User talk:P A Ricketts

Reply

Hello P A Ricketts. Your comments make it clear that you have a financial stake in promoting Marketresearch.com. 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. Paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a black hat practice.

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, and if it does not, 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, 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:P A Ricketts. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=P A Ricketts|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. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. I note that several different accounts have been used by your company to edit the article. While good faith multiple accounts may be acceptable, their use to evade our rules is not. If any of the old accounts are reactivated, or new ones created, each must follow the COI instructions above or risk being blocked. I see that CambridgeBayWeather removed the prod notice, but there are still problems that need addressing.

it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the company, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company claims or interviewing its management. Much of your text was either unsourced or, like the Hoover site, was obviously repeating your information, they can't have measured your output themselves.
it's all about what the company sells, little about the company itself other than a location. To show notability you need hard facts such as the number of employees, turnover or profits.
it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic.

Examples of unsourced or inappropriately sourced claims presented as fact include: offering one of the most comprehensive collections of market intelligence products and services on the Web... installed in nearly 100 business schools worldwide... launched as the world’s largest aggregator of syndicated research... dramatically expanded the size... bringing the world of market research to start-ups and small businesses... extensive and comprehensive collection... leading publishers
"Solutions" and "offer" are sales-speak for "products" and "sell"

I'm prepared to recreate in a user subpage for the addition of genuine third-party references and a less sales-leaflet tone, but you must respond to the COI declaration request in the earlier paragraphs first Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, text now here. When you are ready you should use the "move" tab to put the article back, don't cut-and-paste. Let me know if you want me to look again at any stage. You should declare your interest on the article talk page when you recreate too. On an unrelated not, it looks as if one of the bots has had a nervous breakdown! You can remove any or all of the multiple messages following this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made these edits, mainly MOS. I've added a few wikilinks to other articles, but you need more. You haven't added information to show notability, such as the number of employees, turnover or profits. The lack of hard facts together with an extensive list of "this is what we sell" is characteristic of company-written articles, and is likely to attract twitchy-fingered admins like me. You list achievements, but don't mention any criticism or problems, to do so would give more balance. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]