User talk:Mike734

Proposed deletion due to notability not demonstrated

I've had a large impact but tend to work from behind the scenes, so that the subject matter of our findings and practitioners who use them are highlighted rather than me. The result is that people tend to write about the findings, not about me, which is great actually. A Google search on "Value Stream Mapping" or "Toyota Kata," for example, can give you an impression of the widesepread reach, the extent of which has surprised me. These topics and terminology did not exist before my research on them was published.

However, I don't disagree with questioning my notability and am not entirely comfortable editing the page on Wikipedia. I understand if it is subject to further scrutiny and applaud Wikipedia for the effort to maintain good standards. Mike734 (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, Mike734, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I notice that one of the first articles you have edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been reverted for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of deletion, you might like to draft your article before submission, then get me or any other editor to proofread it. To start creating a draft article, just click your user name at the top of the screen when you are logged in, and edit that page as you would any other. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

The one firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that if more than one person is using this account to edit, then unfortunately it will be blocked from editing.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Atama頭 23:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest concern

Hello Mike, this is to inform you that there is a discussion regarding your edits at the conflict of interest noticeboard. You may wish to comment to clarify matters and ease concerns about your editing. Thank you. -- Atama頭 23:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, no action was taken as a result. The very brief discussion was archived at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_40#Mike_Rother. – Fayenatic London 11:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest concern

Hi Atama, thank you for your note about a discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard regarding my edits. Sorry I did not respond sooner... I do not frequently log onto Wikipedia, and only logged on today.

What I have tried to add to Wikipedia is information or links relating to recent developments (of circa the last 5 years) on the subject of organization management, which are interestingly coming from a number fields of research including brain and psychology, software development, engineering, social science, and management.

I agree fully that it is important to maintain a neutral point of view, and that this is made more difficult by the fact that I research and write on the subject. So I appreciate input and guidance in regard to maintaining the NPOV.

I reviewed the entry "Mike Rother" and removed a sentence that upon second reading did indeed strike me as too biased. Thank you. -- Mike Rother Mike734 (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Mike Rother article is an autobiography, and per our guidelines creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged. You've also added references to your own works in various locations. All of this can be seen as self-promotional, and that is why the COI concerns were raised.

On the other hand, I do believe that your biographical article does barely pass the bar of notability, and when I reviewed it while the COI noticeboard report was created, I decided not to endorse its deletion. I also appreciate your candor in disclosing your identity, and personally I've always tried to do what I can not to discourage experts from participating in the project. You are clearly an expert in your field, and your additions to Wikipedia have been helpful. So I really don't have any concerns about you. Others may disagree, so just consider this a notice for your own information that someone in the future might object to your participation on certain articles. If that occurs, let me know and I'll review the situation and come to your defense if the accusations are unwarranted. Thanks! -- Atama頭 17:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Book

Hey there, Your welcome :) Is that your own book? written by yourself? Nima1024 (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did right to answer in users Talk pages, have fun and good luck with your book, hope it will be the top-selling book in the world :D Nima1024 (talk) 12:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]