User talk:Crosby987

This all makes sense. I guess I'm just a little confused how describing a news content site that delivers news through social platforms as such is biased. Would you say it's biased to say that MSNBC provides daily news coverage of issues that are happening in the world? That's literally what it does. Bias implies that I am saying "It is the best site ever for distributing news to social platforms, and no other company can compare." If you think even a simple, factual description of a company is biased, then what would you suggest I edit it to read instead? I'm all for suggestions. Here's a source describing the company, which I believe is reputable. The entire reason I didn't quote this article was to avoid sounding biased in my description. https://www.wired.com/2016/11/inside-nowthis-upstart-thats-owning-social-news/

I am sincerely trying to work within the confines of Wikipedia, and genuinely am seeking help to create a page that makes sense, as this is all new to me. I'm not trying to be combative or sneak anything past the site to influence anyone. I'd appreciate your help rather than a dismissal of my questions and condescension of my character. Grp9 (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello! I'm new to the wikipedia world, so apologies if I accidentally violated any terms. My intention is definitely NOT to present biased information on the pages I'm edited. I work for Group Nine, which is a brand new company, and was tasked with creating a wikipedia page. I'm not receiving any compensation for this. The company simply wants people to have the facts. The page is simply facts, short and sweet, and I don't believe it's biased at all. Please let me know if there's another way to go about doing this.

Also, regarding the note about my username violating the terms by being the name of the company. I'm happy to change my username. Could you please help me with that process?

As a general question -- if representatives or administrators from a company aren't allowed to edit or create pages about those companies, how are we supposed to expect to get any accurate information on the page? Grp9 (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Regarding the username, you can request a change via the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest. Before you settle on a new username, you may want to take a look at the username policy.
 * I find it rather hard to believe that you are not compensated for the work your employer tasks you with. Even if you are one of the unfortunate interns who aren't paid directly, the policy WP:PAID explains that you should still consider yourself a paid editor for the purposes of disclosure.
 * I also have to disagree with your characterization of your edits. If "creates news content for the social, mobile generation about what’s happening and important in the world right now" doesn't sound biased to you, I'd say your conflict of interest is too strong to neutrally write about your employer and its subsidiaries. Wikipedia content should be a summary of what reliable third-party sources such as newspapers or trade magazines have reported about the company. We generally find that gives a more accurate picture of companies than letting employees write about them without third-party references. If such independent sources do not cover Group Nine in enough detail to create a meaningful article about it, the company probably is not (yet) notable for a Wikipedia article of its own. Huon (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Grp9, and welcome to Wikipedia!&#32;Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article.&#32;Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
 * The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  16:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Thrillist. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. In no way meant to violate anything or make the wikipedia page a soapbox. But could you please point out where I was actively promoting or advertising for the company? I'm a little confused, as my intention was simply to state factually what Thrillist is. At no point was I regaling how great it was, or touting its successes. Just trying to get clarification here, so I can understand the misstep. Thanks. Crosby987 (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello. You specifically removed this part: In February 2017, JackThreads laid off most of its staff in preparation to "cease operations as an independent company." A number of customers subsequently experienced problems with returns, canceled orders, and items that never shipped which was supported by a a reliable source. This section is, if anything, understating the significance of the source to the company's history. It's difficult to accept that you don't understand why that would be considered promotional. You also removed a massive amount of other sourced material for very unclear reasons, leaving behind a very trivial puff article with only one weak source. Was this branding and public relations, or was this helping to write a neutral encyclopedia? Especially as a COI editor, the burden is on you to establish consensus for such changes on the article's talk page (Talk:Thrillist), as explained above. Grayfell (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Got it. My intention when removing the JackThreads part wasn't to cover up anything about the lay offs, or anything shady. Rather, JackThreads is an independent company, and has been for a while, so any company decisions on their part, relating to staffing or anything else, are not related to Thrillist. I simply removed that line since it was unrelated to Thrillist's business. In theory, wouldn't it make more sense for JackThreads to have its own page and that information be included there, along with info about it once being part of Thrillist, and then Thrillist's page would simply state that it once owned JackThreads but no longer does? Just trying to get a handle on how information is sorted and categorized. I'd also love clarification on what constitutes a good source. Again, not trying to be promotional at all, but I would think the Wall Street Journal is a pretty trusted news source, and an article about the merging of companies to create a holding company would be beneficial to anyone reading about the company. Here's another article from an established source stating that same information: http://adage.com/article/media/digital-publishers-group-media/306278/. If these are not considered real sources, could you please let me know what does? I'm literally just trying to add a source to a factual statement about the creation of a company. I don't understand how that's not helping to create neutral ground? Crosby987 (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Help
Hi,

There was a at the top of this page, but it's not clear what the question is (or if you still have a question), so I removed it.

Please put new comments at the end of talk pages.

If you do want help with anything, please put down here, followed by your question. Thanks. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)