Talk:ANZCO Foods

Revert
Kia ora Ryan, welcome to the unforgiving world that is Wikipedia. I'm sorry but I've had to revert your six edits in their entirety. I suggest that we have a discussion where to go from here.

First up, let me acknowledge my appreciation of you declaring your conflict of interest (COI) before you even started editing this article. I further acknowledge that you edit under your real name (and can see your ANZCO employment on LinkedIn) and that sets you apart from the "usual COI editor" who tries to hide their conflict and their identity. Top marks. I further see that you are new to Wikipedia and as such, it is entirely inevitable that you'll run into trouble making bold edits. That's because there are a million rules that you'll trip over. I'm more than willing to provide some guidance and turn you into a great editor, if you wish (and I don't care much about COI as long as people are open about it and keep their edits neutral). That said, the best way to not run into trouble at all with COI is to make suggestions on the talk page, and let other editors deal with amendments to the article in question.

Right, let me go through your edits and point out why they were problematic:
 * File:ANZCO Foods logo.svg – uploading the logo has been done in accordance with the rules – well done! Hence this edit is all good. I shall restore the logo.
 * File:ANZCO Foods CEO Peter Conley.jpg – did you really take that photo? Are you sure? Metadata show that it was taken in December 2019 but you started with ANZCO in January 2020. Could it be that you simply helped yourself to this photo from this article? Your second edit didn't just add a photo to which you probably don't hold the rights, but you also removed the video clip with the drone footage. I can understand that your superiors would want to see that video removed but you will not find a rule anywhere that would support that removal. Sorry.
 * Your third edit removed references with the rationale "removed links to articles unrelated to Land holdings". I can understand your thinking (those links have little to do with the topic) and motivation (they are bad news stories for the company) but the reason for having those references is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies: content needs to be verifiable. The references confirm that ANZCO owns those places, hence they are needed. We can always replace those references with something better.
 * Your fourth edit is rather problematic. You did a cull of a lot of content that makes the article encyclopaedic, and added unreferenced content about the company's brands. With reference to verifiability above, that's a no-no. Sure, it would be good to have the latest turnover and employment figures, but not without a reference.
 * With regards to your fifth edit, what was wrong with the company history as it had been written? You've simply culled it. Why?
 * And with your last edit, you've added some of the info back but it's now unreferenced.

So where do we go from here? I'll add the logo back in and the link to the company website. I suggest that you make suggestions on this talk page and provide references that back any suggested amendments. How does that sound?  Schwede 66  03:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)