Talk:Community First Bank

Undo some edits?
Hey All, Id like to undo 's edits to this page as they are consistent with other WP:Corps. All referenced with verified 3rd party sources. I understand that the Red Pen of Doom has a tough job in maintaining the quality and validity of data on Wikipedia but it almost feels that he/she is removing this data because he/she lost the AfD.

We are interested in only providing truthful and referenced information which in turn helps the financial well-being of our community. I respect the guidelines and of course will happily work with TRPoD to ensure that the quality is of substance that matches the WP guidelines. Im going to undo the edits as I disagree with them. I would love some assistance.

Thanks

Bowey21 (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you have a personal connection with the credit union, for example as a committee member, employee or contractor? If so, please disclose that. I strongly encourage you not to undo edits (aka revert) unless it is an emergency, for example serious errors or defamation. Full details of our guideline and terms of use at WP:COI. Collaboration on this talk page is a much better option all round.
 * TheRedPenOfDoom (TRPoD) has added material as well as deleted it. Which edits do you disagree with? I assume you refer to this edit where you undo several edits. TRPoD already explained him/herself in the edit summaries with "promotional non reliable sources" and "nonnotable "awards" from non notable awardees noticed only by primary sources". These are good reasons for deletion, and while one or two of the deletions may merit discussion (a) on balance, I think they make the article better and (b) it is better to answer TRPoD's specific complaints here in the talk page, rather than simply revert saying you disagree.  You asked on my talk page about guidelines, and some relevant reading is WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BRD.
 * --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Hroðulf

Thanks for getting back to me.

I have been very upfront an open that I am an employee. My concern is that the brand was incorrectly represented (Elcom) and simply wanted to fix that up/ wanted to right the wrong information. At no stage have I provided anything but factual and correctly sourced information. I will certainly not revert any more edits and will as a result of your warnings not edit the page anymore.

TheRedPenOfDoom (TRPoD) has removed multiple edits.

Where he states "promotional non reliable sources" these sources are the Australian Government (APRA), COBA (Banking Association), Cuscal (Company that Processes EFT payments) and REDIATM (Largest Cash Machine Network in Australia). Three of these have their own wikipedia page, and APRA's website has a ".gov.au" domain extension. The fact these are classed as unreliable is completely incorrect and unfair. I reached out to Dismas in regards to awards and he confirmed that as long as they are notable (using the analogy of the Oscars v Bobs Movie Awards) and referenced they are acceptable. I then went through and found third party sources and references confirming these awards as notable and included them. TRPoD has since removed them saying again they are not notable. ??!? Money Magazine, Australian Financial Review and Mozo Peoples Choice awards are among the highest awards available in Australian Financial Services.

The reason I have made any edits at all are to fix the issues with the warnings (citation etc). I have reached out on the pages of Dismas, North America 1000, TRPoD and Yourself for help..... with North America not wanting to get involved, Dismas must be unavailable and TRPoD has simply ignored me.

I can honestly say I only wish to have factual information that meets the guidelines on the page, I have asked for help many many times and have ALWAYS been up front and honest with Wikipedia.

Cheers

Bowey21 (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)




 * 1) Your openness and requests for help are commendable: I wish every employee and PR consultant went that far (though many do that and more.)
 * 2) Merely because TRPoD appeared to ignore you was not a reason to go ahead and restore your preferred material. TRPoD adequately explained him/herself in the edit summaries the first time, which then puts the onus on you to explain yourself and gain consensus in the talk page. In the circumstances, it is only to be expected that TRPoD removed the material again.
 * 3) It is certainly inappropriate for an employee to edit in order to fix the issues in the cleanup banners, such as changing the style and adding new references (according to our WP:COI guideline informed by past experience.) Instead keep using the talk page: if no-one answers quickly don't forget that we are all volunteers and that you can paste request edit here to put your request in a queue of editors interested in helping COI editors such as yourself.
 * 4) Long lists of awards are not appropriate at Wikipedia: it makes the article look like an advert for your business.
 * 5) There are only a few 'featured articles' for companies. They are a good place to look for examples of good practices. It is best not to concern yourself with articles like Police Bank as they have only had attention from a small number of editors, and articles can be much better. See Featured_articles.
 * 6) I would suggest that a palette of 3 awards all restricted to a single industry and a single country is too many unless you already have a comprehensive well sourced article. Which of the three awards would you suggest is the highest? Have you any international awards?
 * 7) As I said earlier, on the whole TRPoD's edits made the merge work and greatly improved the article. However, if you want to propose specific additions or restorations from the best sources, use this talk page to discuss them one by one. For speed, I suggest you make the case to persuade readers who don't know the Australian financial sector why each source is reliable and doesn't merely promote itself by posting press releases or directory listings of its members.
 * 8) Improving Wikipedia is a slow process, but there is no DEADLINE.
 * 9) I hope I can call back and help from time to time, but I wish you successful collaboration whomever you work with.
 * --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Hroðulf

Appreciate your response. Look forward to collaborating with you too.

Cheers Bowey21 (talk) 02:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)