Jump to content

User talk:Rblack1185

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


March 2021[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Express Oil Change & Tire Engineers have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Express Oil Change & Tire Engineers. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Read WP:ELPOINTS and MOS:BOLD. Sundayclose (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Express Oil Change & Tire Engineers, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Your edit summary misrepresents what I said. You asked me to remove the COI template. I said I wanted it to remain to alert other editors about COI. COI isn't necessarily equivalent to biased editing, but the template needs to be there as I stated below. I understand your concerns, but you need to be extremely careful in your edits because of your COI, and you need to avoid misrepresenting what other editors have said. Stepping over the COI line is a good way to draw attention to your COI, and if you do it repeatedly you risk losing editing privileges. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, must have been a misunderstanding on my part. I guess I took your saying the article didn't read with any clear bias, and now that it's properly sourced per your requested sourcing, that it could be removed. I also wasn't sure who else would remove it since, as you mentioned, the page probably doesn't generate enough traffic to warrant someone taking the time to actually review and remove it. Can I request you submit to your fellow editors so they may review and remove the COI template if deemed appropriate, which by all standards at this point, it seems it could be? Or, since you've reviewed yourself, could you remove it since there are no biased statements and all facts properly sourced and cited? Rblack1185 (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "submit to your fellow editors". Let me again repeat a few points. COI is not necessarily equivalent to bias. There can be a COI banner even if there is no bias, to alert editors that the article has been edited by someone with COI. I am only one of many, many editors, some of whom may eventually land on this article. I have no idea how others may interpret any effect of COI, so I don't presume to decide for them whether they should be informed of COI. You are free to discuss this at the article's talk page or anywhere else on Wikipedia that might have some interest in it. But if I were you I would leave it alone unless your goal is to draw attention to your COI. If you really want an unbiased article, I think you should accept that the COI banner does no harm to the article, at least until (or if) other editors decide to make changes that you disagree with. If that happens, your next step is to discuss with those editor(s) on the article's talk page. In my experience, that's what good editors with COI do. Frankly, your push to remove the banner could give the appearance that you don't want anyone to know your affiliation with the company. I'm not saying that's true, but it certainly might look that way. You might want to leave well enough alone. But feel free to get other opinions at WT:COI or WP:Village pump. If other editors feel that the banner should be removed, I will consider what they say. Sundayclose (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I'd disagree that my push to remove the banner is a "push" at all and that I care if someone knew my affiliation. Frankly, creating a page that didn't exist before (with no bias, COI or not) should be leaned into for the growth of the platform, not the opposite, which to be direct, seems to be precisely your angle whether you want to admit it or not. It's not that serious, really. I don't live for this. I'll leave it be at this point. Rblack1185 (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about me. I'm only trying to suggest what you can do to avoid problems from other editors besides me. I really have very little interest in this article, but I try to offer a helping hand and do what's best for articles I see. Thanks for your comments. I'm finished here. Please don't remove the COI banner without consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Information icon Hello, Rblack1185. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Express Oil Change & Tire Engineers, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

  • avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
  • propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
  • disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
  • avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
  • do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sundayclose: I'm curious as to why you believe there is a COI? Secondly, to what extent you see instances of not being neutral? I'm open to understanding how I could have better annotated to make it clear there's no COI and maintain the validity and sources of the page, as I don't believe any of my edits are 'blackhat', or otherwise promote the company. If there are non-fact based statements about the company, please advise how you figure as such, but it seems you've removed some items that were fact based (i.e., states where the company operates). How else can I cite the number of locations for any given company?
Let me clarify. The above is a standard template issued if there is possibly a COI. It is not an accusation of either COI or biased editing. It's there for your benefit as well as the benefit of Wikipedia. If you are in no way affiliated with the company or anyone associated with the company, paid or unpaid, you can ignore the template. If you are affiliated, you are require to disclose it. The reason I wondered about COI is that all of your edits are to that one article, and you are the primary contributor to the article. That's often the case with a COI, but not always of course. All of my edits to the article are based on standard Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please read WP:ELPOINTS for information about inline external links. Read MOS:BOLD for appropriate use of bold. I removed the names of the specific states per WP:LEAD. The lead contains a brief summary of what's in the article. Details should be presented later (and reliably sourced). After describing the number of locations in the lead, the specific states should be presented later in the article. Some of the information is unsourced. WP:V states that unsourced information can be removed immediately, but there is also the option to place "citation needed" tags rather than remove it to give interested editors some time to find sources. Sundayclose (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've read up on disclosing COI, though I'm not paid to do so, I have some interest in the company. However, I'm genuinely not sure exactly how to appropriately disclose it - I've probably spent thee good part of the last 60-90 minutes trying to figure it out. Apologies for my lack of understanding, but even the examples provided on various pages throughout are not clear to me. I'm happy to disclose, but any assistance you can provide would certainly be helpful and appreciated! Rblack1185 12:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you're paid is irrelevant. Unpaid affiliation, such as an unpaid intern, requires disclosure on Wikipedia. If your interest in the company is like my interest in baseball (I watch it on TV and have a favorite team), it probably requires no disclosure. My recommendation is to disclose whatever interest you have; you really have nothing to lose, and then no one can accuse you of an undisclosed COI. Anyone concerned about your edits can check your statement and determine whether to challenge an edit. I personally don't see any bias in your edits as the article is now, but I'm only one opinion. I would have made the changes I made to the article regardless of any COI. If you disclose whatever interest you have, and do your best to remain neutral, I don't see anything worse than someone challenging an edit, and then you discuss it on the talk page. That sort of process (described at WP:BRD) happens regularly on Wikipedia even with no COI. To disclose, see the COI template I posted above. You can seek additional opinions about possible COI at WT:COI, but you'll probably get more response at WP:Village pump. Sundayclose (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, this is super helpful. I'll check out those additional resources you referenced and go from there. Thanks! Rblack1185 21:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sundayclose: I just added a COI for myself on the Talk:Express Oil Change & Tire Engineers page for the Express Oil Change & Tire Engineers page, if you want to check that and see if it's done properly. Since you yourself reviewed the page and don't see any bias in the article, would you be able to sign off on anything needed in order to appropriately remove the COI for review on the page? Appreciate the help to date on this! Rblack1185 14:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Although anyone can remove the COI banner, it should be discussed first. At this time I don't want to remove it. I prefer that it remain to alert editors in addition to me about the COI since I am only one opinion. It doesn't necessarily indicate bias in the article as it is now. COI editing isn't forbidden, but it's standard procedure to monitor an article with a COI contributor. Although I'm not asking you to do this, it might help if you place a little detail on your user page about the nature of your connection to the company. At this point we don't know whether you are the CEO, a satisfied customer, or something in between. Sundayclose (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Do you have an example talk page you could easily share that has how someone has provided detail into their nature of connection to a given company? That would help me out in making sure I'm sharing the right way. Rblack1185 16:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should ask at WP:Village pump and wait a while for replies. My understanding is that you have fulfilled your disclosure obligation. My recommendation for more info was so other editors would know the nature of your relationship with the company. It may not be of concern to anyone, but no one knows without a little detail about at what level you are affiliated. For example, if said you own a few shares of stock, I wouldn't have any particular concerns. If you said you were married to a member of the Board of Directors, that's worth noting. If you have ever been employed by or done unpaid work for the company that's noteworthy. There are many possibilities. Again, I'm not asking you to do so, but if you explained in a bit of detail here what the relationship is, I would be better able to tell you what I would want you to include. You can always remove it later, but of course it will always be in the edit history. Sundayclose (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly understand the process more than myself, so again, appreciate all the guidance here. For transparency and to answer your inquiry into more detail in terms of my relationship, I am employed as a member of the marketing team by the company, but to be clear - I have not/am not tasked with creating or maintaining the page. I've simply wanted to maintain a reliable resource for the history of the company. In doing so, and it sounds like you agree that I have been, I've aimed to be non-biased, neutral and fact-based while citing only legitimate sources when adding content (outside of a few otherwise "rookie" mistakes with external links). I'm hopeful disclosing all of this doesn't inhibit me from continuing to contribute when there are reliable sources for content updates! If you have a blurb that I should add on my talk page or the company page, that's certainly welcomed so I ensure I do it correctly - otherwise, I can explore the WP:Village pump, which I've done a little of already since you shared the page. Rblack1185 (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, remember I am only one opinion. Others may think that parts of the article should be tweaked. Bias isn't just whether the information is reliably sourced. Sourcing is a necessary but not always a sufficient reason to make an edit. The relative WP:WEIGHT of the information is a consideration. I don't refer to this article specifically, but if a company has had a few problems in its history and those were intentionally omitted, or if they are not presented in proportion to their importance, some editors would challenge that.

Your level of COI is significant. I personally would not challenge one of your edits simply because of COI (i.e., it seems to me to be a reasonable edit that I wouldn't challenge from any other editors). But there are many editors who might do that. The Wikipedia guidelines for your level of COI state that you are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, and that you should suggest edits on the article's talk page rather than make them directly (except for minor edits). In my experience that's what good editors with COI do. On the other hand, I doubt that this article gets much traffic, so a suggested edit might go unnoticed for a long time. An option if that happens is to seek an outside objective opinion; see WP:3O. I don't have a good answer for some of this except to tell you what I personally would do. If you suggested an edit on the talk page and no one objected within a few weeks, I wouldn't revert you if you made the edit and I didn't think it was biased in some way. But that's just me. That's not to say that if I didn't check the talk page very often (which I probably wouldn't) and happen to see an edit from weeks or even months ago that I disagree with, that I wouldn't make a change or perhaps discuss with you. I don't plan to make problems for you unless I think you are pushing something inappropriately, which at this point I don't. But I can't speak for other editors. If you and another editor have a content dispute, there are procedures on Wikipedia for dealing with that; see WP:DR. One thing to keep in mind is that changes in Wikipedia content often don't happen quickly, so you have to be patient. If you suggest an edit on the talk page, don't get in a hurry. I've been in content disputes (even when they are handled civilly) that lasted one or more months before they were resolved. I appreciate your discussion of this matter. Sundayclose (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


@Sundayclose:Given my COI, would you mind making the updates for us regarding the leadership changes? Or please advise how we can get that done without a source? I'm not sure how to provide a source for something not publicized, like leadership changes. Rblack1185 (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a problem if you do it as long as you provide a reliable source. See WP:RS. For information on citing see WP:CITE. There's no inherent bias in making such an edit. It's an undisputed fact, and it's quite common in articles for businesses. Sundayclose (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're going to have to pardon my ignorance (again) here, but I'm not sure I understand how I can provide a reliable source for something that isn't publicized anywhere. I'm looking through those reference links you provided and have done a little searching online as well to research, and it's unclear to me how to proceed. I don't want to create more "work" for you, but any way you can message me exactly what I should be placing on the page in order to make these changes? Appreciate your patience! Rblack1185 (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no reliable source anywhere, then it can't be added to Wikipedia. That being said, I suspect there is a source for the leadership of a notable company. It doesn't have to be an online source. It can be a printed source as long as you can fully document it. Most companies or parent companies publish such details. Consumer organizations (like Better Business Bureau) or trade associations may have that information. But if the only way we know something is by word of mouth, then it can't be included on Wikipedia. Sundayclose (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the additional feedback. I will look around and see what I can find, but so we're on the same page, you do understand or realize that I'm trying to remove information, not add it, right? In other words, the information that is on the page currently - the same information I attempted to remove - has no source either, yet you're adding it back to Wikipedia without a source. You understand how that is contradictory to the logic you outlined? Rblack1185 (talk) 5:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Feel free to remove unsourced information. But if you remove one unsourced name, you need to remove all that are unsourced. As I see it, that would leave the key people parameter empty. Sundayclose (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. As you'll see in my note, all but one of the Key People are no longer with the company. So, to meet you in the middle, with no reliable source I can track down outside something like LinkedIn, which I'm not sure is "reliable", I just removed all Key People, including the one that still with the business (the President). Rblack1185 (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Atlas RFID (November 10)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WikiOriginal-9 was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Rblack1185! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Atlas RFID has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Atlas RFID. Thanks! WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. I have resubmitted with additional references. I hope this suffices for more independent, significant coverage and expect it should. Thank you! Rblack1185 (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Atlas RFID (November 11)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Greenman was:
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Framing is promotional. See also WP:SOLUTION.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Greenman (talk) 06:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Atlas RFID (November 13)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by LittlePuppers was:
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Just the word "solution" isn't the problem - the tone of the entire article is promotional. Phrases like "serves numerous Fortune 100 companies" and "immersive, mobile experience" (and no, those aren't the only ones in this draft) sound like they belong in a company's marketing materials, not an encyclopedia article.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
LittlePuppers (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will make changes and resubmit, but if you would be willing to make any changes I miss, that would be much appreciated so this can be approved! Rblack1185 (talk) 14:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Atlas RFID (November 14)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Seawolf35 was:
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Still lots of peacock terms.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Seawolf35 (talk - email) 17:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. I have removed additional peacock terms. Rblack1185 (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Atlas RFID (November 16)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Zxcvbnm was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
With mostly press-release announcements, I don't see this passing WP:CORPDEPTH. Wikipedia is not simply a promotional tool and WP:SIGCOV is required.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article avoids self promotion and has a significant number of reliable sources that provide an appropriate level of detail for an organization. Rblack1185 (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Atlas RFID[edit]

Hello, Rblack1185. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Atlas RFID".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 23:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rblack1185&oldid=1224365884"