User talk:McKenzieMaddenFamilyOffice

February 2024
 Your account has been indefinitely blocked from editing because your account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Also, your username gives the impression that the account represents a business, organisation, group, or web site, which is against the username policy.

If you intend to make useful contributions instead of promoting your business or organization, you may request unblock and a username change. In your reasons, you must: To do this, post the text  at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with your new username and replace the text "Your reason here" with your reasons to be unblocked.
 * Disclose any compensation you may receive for your contributions in accordance with the paid-contribution disclosure requirement; and
 * Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked; and
 * Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked; and
 * Provide a new username.

Please note that the new username you choose cannot already be taken and in use by another account. You can go here to search and see if the username you'd like to choose is available. If the search returns that no global account with that username exists, that means it is available to be taken.

Appeals: If, after reviewing the guide to appealing blocks, you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal it by adding the text  at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your reason here" with the reasons you believe the block was an error, and publish the page. Widr (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I am absolutely willing to change the username

Could you please speak to us as an individual and not a group or in the third person? You wrote "McKenzie Madden Family Office is a Canadian private family office which exists as a private asset and wealth management firm"; you seem to be more than just a family member. 331dot (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Sure, I can. It seemed fitting to refer to a family entity as a collective when recording family history, but whatever is considered best practice and compliant. Also, I am unsure if the block is active still or not, It seems there was a response regarding "duplicate requests" though I submitted one reply. Is it perhaps the formatting of how i also applied for the username change to "Cdengre"?
 * anyways, yes I am a family member. there is no commercial benefit here. I can make tweaks if that is needed. Though in reviewing the page, I am sure you can tell it makes reference to a historical entity which does have significant historical contributions on public record.
 * I'd like to still post the article, even if I need to make adjustments.
 * How do I proceed? will my username be updated? and once reinstated, will the article be automatically posted, or must I rewrite it?
 * Thanks for letting me know. McKenzieMaddenFamilyOffice (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You had two (it seems inadvertently) open requests; you don't need separate requests for your username and the block itself. I closed one of the two so there is currently only one open.
 * I'm very confused here, is this a family business that doesn't generate money? 331dot (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * McKenzie Barge & Derrick Co Ltd., Which the article is about is a defunct entity, although it made it's mark in history. It was amalgamated into and renamed McKenzie Barge & Marine Ways Ltd. in 1968 and dissolved in 2019. During it's existence, it's contributions were notable and historical, as reflected by it's showcase in the Vancouver Maritime Museum.
 * Renamed 1965: https://www.orgbook.gov.bc.ca/entity/BC0067135
 * Dissolution in 2019: https://opencorporates.com/filings/1110189844
 * Vessels built: https://nauticapedia.ca/Articles/Vessel_Builders_McKenzie_Barge_Derrick.php
 * Vessels "Union Jack" and "Ella McKenzie" showcased at Vancouver Maritime Museum: https://vanmaritime.com/heritage-harbour/
 * The Family Office which is mentioned is the family's existing family office. It is a private holdings firm that manages the family's assets. It is not a public facing business and does not engage in commerce or the sale of retail goods to the public. It manages generational wealth planning for the family heirs and distributions of family investments to members.
 * A "Family Office" is a unique private entity in this sense, it is not a "Family business" such as a family owned apple orchard that might sell fruit, juice, or cider, for example.
 * Therefor, there is no promotional aspect to this article, it's a reflection of history, legacy, and transition of the family to it's current private structure. McKenzieMaddenFamilyOffice (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I understand now. Thanks. I think my confusion derived from my US perspective with different terminology.
 * The main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability(like a notable organization or business). Have independent sources written about the former business and/or your office? 331dot (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, Yes, many independent sources have written a lot about McKenzie Barge & Derrick/McKenzie Barge & Marine ways over the years. much of this is online, but much of it also predates Wikipedia, and even the internet itself. So many independent sources are available for citation. As for contemporary writers contributing to the article, they absolutely can. The hope is to just get the article started.
 * This is ultimately intended to be the backbone article for more independent contribution to be added. Although I suspect many of the maritime historians familiar with the era may have passed, so submitting references and citations to these historical articles is our best way to get started.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glen-class_tug_(1943)
 * "three were built by McKenzie Barge and Derrick, Vancouver, British Columbia, " - This article can be linked!
 * https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%27Ella_McKenzie%27_docked_at_Kitsilano_01.jpg
 * "The Ella McKenzie (the last wooden tug built by McKenzie Barge & Derrick) docked at Kitsilano, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada"
 * https://www.yachtcharterfleet.com/luxury-charter-yacht-45489/glendevon.htm
 * Naval Marine Archives:
 * https://navalmarinearchive.com/sbh/canadayards/mckenzie.html
 * City of Vancouver Archives:
 * https://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/index.php/mckenzie-barge-and-derrick-company-limited-dredging-false-creek-near-foot-of-pine-street
 * City of Victoria Archives (Kind Edward Dredger built by McKenzie Barge & Derrick):
 * https://archives.victoria.ca/dredge-king-edward-in-inner-harbour
 * https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-province/47927321/
 * The Province Newspaper oct 19 1978 - "In November, McKenzie Barge &amp; Marine Ways Ltd., of North Vancouver, will launch a fourth barge for the new service.... Con't"
 * Port of Vancouver & Vancouver Sun on the Sale of Shipyard to Polygon - https://www.portvancouver.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Environmental-Reviews-2013.pdf
 * https://vancouversun.com/homes/polygons-waterfront-cates-landing-making-a-splash
 * https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/493614979/
 * The Vancouver Sun Nov 25, 1981 - "McKenzie Barge Marine Ways of North Vancouver, owed $60,000, according to its president Bob McKenzie, for towing services and supply of a floating derrick....."
 * https://altbc.fandom.com/wiki/Industry_of_British_Columbia
 * McKenzie Barge & Derrick (1932) --> McKenzie Barge & Marine Ways (1970-1989)
 * -- NB: McKenzie B&M still exists at Dollarton but now only as a repair yard
 * North Vancouver Ship Repair --> Pacific Dry Dock [Burrard subsid. after 1951]
 * World Shipping Register: https://world-ships.com/company/1ea9bcdc13fda999b3d8cc7b5f7ba70c
 * https://grunt.ca/the-blue-cabin-floating-artist-residency/
 * https://thebluecabin.ca/the-blue-cabin-story/history/
 * "The Blue Cabin is a dwelling that has resisted ownership for 80 years or more. Built circa 1927 in Coal Harbour, Vancouver, by a Scandinavian craftsman, the cabin was towed to the western boundary of Cates Park in 1932 when its builder took a job with McKenzie Barge & Derrick Co., Ltd. (later McKenzie Barge and Marine Ways Ltd.). "
 * https://www.flickr.com/photos/spetersongallery/51389726521
 * http://russelbrothers.com/navytugsglen.html
 * http://www.aukevisser.nl/others/id1089.htm
 * https://www.shipspotting.com/photos/2502910?page=1&perPage=8&navList=moreOfThisShip&imo=7310521&lid=678717
 * Garibaldi II:
 * https://www.shipspotting.com/photos/2230027
 * https://theferry.fandom.com/wiki/MV_Garibaldi_II
 * https://www.coastreporter.net/local-news/former-woodfibre-pulp-mill-ferry-for-sale-3118336
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-class_ferry (Can also be linked!) McKenzieMaddenFamilyOffice (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Anything can be promoted. Not just "commercial" interests. &#45;- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The intended use here is to create a public article, recording a historical company legacy, which can always be open to and edited by the public. It's not promotional beyond highlighting facts in government, museum, newspaper and historical archives. It's matter of fact, and simply written with the historical chronology known to the family. The fact is this historical company made an impact on Western Canada's maritime history, and there should be a page for it, as much as there is about any other company which was historically noteworthy. The company does not operate now, so commercial interests cannot be promoted. If it's a public image thing, then let the article be published for it be public and publicly auditable so that the public can verify, contribute, and so that it remain unbiased and truthful as much as a community audited encyclopedia can be. This is as much promotion as any FOI request. Surely Apple's page could be inferred to have promotional effect or benefit, but that doesn't make it so provided the information is accurate, referenced, citable, verifiable, and open for audit,edit and contribution. McKenzieMaddenFamilyOffice (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * But the article about Apple was not created by representatives of Apple. That's the main issue here, the confict of interest. .  If this topic merits an article and the public is interested in editing about it, the best thing to do is to let the public create the article- a topic trying to force the issue itself is not often successful.  It can be, but it's rare, because the interests of a COI editor often differ from ours; additionally, such editors are rarely versed enough in relevant policies to be able to create an article.  Creating a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, especially for a new user, and it's even harder with a conflict of interest. It's usually recommended to first gain experience and knowledge about how Wikipedia operates by first editing existing articles in areas the user is interested in(specifically unrelated areas if the user has a COI). 331dot (talk) 08:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, that all makes sense to me. But still, a COI would usually only arise if indeed the article were started with clear promotional angle. For example, in a company a husband and wife may have to declare a COI potential before working together, but may then be allowed to until any matter surfaces whereby the relationship would be a conflict. For example, they might both be doctors in the same hospital, but would not be permitted to perform surgery together.COIs are not a default of relationships, but often arise due to them. For this reason most institutions permit persons close to a matter to report and work on them, as long as their conflicts are declared. In fact, this is explicitly written in wikiperia's terms and mentioned before writing an article. It states that whilst COI matters can arise, and it's advised to avoid, that as long as the material is not promotional and the conflict is declared (Which it was originally on this profile, i created), that it is permissible, even if not the best advised route.
 * In this case, I'd request, and humbly, that given the short and factual nature of the draft, you might permit it to be published and allow the public to take it from there. Anyway, it is not my intention to debate this much more at length, I think it's clear at this time there isn't any advertising in it, and it is a notable historical entity worth permitting an article for.
 * Alas, I can always reach one of the authors of one of the articles and ask if they'd be interested in making a Wikipedia page (again, the suggestion because most people familiar with the era are passed or very old) The time for which it was regularly reported on predates the internet. But I honestly think, there's more integrity and less conflict in just putting it out there directly, and letting others edit from there, than going to suggest another person do it.
 * Anyway, if I'm to understand the best practice is to edit other articles first, I'd need an active account, but this one is still disabled. Are you suggesting, I rather abandon this account, and even for other future use of wikipedia create a new one?
 * I do understand you terms, and I think you can tell I do, and I am generally abiding by them. It seems rather I'm being blocked on conjecture of potential conflicts, which have not yet manifested, but are assumed on the declared relationship. It should be noted that typically declarations of potential COIs alleviate the COI as a matter of due diligence, and the declaration alone remedies the potential until a notable breach of terms due to the declared conflict arises.
 * Once more, I request understanding, grace and that you permit this in this instance, as this is obviously not a intentional or direct violation of your terms, even if the relationship feels a little close.
 * If not, I resign to not fighting the matter more. I'll leave it to your discretion. McKenzieMaddenFamilyOffice (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Further, this whole matter is simply based on conjecture. I suggest applying a direct interpretation of wikipedia's terms on this subject, but because the article is clearly compliant. The original article is compliant, as are the remedies follower in the appeal process:
 * From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam:
 * "Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company, organisation, or individual. Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website. However, a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities or other organisations.
 * From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam:
 * "Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company, organisation, or individual. Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website. However, a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities or other organisations.


 * Blatant examples of advertising masquerading as encyclopedia articles can be tagged for speedy deletion with the template . The same applies to pages in userspace, the draft namespace, or any other namespace. Other advertisements posted on Wikipedia can be dealt with by either proposed deletion or listing them on Articles for deletion. On some occasions, the content can be removed temporarily on the basis of a suspected copyright violation, since the text is often copied from another website and posted anonymously. Before trying to get an advertisement masquerading as an article deleted, please check the article's history to see if an acceptable revision exists there. If so, please revert to the latest acceptable version of the article.
 * When an article on an otherwise encyclopedic topic has the tone of an advertisement, the article can often be salvaged by rewriting it in a neutral point of view. Elements of articles about products or services with brand names can also be combined under a common topic or category to facilitate unbiased and collaborative information by including information about the competition and about different alternatives.
 * Spam may also occur by hijacking articles. In this case, information is changed to the subject being promoted, and the article is "hijacked", or changed, to promote an entirely different subject."
 * From above block notification:
 * "If you intend to make useful contributions instead of promoting your business or organization, you may request unblock and a username change. In your reasons, you must:
 * Disclose any compensation you may receive for your contributions in accordance with the paid-contribution disclosure requirement; and
 * Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked; and
 * Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked; and
 * Provide a new username."
 * Further, nothing written is a reflection of my personal works. It's a reference to a company and works done by my ancestors. Despite the several notes that promotion is not limited to commercial products, it's quite clearly defined as that with the addition of "Personal works and self promotion"
 * Your terms further state any such deemed promotion can be remedied simply by neutral phrasing. this is also compliant.
 * Generally, the entire thing is compliant. We've not even been discussing your actual terms so far, rather opinions. Per your terms, this is 100% compliant. McKenzieMaddenFamilyOffice (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Per the newspaper Obituaries of John Kenneth McKenzie and his Grandson J Kenneth McKenzie, it's noted that the family and it's business at the time were considered Pioneers of the City of Vancouver. This is all historical reference. I'm confident this is all valid for a fitting wikipedia page, even if I made a mistake in how I identified the account. Again, this is simply starting the article, let it be an open forum for public contribution, audit and edit.
 * https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-province-obituary-for-john-kenneth-m/130093866/?locale=en-CA
 * https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-province-obituary-for-j-kenneth-mck/129584364/ McKenzieMaddenFamilyOffice (talk) 07:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-province-obituary-for-j-kenneth-mck/129584364/ McKenzieMaddenFamilyOffice (talk) 07:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You misunderstand conflict of interest. If you feel that I have erred, please make a new unblock request which a different admin will review. 331dot (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)