User talk:Bobrien12

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Technicalrestrictions01 (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

Hello Bobrien12. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Neal Communities, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Bobrien12. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Bobrien12|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. 331dot (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are updating this page to provide readers with general information about the company and confirmed philanthropic efforts. Not compensated for this. Bobrien12 (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? Only one person should have access to and be operating your account. If you are an employee as you say, you are a paid editor and must make the required disclosure. You do not have to be specifically paid to edit or specifically directed to edit. 331dot (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "we" was an accident, my mistake! Yes, I do work with the company and can disclose that. I am still a bit confused as to why the section on philanthropy was removed. Can this information not be included at all? I'm also confused about our first paragraphs as it explained the businesses that make up Neal Communities. Can you explain? Bobrien12 (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article about the company is not for the company to publicize its philanthropy, see WP:PROMO, WP:NOBLE. 331dot (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how I put that disclosure in? I'm still confused when I get to my page.

Also, can you tell me why the first few paragraphs were deleted? Those explain the businesses that make up Neal Communities Bobrien12 (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are having difficulty with following the instructions above(nothing wrong with that) you may simply write on your user page a statement that you are employed by Neal Associates and intend to make contributions related to that. Please read the conflict of interest policy(or this plain language explanation).

If you are referring to the paragraph describing how many homes your company has constructed, that was only sourced to your company website. The main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about the topic, not what it says about itself. If you can independently source that claim, please offer a source on the article talk page (Talk:Neal Communities). You should use that page to propose edits in the form of an edit request. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that should be easier to do! I believe it is updated now if you don't mind checking

Also, that was regarding the companies that make up Neal Communities as those were facts. For other pieces of information, can we bring them in as long as we have independent sources of information (other articles) that can verify this? I know under the businesses we own, there was a mention of a truss company that we bought and that did have a proper citation from a news outlet. Is that okay to put back in? Also, can we not discuss any kind of philanthropy or donations at all? Can I edit the page back with certain pieces of information with an independent source?

Can we also tag that "multiple issues" piece down? I'm concerned about that. Bobrien12 (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have independent reliable sources that on their own(i.e. not based on materials from the company like a press release or interview) discuss your company's philanthropy, please offer it on the talk page. To be frank, the place for your company to discuss its philanthropy is on its own website. We are only interested in what others say about your company's philanthropy.

Unless there is significant independent coverage of subsidiary companies yours has purchased, there isn't really a place in the article for that.

The issues tag is merely a maintenance tag and will be removed once independent editors have evaluated the article. 331dot (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That will not be an issue with what other sources are saying about our efforts and a couple major outlets did discuss the purchase. Can those be offered in the Talk section? Want to make sure I have this right before doing anything. 47.206.248.158 (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

We have an article that a major outlet in FL did on us. https://www.heraldtribune.com/story/news/2022/04/04/neal-family-legacy-expands-development-manatee-and-sarasota-counties-moves-east/9458515002/

I will put this in the talk section but could we use this to discuss company history? This was a profile the Herald Tribune did on us and I want to make sure this is not violating anything.

Thanks! Bobrien12 (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That piece is entirely based on interviews with company personnel- the company speaking about itself. Again, Wikipedia wants to know what others say about your company. The Microsoft article does not summarize what Microsoft or Bill Gates says is its history, but what others say it is. You may, however, offer your suggestions on the talk page. You must mark those discussions as an edit request to get outside attention, please see WP:ER. 331dot (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, this would be moreso for someone else to put information into the article based on pieces of information in the article (for example, saying over 18,000 homes sold if that makes sense). Bobrien12 (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The person who makes the edit is less important than the source of the information. You need an independent source that reports that claim on their own without input from your company(such as an interview). You are free to propose such an addition on the talk page if you have an independent source for it. 331dot (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand now, thank you. What if multiple sources make the claim but some come from interviews? I guess that's my main question. Bobrien12 (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would focus on sources that make the claim not based on interviews or other company materials. If you have that, that's why you should use and exclude anything else. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Would it be appropriate for me to edit if we have those sources? Also, I believe at this point, the article is neutral so the maintenance tag can be removed. Bobrien12 (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should avoid directly editing the article in most cases(see this list of circumstances where a COI editor can directly edit) in favor of edit requests. If your requests get no answer after 7-10 days, you may then carry out a change you requested. 331dot (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarification. Really appreciate it!

This morning, I saw that there is a brand new section to the page that is incredibly inaccurate. What can be done to remove this information? Bobrien12 (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may discuss it on the article talk page, and can directly address the poster(Viewmont Viking) there; if you preface your post there with {{u|Viewmont Viking}}, their attention will be drawn. I assume you are referring to the paragraph about covid vaccination sites. It appears to be well sourced to me(CNN and local Florida TV). If the sources are not accurately summarized, you may describe the specific inaccuracies. If the sources are accurately summarized, but you have some concern with what they report, you will need to contact the sources themselves to address that with them and get them to issue corrections. 331dot (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not accurately summarized and in review, the references are biased. How do we go about that? Bobrien12 (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bias in and of itself does not generally preclude the use of a source on Wikipedia, as there is no such thing as a source without bias. If it is so biased that it is reporting questionable claims without engaging in fact checking and editorial control, or just making things up out of whole cloth, please describe how. As I said, if the source is not summarized accurately-leaving aside bias issues- please tell how on the article talk page. Note that content that is negative about your company is permitted as article content as long as it is sourced and the source is accurately summarized. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thank you for providing me with information these past two days. That section is hitting on exclusivity which was not the case.

One more question (and I think that will be it). I was looking at another homebuilder and noticed one of their cited sources was from PRNewswire (in other words, a release was by the company but pushed through in another source). Is this considered an appropriate source for citation? This is for my own knowledge so I can understand. Bobrien12 (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases are not acceptable, regardless of if they are directly from a company/person or are republished. 331dot (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]