User talk:MikeH9016

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, PacificEdgeDX. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Pacific Edge Limited, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. HaeB (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group or a web site, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing. Additionally, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you to edit.

If you intend to make useful contributions other than promoting your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In that reason, you must:
 * 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.
 * Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block. To do so, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the text at the bottom of your talk page, replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason for thinking that the block was an error, and publish the page. Alexf(talk) 13:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I would note that it is not "your page", but a Wikipedia article about your company. Article subjects do not have any more rights to articles about themselves than any other editor, see WP:OWN. You'll need to make the formal paid editing declaration. Are there any other topics you are interested in editing about as an individual editor? 331dot (talk) 09:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure, that's a fair comment and we accept that. Can I ask for advice then. A lot of the information on that page is now factually incorrect. How should we best respond?
 * While Wikipedia strives to be accurate, it isn't intended to be a source of up to the minute current information. That's something you can post on your company website. Wikipedia, especially with companies, is behind the curve when it comes to current information, preferring in most cases to wait until information is published by independent reliable sources.  This edit posted a description of the company clearly written by a company representative, described your company's products, and advertised the company website.  None of this is acceptable content. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company wants to say about itself, only in what others say about it. Making formal edit requests on the article talk page is the correct way to contribute information in the area of a conflict of interest, and it's good that you realize that, but Wikipedia much prefers editors to be here to contribute to this project more broadly/generally. This is why I asked if there are other topics you want to edit about as an individual. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes I understand that and in most cases it wouldn't be an issue. It's just when outdated or misinterpreted facts may actively be misleading other users, e.g. that we serve Spain when we don't, or that we market "Cxbladder" as being a third less expensive than other diagnostic tools - again we don't. Reviewing the passage you flag, yes I can understand the issue there and why it was blocked. We don't dispute that decision. It really just comes down to our inexperience with the platform. We're more than happy to play by the rules if I can challenge statements we believe are incorrect. On that note, I'm also happy to contribute constructively to the pages of other local NZ companies, using up to date cited sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.223.166 (talk) 09:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC) One other comment. I see the Pacific Edge page contains several warnings suggesting the article reads like an ad or press release. Just to check, do these relate to the article as it stands or do these warnings link to attempted edits in the past, e.g. the passage you flagged earlier? I'm asking as the article seems pretty factual in it's existing form. Or am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PacificEdgeDX (talk • contribs)
 * The tags are based on the article as it stands currently, and have been there since 2015. It is not clear if your company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Frankly I could see the article being proposed for deletion, but I am not going to address that now. The sources currently offered seem to be announcements of routine business transactions or information, which do not establish notability.  Wikipedia is not interested in routine coverage, but in in depth analysis written by independent reliable sources.  The reason Ford Motor Company or Pfizer merit articles is that independent sources have chosen on their own to extensively write about those companies, not that announcements of acquisitions or the raising of capital or new products or industry awards are published. This goes for any article about a company. 331dot (talk) 10:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll reply to the above comment tomorrow if that's ok. In the meantime a response to your point around lagging updates and the comment you flagged above - sorry I replied as an unsigned user initially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PacificEdgeDX (talk • contribs)
 * That's fine. I may not be available tomorrow, so I invite other administrators to take any action they see as appropriate either now or after your response. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry that last comment cut off. To pick up: yes I understand that and in most cases it wouldn't be an issue. It's just when outdated or misinterpreted facts may actively be misleading other users, e.g. that we serve Spain when we don't, or that we market "Cxbladder" as being a third less expensive than other diagnostic tools - again we don't. Reviewing the passage you flag, yes I can understand the issue there and why it was blocked. We don't dispute that decision. It really just comes down to our inexperience with the platform. We're more than happy to play by the rules if I can challenge statements we believe are incorrect. On that note, I'm also happy to contribute constructively to the pages of other local NZ companies, using up to date cited sources.

globally renamed PacificEdgeDX to MikeH9016
globally renamed PacificEdgeDX to MikeH9016 -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 22:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for making that change. I'd now like to respond to the following comment above:

"The tags are based on the article as it stands currently, and have been there since 2015. It is not clear if your company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Frankly I could see the article being proposed for deletion, but I am not going to address that now. The sources currently offered seem to be announcements of routine business transactions or information, which do not establish notability.  Wikipedia is not interested in routine coverage, but in in depth analysis written by independent reliable sources.  The reason Ford Motor Company or Pfizer merit articles is that independent sources have chosen on their own to extensively write about those companies, not that announcements of acquisitions or the raising of capital or new products or industry awards are published. This goes for any article about a company."

To the point above, which links to the maintenance templates currently active on the page, would a solution then be for an independent/ objective editor to review and improve the quality of the sources where possible, ensuring all statements are properly cited? At what point, could the maintenance templates be removed? Though we're a relatively small organisation so still working hard to secure in-depth media analysis, I'd argue we meet your definition of a notable company in our efforts to challenge established clinical practice in respect to the detection and rule out of bladder cancer. Recent commercial breakthroughs in the US support this: NZ Herald article, Edison Talks podcast with our CEO Dave Darling. Hi there, just wanted to check in on this quickly - what were your thoughts? I see I'm still blocked too. Are you able to lift that or do you need more clarification on my intended approach?