is necessary? the entry has been chopped down considerably from the bloated version that once existed. DallasSecurity (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

To me, this "bio" still looks like a blatant sales pitch coming from a corporate marketing department. What about Mr Conner being responsible for downsizing the Entrust workforce from 1,200 people in 2001 to just 350 in 2011?? Oh btw, DallasSecurity, you don't happen to work at Entrust's headquarters in Dallas, do you?? Are you Mr Conner's PA or himself, polishing this article in his spare time?

This is a PR article that leaves out important information. While the article cites Connor's turnaround skills, Entrust has never broken through $100 million in revenue. Marketshare for their SSL business has dropped to below 1.5% (http://news.netcraft.com/ssl-survey/). Not balanced at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdmgmnt (talk • contribs) 18:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

What important information do you feel is left out? How are Entrust's revenue numbers relevant to an entry on Mr Conner unless to illustrate he cannot perform a turn around? If so I would reference Entrust's 2001, year he took CEO position, 10k(pg 30) with an operating loss of $540M. The Netcraft survey you references is from 2009 and a recent Frost & Sullivan report does not agree with the 1.5% marketshare number for SSL.DallasSecurity (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Netcraft is the industry standard benchmark for calculating SSL marketshare. Unless this is new, Frost & Sullivan do not compute SSL marketshare and you did not provide a source. The Netcraft is not a 2009 survey, in fact they have crawlers that report monthly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.253.226 (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Video

There is a video on Vimeo that is from an event Mr. Conner spoke at. As long as anything input into the entry is un-biased, can you use a third party as a reference? If that is not acceptable as an external reference? Based on what I have read as long as the video is in its entirety I would think it is a great source. Who better to talk about an individual than that individual. Any input is greatly appreciated. I couldn't find anything that explicitly stated this isn't allowed. If it is allowed can you embed as long as it is small?

http://www.vimeo.com/25819576 DallasSecurity (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Most Vimeo and YouTube postings are copyright violations, in my experience. More to the point, they are extremely unlikely to be reliable sources. "Who better to talk about an individual than that individual"?? Darned near anybody; the subject of an article is notoriously not a reliable source about himself. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a good reference. Certainly want a 3rd party verification if the subject asserts facts about himself in the video, that you are using as a reference. "... are copyright violations..." is anecdotal, and would need much more examination before saying a particular medium (youtube, vimeo, twitter, etc.) is more or less subjec to that then any other.Cander0000 (talk) 09:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)