User talk:TropicalFruits

Welcome!
Hello, TropicalFruits, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Ambit Energy has not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome. Grayfell (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

--

@Grayfell Thank you for the welcome, and Thank you for the guidelines. I should've read over them before the intial edit of the page.

I see that you are quite the experienced person on here and was wanting to know about the current Ambit Energy page and proper edits for it. I was a Yugioh Wikipedia editor for a time so I have some knowledge of how Wiki's are constructed (yes I am a nerd). Anyhow In regards to the current Ambit Energy Page I notice it is quite short for a major company and lacks a history, products and services section. I also understand the goal of Wikipedia is 3 things: Reliable Information (sources sources sources), Easy to read/best possible format, and unbiased information.

This being said I have found many pages of related companies that have exemplar pages that could contribute to the style and correct correlation of information of the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream_Energy en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Power_%26_Light (best example)

With extensive knowledge of this billion dollar company and its' history, and as a history major (yes I cite everything- I may over-site my sources)I feel that It is my duty to compose an more detailed page of the company as a whole (non-promotional). So my question to you is if I present you an with a page similar and unbiased like the Florida Power example or something similar do you think this process could be approved?

Thanks for taking your time in reading this TropicalFruits (talk) 02:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello. Hmm. Well, I am familiar with at least one of those articles. Consistency is important, but Wikipedia doesn't hold very much stock in precedent. There are a lot of essays by editors about this, such as Ignore all precedent, Other stuff exists, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, and others. These are just essays, but since Wikipedia works on consensus, they should demonstrate that such arguments are rarely persuasive by themselves. In a nutshell the problem is this: Florida Power & Light, Stream Energy, and Direct Energy also have some serious problems, so using them as examples is counterproductive. If you want articles to use as a comparison, Featured articles or Good articles/Social sciences and society would be better places to look, as those articles have been judged as exemplary or at least above average. Even then, it's better to go by policy and guideline than comparison, such as Neutral point of view.
 * As for Ambit, the changes you made to the article broke the article into much smaller sections which effectively gave much greater weight to very short sections. This served to flatter the company without providing any substantial new information. The "services" section used some vague but positive language which is non-neutral. Saying that Ambit provides "Free Electricity / Natural Gas" absolutely needs context, and just as important it needs a source, which you did not include.
 * Many editors have added the BBB thing to the article before, and none of them have provided a WP:SECONDARY source. Since this rarely comes up on other articles, I'm assuming that this routine fact is emphasized in Ambit's promotional literature or something, but in order for it to be included in Wikipedia, it needs to be contextualized as significant, and the way to do that is with reliable, secondary sources. I'm glad you are enthusiastic about citations, but when it comes to sources, quality is more important than quantity. Press releases are generally poor sources, and of course, personal familiarity is not usable at all.
 * One more thing, I'll repeat what I say to all editors who make flattering edits to articles about MLM companies, please be mindful of Wikipedia's policies regarding editing with a conflict of interest: Conflict of interest (especially WP:COVERT) and Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 03:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)