| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Geomedia Inc. article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
COI
editIn accordance with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, I have chosen to disclose that I have a personal connection to this subject. I will spare details, but my main purpose in writing this article is to benefit Wikipedia and its mission. I believe this list is written from a neutral perspective (the content is pretty non-controversial) and has been constructed from independent, reliable sources. The second link above provides the following summary, which I believe I have followed appropriately:
- Be transparent about your conflict of interest (
Done) - Subjects require significant coverage in independent reliable sources. ( Done)
- Your role is to inform and reference, not promote or sell. ( Done)
- Be extremely cautious about the risks of editing articles about yourself or your clients ( Done|N/A)
- If writing a draft, write without bias, as if you don't work for the company or personally know the subject. ( Done)
- State facts and statistics, don't be vague or general. ( Done)
- Take time to get sources and policy right. ( Done)
- Get neutral, uninvolved, disinterested editors to review your draft. (
Doing...) - Work with the community and we'll work with you. ( Done)
- Communicate, communicate, communicate. ( Done)
My goal is to have this article promoted to Good article status, eventually. I understand this will require review and assistance from other members of the community, which is great. I invite all to examine this list carefully to make sure the content is fair and accurate. Thanks, ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- I reverted this edit. Had only the quote been removed, I think that would be appropriate, but the rest of the info that follows seems relevant to me. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- I went ahead and removed the quote, which I acknowledge could be seen as promotional or unnecessary. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- I reverted this edit as well. I don't see how it is problematic and the edit included bad formatting. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- I reverted this edit as well. San Antonio Business Journal is not unreliable and, again, the edit included bad formatting. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- as an editor with COI, you are supposed to be editing only the talk page; nobody with coi can be a good judge of the appropriateness of their edits. DGG ( talk ) 13:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Instead of giving me a lecture about COI editing and my so-called lack of judgement (by the way, I have promoted COI articles to Good and Featured status), can we please remain focused on the article's content itself? ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- as an editor with COI, you are supposed to be editing only the talk page; nobody with coi can be a good judge of the appropriateness of their edits. DGG ( talk ) 13:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree with this edit, especially since no reason is provided for its removal. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- This diff is fine, I guess. I've fixed your bad formatting. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree with this diff as well. DGG, I very much appreciate the work you do for Wikipedia, and I agree that Wikipedians should be skeptical of COI editing, but you are not providing me reasons for why you are removing content that is verifiable and, in some cases, discussed by multiple sources (including appropriate ones like the San Antonio Currant and San Antonio Magazine). You are also leaving behind bad formatting. I don't see why listing notable clients and projects is problematic. I don't mean to be difficult or resistant, but I do think some explanation would be helpful. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- All this is for other people to judge; with a coi you cannot be an adequate judge of the work you are connected with. DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Frankly, your assertion that I am unable to judge my own work or disagree with changes made to an article is insulting. I would be posting these same disagreements regardless of the COI. It is not unusual to ask editors to justify why they are removing content. I am using this page to discuss changes made to the article, so if you have specific issues with the article's content, let's please discuss them here. Thank you. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- All this is for other people to judge; with a coi you cannot be an adequate judge of the work you are connected with. DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)