User talk:Each1teach1

Edits to Envision EMI, LLC
Hello, I work for Envision EMI. I'm here to contribute information that will improve the quality and accuracy of Envision-related pages. I am working to learn about all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and will abide by them. I certainly appreciate the input and guidance of more experienced users as I learn. Many thanks! --Each1teach1 (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Before you make large edits to an entire article, as you recently did to Envision EMI, LLC, please discuss the changes on the article's talk pages first. In any case, you've re-added content that contains spam links to the company's web site and advertising related content that violates Wikipedia standards for sources. Please desist from reverting well-sourced, objective content, or you may be blocked from making edits. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 21:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the email. Your recent edits to Envision EMI, LLC are for the most part fine, except you provide no sources. You have included quotes from living persons, which WP says should be cited:


 * "Quotations should be cited to the original source if possible..."


 * You also removed mention of the Better Business Bureau's dis-accreditation from the lead without discussion.


 * The lack of sources is puzzling while your depth of information suggests intimate familiarity with the company. For example, you twice reversed the order of the founders' names to read, "Barbara Harris and Richard Rossi," when Richard Rossi's name is listed first on their web site. Who but someone close to the organization or individuals would care? Another example is your knowledge that the web site http://www.yicinfocenter.com was operational from January-April 2009. How did you obtain this information? I could find no public sources for this info.


 * If you currently work for or are affiliated with Envision or any of its subsidiary companies, or if you or previously worked there, you ought to reveal that information. This may be a conflict of interest:


 * "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. ... Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia."


 * You can make edits to an article if you are affiliated with a company, but you must strive to adhere to neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not. If you make edits that do not maintain these standards and fail to reveal your affiliation, when it is discovered, you may be blocked.


 * -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 20:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Had a chance to re-read your direct email to me and noticed your email address contains the the CYLC.ORG domain, referring to the Congressional Youth Leadership Conference, which Envision owns. This obviously puts you in a potential conflict of interest. You need to provide good quality, third-party sources for your edits very soon or they will be deleted. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 06:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

August 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. ''You have previously been asked to refrain from adding content that is not WP:NPOV, that reads like an advertisement and from adding WP:SPAM links to articles. For example, phrases like "Barbara enjoyed a successful career;" "unique experiences that provide a lifetime advantage;" "nation’s top decision-makers and go behind the scenes at nerve centers;" and "at renowned medical centers" are all NPOV. If you are unsure about what constitutes advertising-like content or spam-type links, please take time to study wp:NPOV, WP:COI, wp:external links. If you feel your edits are valid, you can retrieve them from the page's history. If you are unsure about what constitutes valid content, please ask on the talk page first. Lastly, please take the time to learn how to format a reference properly: see WP:REF. External references in the body of the article are not appropriate. The external references should be linked from the reference at the bottom of the article. This is your second warning. Given your overt conflict of interest, you may be blocked if you persist.'' -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 04:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I provided citations to the marketing materials to support the statement that tickets were never promised to scholars (the materials outlined what was promised, where students were told they would watch from the national mall) and was therefore correcting an inaccuracy - which is on the page again due to your revisions. I am seeing a pattern of resistance to anything that defends our company in your edits and this pattern brings your own neutrality into question.

Additionally, when I made the anonymous edits, I realized my mistake, logged in, and identified myself on the record as the author of those edits. Again, the I'm seeing a pattern of you telling only the side of the story that is unflattering to me and my company.

I have contacted you directly for guidance and advice as to how to work within the guidelines of Wikipedia. I am obviously not an experienced user like yourself. If I make mistakes, please understand I am human and let me know. But please take a look at your own 'neutrality' before questioning others. --Each1teach1 (talk) 13:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ''You have made repeated edits in violation of Wikipedia's policies regarding wp:npov, wp:spam, and wp:or. Today you changed a entry that shifted responsibility from your employer Envision EMI, LLC and its marketing materials, supported by references, to the students, and using references that fail to support the statement:

"Some students mistakenly believed that they had official tickets to the inauguration, despite program materials which stated that students would watch from the National Mall."

You have also made recent edits using an anonymous IP address, 38.100.52.100, which may constitute wp:sockpuppetry, an additional violation of Wikipedia policies.

Due to your repeated and flagrant edits in violation of Wikipedia policies, you may be temporarily blocked from making edits at the next such occurance. --btphelps (talk) (contribs) 01:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I provided citations to the marketing materials to support the statement that tickets were never promised to scholars (the materials outlined what was promised, where students were told they would watch from the national mall) and was therefore correcting an inaccuracy - which is on the page again due to your revisions. I am seeing a pattern of resistance to anything that defends our company in your edits and this pattern brings your own neutrality into question.


 * Additionally, when I made the anonymous edits, I realized my mistake, logged in, and identified myself on the record as the author of those edits. Again, the I'm seeing a pattern of you telling only the side of the story that is unflattering to me and my company.


 * I have contacted you directly for guidance and advice as to how to work within the guidelines of Wikipedia. I am obviously not an experienced user like yourself. If I make mistakes, please understand I am human and let me know. But please take a look at your own 'neutrality' before questioning others. --Each1teach1 (talk) 13:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I looked at the references provided and could not find a link to marketing materials that stated the supporting facts. I did not understand the oblique reference within the article to "an August letter sent to attendees" which said, "On the Mall, you will watch..." You are correct, and my apologies. I don't mean to give you reason for offense: Wikipedia guidelines also suggest please do not bite the newcomers and I have tried not to do that. I feel your other edits went beyond guidelines when, for example, you added "In the past 36 months, the company has served nearly 163,000 customers and received only 84 complaints, which is 1/100ths of 1%," and "The young participants generally give the trips positive reviews: surveys by the council show close to 97 percent satisfaction, and many conferees later recommend friends." These were not substantiated in any way. Wikipedia does not have good tutorials for getting started and it's an steep uphill learning curve at first, but unfortunately the burden is on you to learn. You might try the Help Desk.


 * Envision is in an awkward position, having made promises it apparently did not fulfill. It told students and parents in its marketing materials that the student "is one of the few select students invited" to the Presidential Youth Inaugural Conference. It seems that critics think the phrase "few select," when compared with 15,000 participants, is misleading. The burden is on Envision now. You are acting as a representative of the company, which puts the pressure on you as the company representative to avoid any conflict of interest and to provide substantial support to your Wikipedia edits. I don't doubt that many, many students have had positive experiences over the years at Envisions' events. It goes to show you how one major gaffe can have a huge impact on a business. In this instance, Envision has made promises about rectifying the situation, but has not been forthcoming about its follow up actions. (What parents have been appointed to the advisory panel? Where is Civiletti's report?) This puts additional burden on you to substantiate whatever edits your make. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. It is clear where your opinions on the company stand, but it is certainly unfair and unreasonable, not to mention contrary to Wikipedia’s policy, to demand "additional burden" on any one editor. All editors are subject to the same standards for providing citations and factual information.

In response to the "In the past 36 months…" edit, I do not see where this differs from the statistical breakdown of the scholarship fund (1.7%). The rules should be the same for all editors. I fail to see how listing statistics is in any way contrary to the policies and spirit of Wikipedia and this criticism appears to be antagonistic.

The statement "The young participants generally give the trips positive reviews: surveys by the council show close to 97 percent satisfaction, and many conferees later recommend friends," was not my edit. Please refer to revision history for the source.

Since you objected to my paraphrasing of the sentence "Instead of the promised events, some students students found upon arrival that they would receive no special tickets…", I would appreciate your feedback as to how this should be edited for accuracy as the marketing materials cited show no promise of tickets, and in fact state that the ceremony will be watched from the National Mall. Thank you in advance for your input. --Each1teach1 (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)