User talk:AHA McLain

Hello, AHA McLain. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article American Heart Association, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Mihaister (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question About Editing History

The current History for the American Heart Association does not match the page from the Heart.org website that it cites as a resource. The page that it cites is a page on the heart.org website that covers the history of the organization. I don't find it appropriate that it cites the AHA website as a resource when the information presented is not actually on that heart.org page. What would be the appropriate steps to add a more comprehensive history of the AHA, instead of a vague history that is incorrectly cited? If I'm not able to make edits due to my close affiliation with the AHA, what are the steps to correct the incorrectly sited information? Thanks in advance for the help. AHA McLain (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question About Editing History

The current History for the American Heart Association does not match the page from the Heart.org website that it cites as a resource. The page that it cites is a page on the heart.org website that covers the history of the organization. I don't find it appropriate that it cites the AHA website as a resource when the information presented is not actually on that heart.org page. What would be the appropriate steps to add a more comprehensive history of the AHA, instead of a vague history that is incorrectly cited? If I'm not able to make edits due to my close affiliation with the AHA, what are the steps to correct the incorrectly sited information? Thanks in advance for the help. AHA McLain (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to discuss this on the talk page of the article not here. Theroadislong (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the instruction. I submitted a new discussion on the page of the article.--AHA McLain (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Theroadislong (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History Section Edits

The current History for the American Heart Association page does not match the web page from the Heart.org website that is being cited as a resource. The only portion of the first paragraph under History that is on the heart.org history page is this, "It was originally called the Association for the Prevention and Relief of Heart Disease." The other information in the first paragraph is not from heart.org, so it seems like it should be cited correctly.

Also, the History section is vague, outdated, and seems to focus too much on what some might perceive as negative instead of giving a more comprehensive history. The History for the American Cancer Society serves as a good example of what we feel would be a better information for the consumer. What would be the appropriate steps to add a more comprehensive and fair history for the AHA? I realize that I'm closely affiliated with the AHA and this has raised some red flags in the past when I've made edits, so I want to make sure that I do this correctly? Thanks in advance for the help.AHA McLain (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History Section Edits

I don't feel that this is an accurate statement, b/c this is not what the AHA is "primarily" known for. While the AHA does teach that too much saturated fat can lead to heart disease and obesity, I would argue this is now what they're "primarily" known for. I believe that the use of the word "primarily" in this instance is an assumption on the part of the author and misleading. Here is the statement that I'm referring to: "The AHA has been known primarily for its mission to teach that saturated fats cause heart disease and obesity, suggesting that soybean and other vegetable oil alternatives be used in place of more traditional fats such as lard and butter." AHA McLain (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]