User talk:EmirOzdemir10

Changes to Stage-gate model
Hello Hu12, can you please provide some guidance as to why the changes were reverted on the stage-gate model page? I am with the Product Development Institute, and the member company Stage-Gate International, and I am trying to ensure that the content surrounding new product development, and the Stage-Gate process, are factual and correctly presented on Wikipedia.

To begin, the term Stage-Gate is a registered trademark, and should be referenced using the registered trademark logo. Failure to reference Stage-Gate without the appropriate trademarks can result in a misrepresentation and misunderstanding of this business process, and it should be clearly noted that this is not a generic term. As I had referenced and cited the trademark number, I thought I had clearly shown that this was a factual piece of information.

With regards to the addition of links, I do see that I did not follow the link-adding protocols and will adhere to external linking practices. However, I would like to ensure that http://www.stage- gate.com, and http://www.prod- dev.com are not blacklisted, as I would like to add new pages regarding those two organizations.

Any explanation you can provide would be helpful. Thanks, EmirOzdemir10 (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Addition of http://.stage-gate.com
Please do not add advertising or inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.--Hu12 (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest policy
Hello, EmirOzdemir10. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Ronz, thanks for the clarification. I've already asked another wikipedia admin about this but the more clarity and info I can get, the easier it will be for me to accomplish my goals. Essentially, the main issue is the stage-gate model page. The stage-gate model page has a lot of incorrect facts. First and foremost, the terms "stage-gate" is a trademarked term and must not be confused with other terms, like "phase-gate". It is a proprietary process, developed by Dr. Robert Cooper (whom I'd like to create a page for in addition to this). I can understand that there would be conflict of interest regarding adding information to this topic, however, we have a legal responsibility to ensure we are protecting our trademark, which is why I am trying to clean this page up. Not to say that I want to lock the page or anything like that (because I know that's not allowed), I just want to make sure that the information there is accurate - and since I represent the organization that possesses the trademark, while it could be perceived as a conflict of interest, I would think that I would actually be bringing expertise to this particular topic - and in that thought, I added the link to our website, which provides more resources and additional information on the stage-gate process. How can I go about ensuring that my changes stick? (it seems like the references I cited the last round of edits didn't seem to stay and rather the entire article was reverted to an older, incorrect version). Thanks, EmirOzdemir10 (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding.
 * I noticed your discussion with Hu12. Please note my response there, where I caution you not to follow the examples you found: They're all poor articles demonstrating the very problems detailed above.
 * Contributing where you have a coi is difficult. One recommended solution is to simply work from article talk pages, proposing sources and changes so that the material can all be reviewed and modified before changes to the article are made.
 * Another solution, compatible with the use of the article talk page, is to find sources that are both reliable and independent (the more authoritative, the better), and work from those sources, citing primary sources only to provide supplemental and directly relevant details. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Stage-gate model. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Please review WP:SPS - using a reference written by the person you are writing about is not acceptable. GregJackP   Boomer!   21:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Continued Product Development Institute and Stage-Gate International promotion

 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Hu12 (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not that I'm trying to soapbox or advertise, but rather trying to protect the brand name of our organization. What I'm trying to explain is that 'Phase-gate' and 'Stage-Gate' are not the same thing, so you can't just go and change the 'Stage-gate model' page to 'Phase-gate model' and then all is well. The term 'Stage-Gate' is a brand name (one that is actually trademarked - see http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4004:1g55o7.2.1), and the content that is on the current 'phase-gate model' page as it stands is extremely incorrect, and misappropriates the information of what a 'Stage-gate' process really is. The best thing to do (though still not an ideal representation) would be to revert back to the version as of 21:24, 23 July 2012‎ by CommonsDelinker. The information on that version is more correct and accurate than what is there now. EmirOzdemir10 (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Moving around other users comments

 * 

Talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting editing or moving legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Phase–gate model, is considered bad practice, even if you meant it well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. --Hu12 (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)