User talk:Kenhealy1

July 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman was changed by Kenhealy1 (u) (t) blanking the page on 2009-07-23T02:30:49+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 02:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Zhang He (talk) 03:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
Re: this edit (diff):

Editors associated with a firm may be seen as having a conflict of interest. Wikipedia's goal is to provide information from a neutral point of view; claims need to referenced using verifiable, reliable sources. You have done the right thing to disclose your affiliation with the firm which is the subject of the article. Thank you. If you provide a reference showing the name of the firm, that would not likely be an edit which would be contested. On Wikipedia, it is not necessarily the truth, but that which can be documented, that defines a boundary of the project. You would serve the project by also stating your COI on the article talk page. Newportm (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

An organization making edits to its own page
How does Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP go about making edits to make information about our company more accurate when editors just undo it, calling it vandalism? What would constitute an edit not considered vandalism??Kenhealy1 (talk) 03:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see the Organizations FAQ, which also applies to businesses. It lays out the policies that such edits may be violating, such as the conflict of interest policy, the verifiability policy, and the reliable sources policy. See the above "Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP" section too. If you have more questions after reading the linked pages, I'll be happy to answer them: just post them here. If you have a question about a specific edit that was reverted, post a diff here, and I can take a look.&mdash;C45207 | Talk 03:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)