User talk:Pressureguy

Welcome!

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

I notice 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 any other 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 firm 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.)

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of 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!  7  00:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Advertising and COI

Hello. Just to add on to the standard template above, I understand that you are trying to correct what you see as problems with the current article based on your direct knowledge of the company. However it is important to note that even people in your situation must comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view, conflict of interest, and policies preventing the use of Wikipedia for advertising and promotion.  7  00:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Please be aware that per WP:ROLE you can only edit here as an individual editor, not as a representative of the Broaster Company. You are also not supposed to make legal threats as you seem to do here. Both can potentially have your account access indefinitely blocked. Incidentally, a demand to remove references to KFC in connection with Broasting is overreaching, and not supported by trademark law. Wikipedia can talk about Broasting and KFC all it wants, and even be completely inaccurate about its facts in the process, without violating trademarks. However, we do want to get the facts right. I'll remove the KFC reference because it's not supported by a citation and sounds like one person's personal opinion. You should note, however, that the article as written does mention that the term is a licensed trademark to describe the company's specific technique, and is inaccurate when applied to other companies with a "similar" (meaning, pressure cooking in oil) approach. The content you're trying to add has a lot of issues, not just being promotional rather than objective and encyclopedic. Also some stylistic, formatting and other things. I'm on your side about the chicken, and that's why I helped expand the article back in 2007`, I'd just had some broasted chicken and it was delicious. If you've got some concerns with accuracy, why not share them on the talk page, ideally with some (third party, neutral) citations, and I'll see if I can fix things up. Also, if you have any photographs or you are willing to supply some of equipment, company headquarters, old models, etc., and you're willing to release the copyright in the photograph to the public without restriction by uploading it with a commercial attribution license to flickr or Wikimedia commons, that would be a great addition to the article. Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for the repsonse, we are glad you are a fan of our products, however it appears there are significant issues amongst the Wikipedia community, the most concerning to us is a statement that says: "Wikipedia can talk about Broasting and KFC all it wants, and even be completely inaccurate about its facts in the process, without violating trademarks." It's my understanding that Wikipedia is a place for factual information, but perhaps I am mistaken.

This experience seems to show that contributors will defend the articles they produce, even if wrong, which would behold me to turn this issue over to legal for review so our Company's rights are protected and the correct facts about our company are propely expressed and we are not harmed by incorrectly reported information. Vigorous defense of our valuable name and eliminating financial harm from public untruths is merely a part of our normal business process.

However, if what I seem to read at the end of your message is you can assist in updating and correctly, and factually, reporting what our product is, that is another matter entirely and I'd be happy to work with you directly on doing so. We prefer to work with people, rather than against them if possible. If that is the course you are suggesting, what method of communication would work best, email, phone or other? Pressureguy (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Legal is welcome to review all it wants, hopefully not at the expense of making more chicken. It's not anybody's intention to make errors, I'm just pointing out some basic trademark / First Amendment law that your company lawyers surely understand, that a company's ownership of a name does not give it any special status to dictate what gets said about the company in public, because using the name for purposes of describing the company does not implicate trademarks. A statement about vigorously defending the company name gets about as far with Wikipedia editors as it might with a newspaper, perhaps less so because as I pointed out there's a policy of disabling accounts when they make legal threats. But I think you'll find that Wikipedia editors want to get things right, so no point chest thumping over this. I'm reluctant to engage directly offline, as my participation here is anonymous, but in the long run perhaps. The most straightforward and best place to suggest changes is on the article's talk page Talk:Broasting or my own User talk:Wikidemon. Both of those are public. There's an anonymous email system to send private messages too, if you go to my user page look at the left column there should be a tab for "E-mail this user". I don't check that as often. I don't think there's anything urgent about this, but if you ever encounter a truly immediate problem or hit a dead you can post a request to one of several "notice boards" on Wikipedia (which are public) like WP:AN, or else send a private ticket via WP:OTRS. Another pointer, neither I nor most of the people you'll encounter here are part of Wikimedia Foundation, the group that runs the encyclopedia. We're all random volunteer editors like yourself. We signed up for an account, we use the software, we try to do our best! In that regard, I think the Broasting article could be substantially improved and much more interesting to people if we have more material to go by, especially pictures but also company history, products, cultural significance, etc. The catch is that company PR material is disfavored, as is marketing speak. Company statements about itself are okay if they're factual and uncontroversial (e.g. year of formation, company headquarters location), but for the most part any statement that could be seen as promotional (how popular, claims about healthiness, what it tastes like) has to come from neutral third party sources. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the information, and we will review this issue and work towards substantially improving the page, soemthing we apppear to agree on. I am confident that despite the best intentions of the Wikipedia community, if you look at KFC's page (or other large company), it was likely not written by a casual user and was produced by KFC themselves. I have engaged our team to review our page as it pertains to Wikipedia's usage terms as well as how to mesh that with the proper legal protections afforded us under United State Trademark Law so we can make a Wikipedia update that meets the requirements of all involved. Like anyone who owns valuable trademark assets and trades on factual information, we are very protective of infringement or untrue information that pertains to our livelyhood. We are truly skilled as a company in defending our legal rights and further, as a piece of information, First Amendment rights do not extend to purposeful or known innacuracies that harm a company financially or otherwise. We have been sucessful for nearly 60 years and expect to remain so through the proper distribution of who, and what, our product is. Our customers demand it and we provide it, as they are our number one priority.

Once the review team has completed thier analysis, we will proceed as alowed under the aforementioned description above. I do appreciate your interaction on this subject and look for more from us in the next number of months. Regards, Pressureguy (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)