User talk:Mgelwix

Warning
I note that User:71.136.34.197 did a very similar set of edits to what you just did - removing information about PerfectWave from multiple articles, which were reverted by three different users as vandalism. If similar edits continue from this account, I will ask to have it blocked. John Broughton |  Talk 23:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

And now User:wikinom. John Broughton |  Talk 19:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Welcome to wikipedia. You'll find it an mix of "anything goes" (anonymous editing, WP:BB), because obstacles to editors can result in poorer content, and rules designed to prevent or remove erroneous information.  In the latter category are three that apply to your case:


 * WP:RS - I don't doubt that Brent Wilkes has been bought out, but one editor saying such on a talk page of another editor doesn't meet this policy. Was there a newspaper article about this?  Are records for California corporations online?  Does the PerfectWave website say anything about a change in ownership, or who owns the company?  All of those would meet WP:RS criteria.  (Note that it is more informative to mention the change in ownership as well as who owns the company now, rather than just current ownership.)


 * WP:V - Again, I have no doubt that the company is doing valuable things. WP:RS applies, of course.  So does WP:V.  That the company continues to do work for the federal government, and/or that it has gotten new or renewed contracts, are statements where something on the PW website would be good enough for a mention.  But "valuable" needs something more - a letter from a high-ranking official, or whatever.  (In other words, it's probably best to describe what the company is doing, and let the reader decide that it's valuable.)


 * WP:COI - Owning a company and being a wikipedia editor are two different roles. A good step to mitigate this is disclosure, as you've done.  If you're going to edit your own company (strongly discouraged by WP:COI), you should bend over backwards to be objective.  A better approach, I think, would be to post comments, sources, etc, on the article's talk/discussion page, and see how other authors respond (for example, by agreeing with your suggestions and making changes to the article).  If you do take this approach, and no one responds to a post, just drop me a note; if I don't respond (very unlikely, I hope), then go ahead and make the change to the article that you want.

I hope that helps. John Broughton |  Talk 13:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)