User talk:TBNicole

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Tydenbrooks", may not comply with our username policy. Please note that you may not use a username that represents the name of a company, group, organization, product, or website. Examples of usernames that are not allowed include "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", and "Foobar Museum of Art". However, you are permitted to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you personally, such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87".

Please also note that Wikipedia does not allow accounts to be shared by multiple people, and that you may not advocate for or promote any company, group, organization, product, or website, regardless of your username. Please also read our paid editing policy and our conflict of interest guideline. If you are a single individual and are willing to contribute to Wikipedia in an unbiased manner, please request a change of username, by completing this form, choosing a username that complies with our username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Thank you for requesting a username change. Please be aware that regardless of your username, you need to follow our conflict of interest guideline. I recommend you do not make edits on topics related to the products that Tyden Brooks produces, but rather make requested edits requests to the talk pages of the respective articles. Further, if you are being compensated in any form for your edits to Wikipedia, this must be declared per our terms of service. See WP:PAID for more information. If you have questions, please let me know. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Paid editing
Hello TBNicole. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a black hat practice. Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly. Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:TBNicole. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

______________________________________________________

I am not directly compensated for making edits to Wikipedia. I work for TydenBrooks and made edits to the plastic security seal portion and history due to my market knowledge on security seals. I am working on editing other aspects under plastic and metal, as some of it is not accurate. You can see I made changes to Plastic Security Seals, replacing the old term with the proper terminology. I understand how the history can seem skewed, as it's tied to our company, but for that reason I did not list our website or place a picture of ours on the page, although there are direct images from other security seal manufacturers and links to their site on this page. I placed an image of the patent, for relevance to the origination of security seals. I am still gathering more information for the history section of the Wikipedia page. I can wait to make edits when I have completed information compiled, and am happy to only use Google Patents as a source and only state EJ Brooks Co current name, without providing that they still manufacturer security seals.

Although I am not being compensated for this, I am using the knowledge of my current employer so I am happy to provide this: Where does this information need to be placed to ensure I am following your policies.

Thank you.
 * Nicole, thank you for responding. Too often people just vanish when confronted as above. We do welcome your edits, but care must be taken. First thing, when you make a post to a talk page, such as this one, sign your posts by adding a " ~ " to the end of your post. This will be automatically transformed into a signature that adds your username and a timestamp. This helps people understand who is saying what. Ok, second, when a person has a conflict of interest as you do, it can be hard to write objectively about the subjects with which they have a conflict of interest. Take for example this edit of yours. Within that edit, you state "EJ Brooks Co still continues to be the leading manufacturer of security seals and provider of security seal solutions, named TydenBrooks, Security Products Group". On Wikipedia, we write with a neutral tone. We don't make any claims of anything being a leader, the best, the finest, the most well known, etc. without backing it up with reliable secondary sources, such as a major news outlet. Even so, we still might not use it has it could create undue weight in favor of one company over another on an article such as Security seal. I hope that clarifies that. If it doesn't, I'll take another crack at explaining it. But, that's why I had to revert your edit. A history section at the security seal page would be most welcome. But, we have to be careful that it is written in a neutral tone, is well sourced, and produces content that is encyclopedic. I would strongly encourage you not to add a link to your employer's site again. Most everyone here would see that as a conflict of interest edit and revert the edit. Further, your employer's site counts as a primary source, which we use sparingly here. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

This is all good to know, thank you. I am new to this and completely understand the neutral tone needed. I will take some time to get together neutral sources and fix some of the misinformation in this page and won't make links to my employers site. The history can be interesting and given without linking it in such a way. Thank you for the clarification and help. "TBNicole (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)"