Talk:DenTek Oral Care

Rewrite
I have rewritten the article and removed anything I felt could be viewed as biased or advertising. I read WP:SPAM closely and did not find anything indicating I am not allowed to edit this article. I do not work at DenTek, but do have a connection to it. If anyone feels the article is still biased or an advertisement, please discuss it on this talk page and tag it as such in the article, but please don't be rude to others. You are welcome to contact me on my personal talk page as well. Bradrussell (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Read WP:COI as well, especially the How to avoid COI edits section. I think the more on-point concern is a conflict of interest now that you have acknowledged some type of relationship with DenTek. Consider that because you "have a connection to it," your perception of "anything I felt could be viewed as biased or advertising" may not be the most credible. &#151;Whoville (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That is true, but there is nothing significant in there that isn't a fact supported by a third-party source. I don't know how else to go about it. Any suggestions? I'm new to this, and I was very surprised to get blasted as I have been, as below. Wikipedia isn't the most intuitive thing to get into and there's obviously a learning curve. You are welcome to edit the phrasing if that's what bothers people. I went about it as if I were someone curious about the company, what would I want to know? Bradrussell (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In case you don't know, Don't bite the newcomers is one of Wikipedia's guidelines. In the case of your edits, WP:COI seems pretty clear:
 * [I]f you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when ... [e]diting articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with[.]
 * If DenTek and its products are notable enough, someone without a relationship to the company should be the one to make the edits. If you've read WP:SPAMMER and WP:COI thoroughly then you should understand why your first edits immediately set off warnings—several new articles with prominent mention of DenTek products (and trademark symbols), numerous superfluous redirects to your new articles based on dubious alternate spellings (which looked like a search engine optimization tactic), reverting article changes by concerned editors that removed the problematic content, leaving glib edit summaries like Does not include advertising, blanking your talk page without addressing concerns from multiple editors, removing the conflict-of-interest tag on this article without comment, etc. It's commendable that you've acknowledged a personal link to DenTek but why not be more specific so other editors can understand your motives? Your edits don't look like they're coming from someone with a passion for oral hygiene or even "someone curious about the company"; they look like they're calculated to aggressively promote a single company and its products. Based on what you now know about Wikipedia's policies, doesn't that seem like a reasonable interpretation of your contributions so far? &#151;Whoville (talk) 01:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Spam
This article shows a Brad Russell/DenTek link. The whole dentek/floss-pick thing is total spam, and everyone knows it. Do you have no shame? Mannafredo (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)