User talk:Equixbio

Hi Equixbio, I wanted to leave you a message because of your edits to the article Equix. I'd prefer to be helpful to you and not just an annoying unknown wikipedia editor who reverts your efforts. But before you edit the article again, I want to point you to some of wikipedia's policies. I'm not a wikipedia administrator or anyone of any particular importance, just a longstanding editor who has worked on a lot of the horse articles, and I'd like to give you the links to the relevant editing guidelines that may help you. Montanabw (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC) I hope this helps. I'd be glad to answer any questions for you about editing wikipedia articles if I can. I'd be glad to see the Equix article be improved, but it needs to be improved with an eye to our guidelines and policies. Montanabw (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) The first are WP:NPOV andWP:V. NPOV means "neutral point of view"; in other words, provide the facts, not the advertising gloss (or, for that matter the opposite; we don't like attack articles, either. If a competitor bashed your company, we'd remove that also).  WP:V is the "verifiability" policy and along with WP:CITE says that wikipedia articles must be sourced to independent, neutral third-party sources (and generally not the company web site - other than for very basic info, such as when you were founded, basic statistics, who your officers are, etc...) - AND that you must not remove already sourced material without discussion (if it's wrong or outdated, then you need to replace it with equally accurate and neutrally-sourced material, including new footnotes). Your edits keep removing footnoted material and for that reason alone are a problem.
 * 2) The next - and most relevant to you - is WP:NOADS - wikipedia is not a vehicle for commercial advertising.
 * 3) You also need to factor in WP:COI, which basically says that someone like yourself, clearly a representative of the company - really is going to be held to very high scrutiny (and some editors here would say you really shouldn't be editing the article at all, but I personally don't care about that so long as you do it properly).
 * 4) Odd as it sounds, you also can't just copy your company's web site verbatim (even if you are the writer), because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit, we take copyright violations very seriously and ask that people write things in their own words without copying or close paraphrasing.
 * 5) We are an encyclopedia and need an encyclopedic tone. Phrases like "Their advisers are highly skilled horsemen" are not encyclopedic, that's advertising copy.  An encyclopedic tone would be something like "their advisers include famous person X, who has 20 years' experience as a bloodstock agent" or "their advisors all must have a degree in XYZ," or even "Blood-Horse magazine said adviser Y "is the equestrian genius of the early 21st century"" (I'm exaggerating, but you see my point)