User talk:Rachel Baber

April 2011
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to MBH Architects. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Goodvac (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest
Hello Rachel Baber. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article MBH Architects, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. I've been editing the article to make it more suitable for an encyclopedia - you're welcome to pitch in too, of course, but simply reverting to an earlier version would be seen as unhelpful. Happy to discuss on the article's talk page. —S MALL JIM   16:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help. Your edits are very well helpful.  I trying to add current info, I am new to wikipedia but am learning fast.  I reverted to an earlier version because all my additions were included there and then tried to incorporate the other persons's comments.  I am currently reseaching references that you requested.  Thanks again.  Rachel Baber (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at MBH Architects, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Goodvac (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I am at a loss of words. I have been working hard to update this page with facts. Verifiable facts.  Facts about company history and project experience.  I realize that my start was not of an encyclopedic nature.  I fixed it and am continuing to fix it.  Deleting all company info is not helpful and could be considered a little aggressive.  You deleted info that has been up for years. Please let me know what I can do to put the verifiable information info back. thank you.  Rachel Baber (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That the info in the article has been there for years does not mean that it should have been there. There were many problematic sentences in the article that either promoted the company or were unsourced, such as:
 * MBH provides an array of professional guidance and services from entitlement to completion.
 * MBH's professional services include...[interminable list]
 * To accommodate the challenges produced by these different project types, the company is internally organized into studios, based upon client specialty.
 * I am glad that you want to revamp this page with verifiable facts. That entails using only third-party sources, not sources from the company's website, and maintaining a neutral point-of-view throughout. Thanks, Goodvac (talk) 09:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well you're almost right there, Goodvac. See WP:SELFPUB regarding use of information from the company's own website. Let's continue the discussion on the article's talk page, where I'm just about to post. —S MALL  JIM   12:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Will reply there. Thanks, Goodvac (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)