User talk:PacificSeafood

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because your username, PacificSeafood, does not meet our username policy. '''Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below).''' A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account. You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:
 * Adding on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
 * At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
 * Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Changing username.

If you feel that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

jrmanzari
 * A username change will not absolve you of a conflict of interest. What articles would you edit if unblocked? — Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 22:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I want to edit the Pacific Seafood page. I work there and I'm trying to get us an article on Wikipedia. The entry seems pretty unbiased to me. Is there something wrong with what I wrote? If so, I can change it.

Here are a few key questions:
 * Do you understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a business directory?
 * Do you understand conflict of interest?
 * Do you understand that to be considered for an encyclopedia article, the subject must be notable?

You are currently blocked because your username appears directly related to a company, group or product that you have been promoting, contrary to the username policy. Changing the username will not allow you to violate the 3 important principles above. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 00:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Another big seafood company was allowed to have a Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_Seafoods. Why wouldn't you allow Pacific Seafood to have a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.117.146 (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC) The presence or absence of article X can't justify the presence or absence of article Y. All articles must stand on their own merits or be deleted. — Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 04:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Another big seafood company (smaller than Pacific Seafood) was allowed to have a Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_Seafoods. Why wouldn't you allow Pacific Seafood to have a page? It is the largest seafood company in North America.

In answer to the questions above:

Here are a few key questions:


 * Do you understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a business directory? - Yes. But there are notable companies listed on there. Pacific Seafood is notable because it is the largest seafood company in North America.
 * Do you understand conflict of interest? - I can get a third party to post the article who is not in conflict. Would that help?
 * Do you understand that to be considered for an encyclopedia article, the subject must be notable? - Pacific Seafood is the largest seafood company in North America and is therefore worth of mention. A small company has been issues a page so I don't see why this is a problem.
 * The presence or absence of article X can't justify the presence or absence of article Y. All articles must stand on their own merits or be deleted. — Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 04:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

====

Mr. Couriano,


 * There seem to be a few issues here, let's deal with them separately:

1) Username: I've asked to have my username changed from PacificSeafood to jrmanzari. If you believe that my editing this article presents a conflict of interest because I work for the company, please let me know if it would be ok for someone else who doesn't work for the company to post it.
 * It's preferable that someone who has no ties whatsoever to the article's subject or anyone employed by them write the article. — Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 13:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

2) Biased: A previous administrator raised a concern that the article is biased. If you believe it is, please explain how this is so.
 * Believe it or not, most editors who have a conflict of interest cannot see the biases inherent in their own writing. It's my opinion that the article is written as an advert just from a quick skim of the company history section. — Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 13:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

3) Noteworthyness: As I've mentioned, the fact that a company is the biggest in North America is worth noting. You seem to disagree. Please explain how that does not meet the criteria for being noteworthy. You mentioned that, "The presence or absence of article X can't justify the presence or absence of article Y." This is true, however, Wikipedia must use the same editorial guidelines for all articles. Therefore, if you don't believe Pacific Seafood to be noteworthy, please explain how Trident Seafood is and Pacific Seafood is not. If you believe Trident Seafood is not noteworthy please delete the page to be consistent and fair in your approach.
 * You are trying to use another article's existence to justify your article's existence. My answer is to point you to WP:Notability (organizations and companies), which your article fails as it has zero reliable sources indicating notability. This is something most employees do not realize, but we require that all articles have multiple third-party references in reputable and trusted publications in order to establish that they are notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. "the biggest" company in North America would be worthy - but you have to provide a third-party citation that proves the claim. — Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 13:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Please answer my questions directly. Thank you.

=== Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. I will do the following:

1) Get someone with no ties to the company to post the article 2) Make sure the article is free of any bias. 3) Add third-party references to prove the claims made in the article.

Thank you.
 * You will also need third-party references to prove the company is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. (See WP:Notability (organizations and companies), which is the relevant policy here.) Note that the references have to actually discuss the company; name-drops aren't helpful. — Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 22:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note too that even if something is in an independent place, the content may not be regarded as independent. Many trade magazines carry 'articles' which take the form of 'interviews' with CEOs. These are often made up of carefully leading questions replied to in lengthy wordings that look like something dreamed up by the PR department in an off moment. (And probably are...) Anything on somewhere like PRWire gets disregarded so far as notability is concerned. A good idea is to put the draft of the article in userspace first and then ask for advice and opinion from an admin or regular editor who hasn't been involved so far (although we are mostly neutral in outlook when doing this). Peridon (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There was a userspace article at User:PacificSeafood/Pacific Seafood, Peridon. — Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 13:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)