Kk.nicole

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

I noticed that one of the first articles you 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 undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. 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.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! )Dialectric (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Zadara Storage

Please don't use Wikipedia as your company's PR site. While I understand how my actions appear to you to be 'destructive editing', Wikipedia generally frowns on such types of promotional content. So I kindly suggest you stop editing the article of your employer and discuss changes you propose on the talk page. Brandon (talk) 06:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

A Wikipedia page about a company is allowed to contain products and awards. It's not a PR site for doing so. All content written can be verifiable. I have no understanding of why you continue to remove all content. Summer.zadara (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. MSJapan (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of interest follow up; username

Hi Summer.zadara. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, and would like to talk with you about what is going on.

Your username signals a connection with the company, Zadara, as do your edits. It is pretty clear that you are an employee of Zadara, and probably the head of digital marketing for the company. You are what we call a WP:PAID editor. You should understand that paid editing is very, very controversial in the Wikipedia community.

Per the Terms of Use you are obligated to explicitly disclose that you work for the company. (Your username is a very strong hint, but it is not a clear disclosure)

You are also strongly discouraged from directly editing any article where you have a conflict of interest.

You are also pretty new to Wikipedia, and like most new editors, you don't understand the policies that the community has put in place, that govern content here. Editors who violate the content policies consistently get blocked and eventually banned.

If you put all together, it should be clear to you that aggressively asserting your "right" to edit about your company is a very unwise path, and will probably lead swiftly to your account being blocked. (You don't know what you are doing, and you will get no wiggle room for error) And you will get nothing done, and there is a risk that the reputation of Zadara will be harmed. (see WP:Wikipedia is in the real world)

If instead you comply with the PAID and the COI guideline, and take the time to understand what kind of content is acceptable here in Wikipedia and make content proposals on the article Talk page, things are likely to go much better for you; you have a better chance of improving the article.

Does that make sense? Jytdog (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi JYtdog, my name is Summer. I looked up best practices for Wikipedia and it said to be honest about your connections, so I included Zadara in my name. I am not an intern. I have grown frustrated with this back and forth over promotional content. I don't understand how the product listings are considered marketing fluff. How else, or who else, will fill the page? Looking back, I shouldn't have included Zadara in my name because I am not being paid to monitor or "Advertise" on this listing. I am simply interested in the company and wanted to provide information. Summer.zadara (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I've revised my comment above, please do re-read it. I can kind of understand why you think it might have been better to edit secretly, but that is not really accurate. Please do reply after you have re-read, and let me know how you would like to proceed. btw if you would like to talk via skype or gvoice I would be happy to do that. It can just save a lot of time. Jytdog (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog I understand what you're saying. I understand COI and bias. However, is Wikipedia best practice to leave a page with minimal content until a passerby fills it out? Who will fill the information? This is what doesn't make sense to me. I am frustrated. Sure, I can Skype at same username... Summer.zadara (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The username you chose was not the reason I edited the article the way I did. I was researching storage solutions for my day job and came across the article, which was obviously written by someone involved with the company, so I decided to clean it up. Take a look at Scene7 for an example of what we consider to be a "good" article, you'll note while products are absolutely mentioned, it is not merely a list of products and mostly contrived awards. Brandon (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey Brandon thanks for cleaning up the article. Like a lot of new editors who come from companies, Summer was frustrated and unhappy with the article being stubified. I just talked with her and I think she is willing to reconsider her approach and hit the reset button; I hope you will consider that also. I know things got off to a bad start, but like I said hopefully things can be reset. If she decides to go forward and work to rebuild the article per the policies and guidelines she will need folks to work with on the Talk page and I hope you will consider doing that. Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course. :) Thank you for taking the time to speak with her and explain how to best contribute to the project, unfortunately I don't have as much time as I once did for collaboration and outreach. Summer, I hope you don't take my actions personally, Zadara just happens to be the topic I was researching at the time. After hearing your feedback I starting looking at some of your competitors articles and I admit they suffer from some of the exact same problems I dinged your article for, I will be making some changes to their articles as well as time permits. Brandon (talk) 04:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense. yes when I was talking with Summer she specifically complained that she modelled her article on others; I explained about crap content existing all over and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The job of cleaning up is endless - thanks for working on those other ones too! And for pointing out a useful model with Scene7. Jytdog (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

How this place works

Thanks for taking the time. Again, I understand your frustration; I hope you have a bit better sense of what we are up to here.

Here is the thing I promised. This will get you oriented to how this place works, and to the key policies and guidelines. It is as brief as I can make it...

The first thing, is that our mission is to produce articles that provide readers with encyclopedia content that summarize accepted knowledge, and to do that as a community that anyone can be a part of. That's the mission. As you can imagine, if this place had no norms, it would be a Mad Max kind of world interpersonally, and content would be a slag heap (the quality is really bad in parts, despite our best efforts). But over the past 15 years the community has developed a whole slew of norms, via lots of discussion. One of the first, is that we decide things by consensus. That decision itself, is recorded here: WP:CONSENSUS, which is one of our "policies". And when we decide things by consensus, that is not just local in space and time, but includes meta-discussions that have happened in the past. The results of those past meta-discussions are the norms that we follow now. We call them policies and guidelines - and these documents all reside in "Wikipedia space" (There is a whole forest of documents in "Wikipedia space" - pages in Wikipedia that start with "Wikipedia:AAAA" or for short, "WP:AAAA". WP:CONSENSUS is different from Consensus.)

People have tried to define Wikipedia - is it a democracy, an anarchy, secret cabal? In fact it is a clue-ocracy (that link is to a very short and important text). People who get content to "stick" and who prevail in disagreements, understand the heart of this place.

There are policies and guidelines that govern content, and separate ones that govern behavior. Here is a very quick rundown:

Content policies and guidelines

• WP:NOT (what WP is, and is not -- this is where you'll find the "accepted knowledge" thing. You will also find discussion of how WP is not a catalog, not a how-to manual, not a vehicle for promotion, etc)
• WP:OR - no original research is allowed here, instead
• WP:VERIFY - everything has to be cited to a reliable source (so everything in WP comes down to the sources you bring!)
• WP:RS is the guideline defining what a "reliable source" is for general content (You will see here that we try to avoid what we call self published sources like press releases and company websites - we love independent sources)
• WP:NPOV and the content that gets written, needs to be "neutral" (as we define that here, which doesn't mean what most folks think -- it doesn't mean "fair and balanced" - it means that the language has to be neutral, and that topics in a given article are given appropriate "weight" (space and emphasis). An article about a drug that was 90% about side effects, would generally give what we call "undue weight" to the side effects. Of course if that drug was important because it killed a lot of people, not having 90% of it be about the side effects would not be neutral) We determine weight by seeing what the reliable sources say - we follow them in this too. So again, you can see how everything comes down to references.
• WP:BLP - this is a policy specifically covering discussion about living people anywhere in WP. We are very careful about such content (which means enforcing the policies and guidelines above rigorously), since issues of legal liability can arise for WP, and people have very strong feelings about other people, and about public descriptions of themselves.
• WP:NOTABILITY - this is a policy that defines whether or not an article about X, should exist. What this comes down to is defined in WP:Golden rule - which is basically, are there enough independent sources about X, with which to build a decent article.
• WP:DELETION discusses how we get rid of articles that fail notability.

In terms of behavior, the key norms are:

• WP:CONSENSUS - already discussed
• WP:CIVIL - basically, be nice. This is not about being nicey nice, it is really about not being a jerk and having that get in the way of getting things done. We want to get things done here - get content written and maintained and not get hung up on interpersonal disputes. So just try to avoid doing things that create unproductive friction.
• WP:AGF - assume good faith about other editors. Try to focus on content, not contributor. Don't personalize it when content disputes arise. (the anonymity here can breed all kinds of paranoia)
• WP:HARASSMENT - really, don't be a jerk and follow people around, bothering them. And do not try to figure out who people are in the real world. Privacy is strictly protected by the WP:OUTING part of this policy.
• WP:DR - if you get into an content dispute with someone, try to work it out on the article Talk page. Don't WP:EDITWAR. If you cannot work it out locally, then use one of the methods here to get wider input. There are many - it never has to come down to two people arguing. There are instructions here too, about what to do if someone is behaving badly, in your view. Try to keep content disputes separate from behavior disputes. Many of the big messes that happen in Wikipedia arise from these getting mixed up.
• WP:COI and WP:PAID which has been discussed way above already. This is about preserving the integrity of WP. A closely related issue is WP:ADVOCACY; COI is just a subset of advocacy.
• WP:TPG - this is about how to talk to other editors on Talk pages, like this one, or say Talk:Zarara Storage. At article talk pages, basically be concise, discuss content not contributors, and base discussion on the sources in light of policies and guidelines, not just your opinions or feelings. At user Talk pages (like this one) things are more open and user Talk pages is the relevant place to go if you want to discuss someone's behavior or talk about general WP stuff - like this whole post.

If you can get all that (the content and behavior policies and guidelines) under your belt, you will become truly "clueful", as we say. If that is where you want to go, of course. I know that was a lot of information, but hopefully it is digestable enough.

If at some point you want to create an article, here is what to do.

1. look for independent sources that comply with WP:MEDRS for anything related to health, and WP:RS for everything else, that give serious discussion to the topic, not just passing mentions. Start with great sources.
2. Look at the sources you found, and see if you have enough per WP:Golden rule to even go forward. (What is "enough" isn't clearly defined but generally three or four and you are good to go.) If you don't have enough, you can stop right there.
3. Read the sources you found, and identify the main and minor themes to guide you with regard to WP:WEIGHT - be wary of distortions in weight due to WP:RECENTISM
4. Go look at manual of style guideline created by the relevant WikiProject, to guide the sectioning and other style matters (you can look at articles on similar topics but be ginger b/c WP has lots of bad content) - create an outline. (For example, for biographies, the relevant project is WP:WikiProject Biography) (For example, for companies, the relevant project is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Companies/Guidelines)
5. Create the article following the process described at articles for creation for your first few articles.
6. Start writing the body, based only on what is in the sources you have, and provide an inline citation for each sentence as you go.
7. Make sure you write in neutral language. The most rigorous way to do this is to use no adjectives at your first go-round and add them back only as needed.
8. When you are done, write the lead and add infobox, external links, categories, etc
9. Consider adding banners to the Talk page, joining the draft article to relevant Wikiprojects, which will help attract editors who are interested and knowledgeable to help work on the article. If you have a COI for the article, note it there.
10. The completed work should have nothing unsourced (because the sources drove everything you wrote, not prior knowledge or personal experiences or what the client wanted; there is no original research nor WP:PROMO in it.
11. Submit your article for review by clicking the "submit your draft" button that was set up when you created the article. You will get responses from reviewers, and you can work with them to do whatever is needed to get the article ready to be published.

There you go! Let me know if you have questions about any of that

Again that was a lot, but the goal is to get you somewhat oriented. Jytdog (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help and your understanding. I've learned much more about the importance of following Wikipedia protocols and guidelines in order to keep the content unbiased, informational, and without "pollution." I am not able to write the content in the immediate, and I am quite honestly burnt out on Wikipedia at this time. When it comes time, I will refer to the resources provided here and ensure that I don't make the same mistakes as done previously. Thank you again for your guidance, Jytdog. Happy editing to the rest of you. (Brandon, Dialectric, MSJapan) PS: I don't know if I am tagging users correctly, but I hope you will be notified of my response. Best, Summer.zadara (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)