User talk:Tygast411/Archive 1

Edits to FieldTurf and Astroturf
Hello, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I have reverted your changes to FieldTurf for a second time - for the moment I would strongly urge you not to change it back. It came to my attention last night that the changes you were making, both to Astroturf and FieldTurf were questionable. Edits to the former containing a great deal of Marketing speak, promotional material and positive comment - with edits to the latter being of the form, diff. The edit history shows an intermitance of editing between yourself and User:216.248.156.53. A whois lookup for this IP address gives "Richard French & Associates ITCD-216-248-156-48" - a google search tells me this is a Public Relations Company. It is at this point that you should be fully aware of Conflict of interest. At the moment I cannot say with 100% certainty that you are working for a PR company, but my experience on Wikipedia tells me that it is much more likely than not. If you wish to declare your interests in this then you can post relevant comments you may have on the respective article talk pages - that way other editors who are more experienced and neutral can ensure content being added adheres to NPOV. If you wish to contest the linkage between Richard French & Associates and yourself that I have made then you are, of course, free to do so - bearing in mind that a function exists on wikipedia called CheckUser which can be used by a small number of admins to check what IP address a particular user is editing from. If you have any questions feel free to contact me, Regards, SFC9394 15:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. With regard to:


 * "I have written several objections on the FieldTurf article talk page with no responses or actions from other users. If there's not going to be any dialogue addressing the current concerns, and WP is not going to allow me to take action to address those concerns, then how will the article become neutral?"


 * The best procedure if no talk page discussion is generated (which can often happen with quiet articles) is to post the issue at Request for Comment which will bring it to the attention of a wide number of wikipedia editors who can then see whether the concern is valid and edit things appropriately. If you are from a Public Relations firm then it would be advisable to disclose that here on your user page to ensure other editors are aware of any potential conflict of interest.  The main issue here is not that mistakes, inaccuracies or bias should not be addressed - it is simply that other editors are aware of what your motivation is for correcting them - i.e. it is not just as a joe public editor, but as a PR representative of the company in the article or one of its competitors.  Transparency is all that is required. SFC9394 17:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Additionally, please don't delete things from your talk page. SFC9394 17:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * While I too am a strong believer in WP:COI, I do want to correct what SFC9394 said. There is no policy that says that users may not delete content from their own user talk page, although sometimes "it is frowned upon".  In general, if you want to remove stuff, it is considered courteous to archive it - see How to archive a talk page - but this is in no way mandatory.  -- John Broughton  (☎☎) 15:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information John. I'm a neat organizational freak and just wanted my talk page to be clean for new conversations. But I have no problem with leaving all of these conversations on here. As long as my concerns are taken seriously and my intent is understood to be neutral. I'm learning how things work here and I appreciate all of the help from SFC and the others. Ben 16:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * To postscript, my comment was added due to the deletion of this talk thread. While I agree with your words that there is no policy John, I'm afraid an editor deleting a talk thread while it is still active and while I am replying to it is bad form.  Editors may have the right to do so, but if they continually do so to active talking points when I am in discussion with them then they loose my good faith.  In light of the nature of the discussions (a pretty serious conflict of interest) I think I was entirely right to request that these comments not be deleted while the matter remained unsettled. SFC9394 18:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Astroturf
Hi I'm unaware of whatever controversy you're in, whatever I know is from what I saw on your talk page. Just dropped by to say you're doing a great job with the AstroTurf page. Refs really are a pain sometimes, and I'm glad someone's on it. As for the other page, most of your contribs are fine. The ones that weren't, you've changed anyway. Keep things neutral and it'll be fine. We all look forward to your contributions Tygast, keep it up! xCentaur | ☎  16:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Irrespective of what the content added is - if a Conflict of interest is active then it should be declared and noted. PR firms writing wikipedia articles for their clients is not what WP is supposed to be about. SFC9394 16:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for writing xCentaur. I am an Art Director for FWV and made this information available on my user page. Thanks for the kind words. I will continue to add references to the AstroTurf page and contribute my knowledge to the synthetic turf topic by posting information in the Talk pages of the respective articles.

Potential COI
Have you yet publicly commented on whether either SRI or FieldTurf is a client of your employer, FWV? --Selket Talk 17:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Press release from 2 months ago confirms that they are: . SFC9394 17:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, so we have a conflict of interest (as if that was not obvious). What this means is that you, Tygast411, are more than welcome to make comments and suggestions on the Talk pages of articles on your firm's clients and their competitors, but that you should not edit the articles themselves.  That should, I think, present no pressing problem to you, since you seem to have got the hang of sourcing.  Post suggestions or factual errors, other editors will see how best to cover that information, if at all.  That way everybody is happy, everything is open and above board.  Yes? Guy (Help!) 21:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. Could someone take a look at the concerns I've posted on the FieldTurf discussion page? THanks. Tygast411 02:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost
Thanks for your comments on the Signpost article. I have no problem with you posting directly about it, but to maintain the flow and structure of the story I've removed the copy that was added directly to that page. Instead I've incorporated the additional information into the story, including a quote about your intentions, and directed readers to the full version on the talk page. I trust that will be satisfactory. --Michael Snow 20:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel as though my response has been patronized and brushed aside with an inconspicuous link buried in the bottom quarter of your article. But if you sincerely feel your actions are fair and just, then I appreciate your consideration. Ben 21:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

FT & AT changes
Hi - I had the edit box open for a good five minutes trying to formulate a way of saying that. I accept that the product in the 60's/70's is not the product now - but I couldn't find an easy way to formulate it. As a follow on from "The original AstroTurf product was a short pile synthetic turf..." it would be useful to continue with something along the lines of "...while the modern incarnation is dah de dah de dah", with the dah's being replaced by some text which details what the modern design is - *without* sounding like something out of a brochure - a simple description of what the current design methodology is would suffice. I am afraid comments (in any of the artificial turf articles, frankly) comparing with natural grass are something I am not 100% with. It is heavily subjective - the most recent artificial turf I have seen (of the modern design as well) neither looked not responded anything like natural grass. But that is only my opinion and others may disagree and say they can hardly tell the difference - i.e. it is a subjective view. SFC9394 00:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree any statement which may suggest that an artificial turf resembles natural grass in any form (color, texture, appearance) is highly subjective. I have just added a bunch of information regarding the current AstroTurf products. It's probably too much to add to finish off the simple sentance we're discussing but it might give you an idea of how to word it, or some terminology to use.

Here's an attempt:

The original AstroTurf was a monofilament ribbon pile product while the current products incorporate modern features such as antimicrobial protection, cryrogenic rubber infill, BioCel backing systems, Root Zones, and nylon yarn fibers.

Ben 00:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have included a version of your text, minus some non-vital jargon which isn't going to inform (biocel's for example). For ease of editing and consensus reaching by other editors it is best if discussion on any other points continues on the article talk page - that way other editors can easily chip in. SFC9394 21:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)