User talk:Hkr13

Conflict of interest on Harry and Louise

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Harry and Louise, 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 from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
and you must always:
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

Interestingly enough, I cannot find that page. Furthermore, I have proposed changes on the talk pages, asked for advice on citing information - which comes from third party sources, and yet I have still received no help on this. No one has discussed the proposed edits on the talk page, nor has MCB offered help on citing sources. It would seem to me this has more to do with sour grapes, than wanting an entry to be factually accurate.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. --MCB (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no conflict of interest here. The article is written from a NPOV and does not endorse anyone or any company. It simply states the facts. I asked for help in referencing it because I could not get the references to display properly. I can cite every sentence in my revision as fact, and will happly do so. Unforunately, you feel the need to revert back to your version of the article which remains factually inaccurate, and portrays each company in a specific view. There are two major fact errors in the article, and other minor ones. Furthermore, I find it appalling that you would place my IP address for all to see with a company that doesn't even exist - I do not work for GC Strategic Ventures, have never heard of it, and frankly, couldn't find a reference to it anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilarykoehl (talk • contribs) 19:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied this to, and responded, at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Harry and Louise and edits by Goddard Claussen (ad agency). Please direct any followups there. --MCB (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Harry and Louise

In addition to the above issues regarding conflicts of interest (your rewrite of the article is essentially word-for-word identical to that made by the IP editor at 66.208.15.194, which is an IP address registered to Goddard Claussen), your undiscussed rewrite is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia:

You removed sourced and cited factual information, as well as the citations to the sources themselves.

The material you inserted is completely unsourced, that is, cited to reliable, published, independent third-party sources, and is therefore unverifiable.

The material you inserted ignores Wikipedia's core principle of neutral point of view, and is promotional and laudatory to Porter Novelli and Goddard Claussen.

Your complete rewrite of the article was never discussed or proposed on the article's Talk page.

Wikipedia articles are encyclopedic, and should be written in simple, straightforward form, not in the form of advertising or promotional copy, essays, or reviews.

Attempts by Goddard Claussen to "spin" or rewrite the Harry and Louise article are not welcome. If you have verifiable, factual, reliably sourced material to contribute to the article, propose it on the Talk page for discussion. --MCB (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely 100% of everythinig that I have written is factually accurate and completely true. I did NOT spin this to favor either Goddard Claussen or Porter Novelli. The companies are part of the history and therefore FACT. I can prove beyong a reasonable doubt every single line in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilarykoehl (talk • contribs) 19:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's not how Wikipedia works. You must provide third-party reliable sources for all assertions; we don't just take your word for it, or the word of those who have conflicts of interest regarding the subject. And again, the tone of the article is inappropriate for Wikipedia. It might be fine for a magazine article, but not an encyclopedia. In addition, you removed the material regarding the 2002 litigation, which is sourced to an established third-party publication. (Also, please sign your Talk and User Talk page postings with your user name, using four tildes (~~~~). At this point it would be better to address these issues on the article's talk page. --MCB (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent posting to the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Hello Hkr13. I see that you left a comment yesterday at the noticeboard about Harry and Louise, but it seemed to be filed in the wrong place. The original discussion about Harry and Louise is now at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 23#Harry and Louise and edits by Goddard Claussen (ad agency). That discussion is now closed. If you have more questions about the Conflict of Interest situation regarding that article you might post them here. EdJohnston (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new discussion is at: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Harry and Louise, redux. --MCB (talk) 00:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]