User talk:Jwarwick
Welcome
[edit]
 Getting Started Getting help
 The Commmunity |
 Policies and Guidelines
 Things to do | |
ukexpat (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Conflict of interest
[edit]
If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Comcast Center (office building), 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 or creating 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; and
- linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia: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 conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Why can't I edit Wikipedia?
Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. You have violated one or more of our rules, including rules against adding spam links, posting advertisements, using Wikipedia for promotion, and editing inappropriately with a conflict of interest. Although Wikipedia has a great many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, it is considered inappropriate for such groups to use Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.
- Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?
Probably not. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Organization for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, or organization. If this does not fit in with your goals here, you will not be allowed to edit again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.
- What can I do now?
If you do intend to make contributions that are in line with Wikipedia's policies, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:
- Add the text
{{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}}below this message box. - Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy.
- Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:
- Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked.
- Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.
--Orange Mike | Talk 18:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
{{unblock-spamun|jwarwick|While the block initially came as a surprise to me since there was nothing I added that was unbiased, I can understand how other users could see these additions as such, simply based on my original username. With the username "Hill International", I had only added to one article about the Comcast Center (office building), that our company was the manager of its construction. This is a fact, with no bias or advertising (just like showing that Robert A.M. Sterns was the architect here). In future postings, with a new username based on my own name, I plan to make edits that are of interest and concern to me. Being a graphic and web designer as well as a beer enthusiast, these may be future topics for my postings. In addition, I would like to be able to add certain factual bits of info regarding Hill International. I don't plan on making any commentary about the company or advertising claims of our work. Because Hill International is a large construction management firm which has worked on very high-profile projects throughout the world, I feel it would be completely unbiased for me to add information from our experts who are closest to these projects as well as simply typing in that Hill International was, indeed, the project manager on these important buildings. Please let me know if these are acceptable uses of my "personal" username. Thank you. Jim Warwick}}
Given your conflict of interest, I would be inclined to treat the adding of your employer to articles not about your employer as a form of spamming, and a violation of our COI rules. I believe this kind of information is not generally regarded as encyclopedic information in most articles; but you could put a note on the talk page of the articles in question (disclosing, of course, your own COI position) and see what other concerned editors think. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Note also that the adding of unpublished information received directly from your experts violates our verifiability and reliable sources rules. We need published information from public sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Then, to clarify, how is it that an article about the Comcast Center (office building) would have a specific field to input a "manager", but no one affiliated with that manager can add that information there? Each building has a tabular area that includes a section on "companies" which obviously worked on that building. Who is allowed to input that information, if not the employees of the companies themselves? Also, yes, if our experts have written professional articles about a given topic or project, will I be able to add their insight if attributed to their original article? Suppose the only online presence of the article is on the company's web site, is it still a violation to attribute that? Thanks for the insight. Jim Warwick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hill International (talk • contribs)
- Other editors, ones without a conflict of interest, should be adding that information to the infoboxes, based on published and verifiable information from reliable sources. Useful information properly attributed to published articles is always welcome; but that would mean articles in peer-reviewed professional journals and the like. (References are NOT required to have an online link; but they must be verifiable.) A pattern of inserting information only derived from one's employer and one's fellow employees, or worse yet overt references to one's employer and its employees, projects, etc. is going to look symptomatic of an intent to improve the reputation and Wikipresence of Hill International rather than to improve Wikipedia as a whole, which again gets back to the same old theme of conflict of interest. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification on that. Hill International (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)