Talk:Machine Zone

Corporate information

@Kenosplit: Are you working for MZ? If so, please take a look at WP:PUBLICIST to see whether those rules or guidelines might apply to you. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC), rev. 16:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Lwarrenwiki: Please let me know if you will revert some of the edits I made and, if not, what your concern is with the edit. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenosplit (talk • contribs) 22:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of interest editing

@Kenosplit: Thank you for the upfront disclosure you made here concerning the fact that you work at MZ. You can still contribute meaningfully to the article through discussion on this talk page – for example, you can use the {{request edit}} template to suggest changes, as recommended at WP:FCOI. And in response to your last request above: I expect that by tomorrow morning, I'll look again at your previous edits to see what can be independently sourced per WP:THIRDPARTY, and I'll see if we can restore those portions in a way that satisfies Wikipedia's neutral point of view and non-promotion requirements. Hopefully the result will fully address your legitimate concern for keeping this article up-to-date and accurate. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Kenosplit: I have revised and updated the first paragraph, not using your previous edits, but instead in my own words based on third-party sources. Setting aside the significant issue of promotional language, the other major concern with your edit is that you copied the exact words of MZ's web site (which includes Machine Zone, Inc.'s copyright notice). If I had (hypothetically) been the person who copied MZ's copyrighted material into Wikipedia, that would have potentially caused me and Wikipedia to be infringing MZ's copyright. You should review WP:COICOPYRIGHT to more fully understand the problems that are raised if an actual representative of the copyright owner places copyrighted material into Wikipedia. Copyrighted material is not permitted on Wikipedia unless the copyright owner has expressly granted the required license. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Correction: the exact words do not appear on MZ.com, but they do appear here and here, and while those pages don't bear MZ's copyright notice, the material clearly was written by representatives of MZ and is used to market MZ for recruiting purposes. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Lwarrenwiki: Thank you, I think the first paragraph does read better. I may propose additional edits as well. Also, because of the rebrand to "MZ," I believe that the references to "Machine Zone" throughout the article should be changed to "MZ" as that is now what the company calls itself. For historical reasons, I understand the need to refer to "Machine Zone" upfront and in the company's bio, but I believe the company should otherwise accurately be referred to as "MZ" throughout the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenosplit (talk • contribs) 17:35, April 12, 2016 (UTC)

• @Kenosplit: "MZ" can consistently be used in the article when referring to events after the rebranding. The name of the corporation is still Machine Zone, Inc., and it is also accurate to continue using "Machine Zone" in the article, especially where the article refers to events prior to April 2016. MZ's current branding is duly noted in the first paragraph at the top of the article, and again in the concluding paragraph. I don't believe that today's branding and MZ's style preference would justify an attempt to retroactively rewrite history in the article's past references to "Machine Zone." Lwarrenwiki (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Lwarrenwiki: I proposed some additional edits to the first paragraph to make it more accurate. Your descriptions were inaccurate in places and I wanted to fix those errors. Also, although I did not make the edit in the edits I just proposed, I absolutely think "Machine Zone" should be changed to "MZ" throughout the article. I understand referring to the company as "Machine Zone" in recounting the history of the business, but if the company now goes by "MZ," I believe it should be referred to as "MZ." It isn't intended to be promotional; that's the brand name of the company. One way to make the distinction easier, perhaps, is to split the history of the company section into a gaming section and into a real-time services section so that people understand that the company was associated with "Machine Zone" with regard to its games but as "MZ" with regard to its real-time services. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenosplit (talk • contribs) 21:22, April 12, 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

• @Lwarrenwiki:, I have communicated with Jytdog and he has given his blessing for me to propose edits to this article. I would like to propose that we revert the changes he made to this article. As I think we can both agree, the changes he made essentially reverted the article back several months, ignoring Machine Zone's Epic War, LLC studio, Mobile Strike game, and RTplatform -- which only made the article outdated and inaccurate. He also reverted back the old logo and old website address, both of which should be updated. There are several articles we can cite to for these new products/services and the rebranding, and I am happy to include those cites once the language has been reverted back. Please let me know what you think. Thanks! Kenosplit (talk)

Please note that the edit was made a different editor - see here. not me. Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Kenosplit: The large reversion was made by JzG, a Wikipedia administrator – which means (among other things) that he's been granted administrative privileges that allow him to enforce the policies we've been discussing. (As far as I know, Jytdog isn't an administrator with blessings to give, just a very experienced and well-respected editor with considerable expertise in conflicts of interest.)

I believe your agreement not to edit content about Machine Zone yourself was the right decision. I hope you will understand that I don't believe your previous edits were acceptable under Wikipedia's policies. And because undoing JzG's changes would return the article to an unacceptable state, I have no intention of rolling back the edit that JzG made.

JzG removed much more of my writing than yours, and I don't take that personally. Knowing that an administrator has taken an interest in the article, I do expect that I will take another stab at expanding it in the near future, incrementally, by rewriting some of my previous contributions with even greater care to maintain the necessary neutral point of view, non-promotional tone, appropriate wording, and reliance on independent third-party sources to establish facts and notability.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper – and therefore, an article that is "outdated" about very recent developments is not as large a concern as you may think it should be. As it stands right now, the article is a short but satisfactory one that complies with Wikipedia's policies. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 03:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Lwarrenwiki: I understand that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but a lot of people look to Wikipedia for information about lots of different topics, and so I would hope that there is at least an attempt to make sure it is reasonably updated so as to not provide inaccurate or misleading information to people. I would appreciate updating this article sooner rather than later for that reason. And I understand that you may be very busy, which is why I have offered my assistance to update this article page. Unless you object, I would like to offer proposed edits with citations so we can make sure this page is as updated as possible. Kenosplit (talk)