User talk:Guy Bou Assi

Dear Whomever it concerns,

How may I insert a table of contents for the page that I am editing? I do not have the macros option in my Wikipedia editting options.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Best Regards, Guy.

April 2021
Hello Guy Bou Assi. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Guy Bou Assi. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. 331dot (talk) 11:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I would add that it is not your company's "Wikipedia page", but a Wikipedia article about your company. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at Teahouse, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment, or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button OOUI_JS_signature_icon_LTR.svg located above the edit window.

Thank you. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

April 4, 2021 - Reply
Dear 331dot,

I am not a paid advocate for the article regarding my company. I am only updating the information that are listed on Wikipedia, such as the history of the company as well as What the company does as it hasn't been updated for a very long time.

I am from Al Gurg Fosroc Co LLC, which is the daughter company of Fosroc International.

There is no payment that has been or will be done towards me for any updates done on the article of my company on the highly sought and respected Wikipedia.

Furthermore, thank you for your constructive comments regarding it's "a Wikipedia article about your company" that is the correct description.

I will not edit anything further till it is cleared that there is no payment or promotional purposes other than providing the users an informative description similar to that of our website, so that I would be in compliance to Wikipedia's rules and regulations.

Kindly advise what is the required steps that I shall take prior to continuing with my editing.

Best regards, Guy
 * If you are an employee, you are a paid editor, you do not have to be specifically paid for your edits or specifically directed to edit. Any paid relationship triggers the disclosure requriement. We don't know when you are "on the clock" at work and "off the clock" at home.
 * Note that Wikipedia is not for merely providing information; Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about (in this case) a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company says about itself(such as how it describes itself or what it considers to be its own history), only in what others unconnected with the company say about it.  You should avoid directly editing articles related to your conflict of interest in most cases, but you may make formal edit requests(click for instructions) on article talk pages, detailing changes you feel are needed along with any independent sources to support them. 331dot (talk) 12:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear 331dot,

The edits that I were to make on the page for "History" is only with regards to the dates of when the company began as well as the regions it is in.

Furthermore, the other edit is what it is meant with "construction chemicals" as a manufacturer with the sole purpose to have an updated information which is note self-proclaimed by the company but what role the company fills in the market.

I have seen some pages where there are updates done to keep the records updated, hence the reason why the thought came to be since the article hasn't been updated in a while.

On any account, if I raise the request for change, is there any supporting documents I need to provide? Or the website link that mentions the information that I'd like to seek Wikipedia's approval for the edits?

Thank you for your assistance as well as bettering my understanding of the process that needs to be followed in Wikipedia.

Best regards, Guy
 * In looking at it, it's actually not clear to me that Fosroc meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable company, as the three sources in the article are all associated with the company. If you have independent reliable sources with coverage of this company(beyond brief mentions, press releases, announcements of routine activities, interviews), you should make an edit request(click for instructions) on Talk:Fosroc. Private documents are not acceptable as sources, the sources must be available to the public(such as in a library) and preferably independent of the company. 331dot (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear 331dot, As per the attached references, there are 2 from the 3 mentioned in the article that are done by a company that is independent from Fosroc. If you would like to see one of numerous source that mentions Fosroc is with "construction global" issued on 3rd of June 2020. I have searched on google and found a minimum of 5 articles that mentioned the company's presence as well describe the key role of the company in the market (3rd party report). That is the reason why I wanted to update some of the content on the article as it hadn't been updated in a long period of time. Best regards, Guy
 * Declare paid on your User page, and on the Talk page of the article, request changes, being specific in wording and providing references. Request that you proposed changes be reviewed. A non-connected editor will either amend the article accordingly or not. David notMD (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

User:331dot I have raised a request for the changes on the Wikipedia page as per our previous discussions, and I got a response mentioning that it was just for the purpose of PR, whilst I only added references since the page had comments regarding the references are closely tied to the company as well as the page didn't include enough information to meet the requirements of Wikipedia. Can you assist me in what I shall do to move forward and get the template messages removed? Guy Bou Assi (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources you provided are either not independent of the company or do not provide significant coverage of the company. We don't want sources that just tell what the company does. 331dot (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

User:331dot The sources are fully independent from the company and have the full coverage of the entries that I have requested to change. The sources mention what the company does, has done in the region, awards won, commendation articles for the work done in the region and backing the existing data and increasing the amount of independent sources to meet with Wikipedia's guidelines. It got declined under the pretense that it's purely PR, whilst these changes are being requested to meet the several notes raised regarding the article.Guy Bou Assi (talk) 04:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * In looking at what you proposed more closely, even the first line is promotional; "Fosroc has a complete range of concrete repair solutions for refurbishment or rehabilitation projects." That's what someone in PR would write, not an independent reliable source. In looking at the sources themselves, in order
 * "What is Fosroc Renderoc and How is it Used?" is just what a user of your products wrote telling about it. Not an independent reliable source.
 * The 2020 Concrete Society Awards just documents the giving of an industry "award" by the group that did so. Not an independent reliable source about the award. Niche awards don't usually merit inclusion in an article unless there is an article about the award itself(like an Tony Award or an Academy Award) or unless they are covered by independent reliable sources.
 * "Loxfix" just tells about your product by a user of it. Not significant coverage in an independent reliable source.
 * The Resin Flooring Association source is just a company description. Not significant coverage.
 * "Al Gurg Fosroc" is a description of a subsidiary. Not significant coverage.
 * The Concrete Plus Ltd just tells of the appraisal/certification of a company product. A routine announcement that is not an independent reliable source.
 * "Concrete gets less grey", aside from sourcing another promotional line, "Fosroc is a leader in concrete admixtures", only sources the fact that the Burj Khalifa used your company's concrete. An announcment of routine business activities(the use of a product) and not an independent reliable source.
 * The One India source is an announcement of the opening of a plant. An annoucement of a routine business activity, not significant coverage.
 * Construction and Civil Engineering Magazine is just a promotional description of the company, with an interview with a Vice President. Not independent coverage.
 * Global Cement is an announcement of a company acquisition. Not significant coverage.
 * The last few sources seem to be the company itself. Not an independent reliable source.
 * As I said, a Wikipedia article is not a place for any company to tell the world what it does, even if not soliciting, selling something, or not using promotional language(some of which crept in as I noted). Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources(please review that link if you haven't yet) have chosen on their own to say about the company.  Microsoft merits a Wikipedia article not because it sells a lot of software and computers, which generates a lot of press releases or announcements, but because many independent reliable sources decided on their own to write about Microsoft and its effects on computing, manufacturing, and society as a whole.  I use Microsoft as an extreme example, but the point is that the sources you have used are not acceptable for a Wikipedia article.  331dot (talk) 09:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

User:331dot Thank you for your swift and thorough reply to the subjected article related questions. I would like to clarify that the "promotional" aspects that were mentioned that I have crept them in, were completely taken from the sources that I have referenced and were taken from the independent publisher and weren't a PR approach from my end. The sources that I have linked are what independent individuals have written on their own about the company and what's the effect that the company has had in the market and how it helped the country in question. For concrete repair, the article was written with regards of renovations or reinstating historical buildings and the impact that the material has had (written by a source that is independent) and the reason for the article was to highlight the effect of the systems on the renovation of historical buildings, which is to preserve these landmarks. Furthermore, the award that was mentioned above was also cited from the Concrete Repair Association in which the prize was awarded for the unique solutions provided for a complex project, in which by the association mentioning the positive effects of how the solution came to be and fitted for the unique project requirements. The post has also linked it within the article for the CRA. As for the Burj Khalifa entry, the article was also written by an independent source and the source was highlighting the positive effect of the solutions in the construction of the world's largest tower and how it has played a role in meeting the construction's strict and complex requirements. Even the part that "promotional" aspect was not added other than that citing what the article has mentioned regarding the world's largest tower as well as the solutions that were used within it. The Lokfix article, was written by an independent company that are highlighting effects of the solution as they wrote the article weighing the positive effects of the solution. The sole intention of the references was to abide by the requirements of Wikipedia and increasing the credibility of the article by using the citations from independent sources that have written about the company, as I have seen different an abundant of articles that follow the same nature of citation and went on from there to search for articles written by independent sources and adding the information with the appropriate citation to raise the request for edit. As for the news regarding the company, in one of several notes that were highlighted by the highly sought volunteers/admins in Wikipedia, that the company should include more information in which I have added those entries as per the independent sources that I have researched and have cited them to meet another requirement to request for the removal of the templates on entry of the article. With the above explanation provided for each reference, does it still fall under PR even if it's citation taken from independent sources and is not added by me or the company? Guy Bou Assi (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I regret very much to say that I think you are too close to your company to be able to write about it as Wikipedia requires, because you don't seem to be understanding what we are telling you. You say that you are abiding by Wikipedia requirements when I have demonstrated how you are not. Even if the sources you use are technically "independent" of your company, the information therein is either not independent, or only a brief announcement/press release type story that does not establish notability. I can only tell you that pursuing the specific changes you are proposing will only waste your time and that of others, because they will not be accepted. 331dot (talk) 12:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)