User talk:ChrisTheHunk

September 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to 1-800-GOT-JUNK?. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 08:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting a business

Hello ChrisTheHunk. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article College Hunks Hauling Junk and Moving, 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 following the 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.--McGeddon (talk) 08:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

College Hunks Hauling Junk

Hello there, thanks for getting in touch with your questions. I only removed the "Moving companies of ..." categories because they didn't exist, not because they were inappropriate. Trying out some possible categories, I think you just want "Category:Moving companies" - there are so few articles about them that they aren't divided up by country.

Wikipedia has a policy to use the most common name of a person or company (WP:COMMONNAME) - from the sources I can see, and the way the company refers to itself online, the common name is just "College Hunks Hauling Junk", so that's how we should refer to it.

The "largest junk removal and moving company in North America" claim will need a specific source. If it fits the criteria of "largest in the US", I'm sure it's been mentioned in one of the articles you linked to, so you can just cite that. If nobody's ever described it in this way, Wikipedia editors should avoid doing so. ("Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.") It's misleading to say that something is the "largest X and Y in North America" when you mean "neither the largest X nor the largest Y, but the largest to do both X and Y".

Fixing Soliman's link is no problem, I'll do that now. --McGeddon (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and a couple more questions

Thank you very much McGeddon, that was an extremely thorough response and I greatly appreciate you taking the time to give me your feedback.

With regards to the name, how would you recommend I go about having a College Hunks Moving specific wiki page created then, since moving is a major part of our business, one of our main service offerings, and growing rapidly? As you can see on this page, College Hunks Moving is in fact an official business even if not referenced in the URL directly.

http://www.collegehunkshaulingjunk.com/moving

Press Release about the addition of College Hunks Moving to the College Hunks Brand: http://www.prlog.org/11452136-college-hunks-moving-into-the-future.html

It is important to us that our clients have objective information available to them in order for them to make an informed decision about College Hunks Moving. It is increasingly difficult for us to do this without being able to reference the name in the title of the page as it will be much harder for those looking to locate the information they are seeking.

I will look into the other issue you raised and get back to you about that.

Thank you again ChrisTheHunk (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page College Hunks Hauling Junk has been reverted.
Your edit here to College Hunks Hauling Junk was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://hillsborough.patch.com/articles/college-hunks-franchise-helps-property-owners-and-the-environment) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 22:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remove the COI tag

The COI tag isn't there for your benefit, it's for readers and other editors to highlight there are potential problems. At the moment it seems you are trying to stage-manage the article so it's the best advert for your company - be clear about this, this will not be permitted. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The College Hunks Hauling Junk article is not being stage managed, is objective and contains appropriate citations

The tags you placed on the College Hunks Hauling Junk wiki are not merited in this situation. The article is not being "stage managed". No information added by others has been removed, all content is written in a fact based, objective style and all fact based content contains appropriate citation. You are welcome to join in the editing of the page, adding in relevant information and stating a fact based case for why information contained with appropriate citations in your opinion is not valid according to common wikipedia standards. Please do not intentionally or unintentionally mislead readers of the College Hunks Hauling Junk page with erroneous tags and accusations of bias when precautions have been taken to validate the data contained within.

Let me be very clear about my intentions here. I have clearly disclosed my relationship to the College Hunks organization, however I will not place biased information on the page that does anything to mislead the wikipedia audience, decrease the encyclopedic value, or to mislead the audience that would be likely to encounter the article. I do not receive financial payment or benefit from editing the Wikipedia page. I simply happen to have more information about the company and it's actions, activities and history than previous editors. This is because I am exposed to the company more than other editors are, however it does not mean that any of my additions to the page are made out of bias. I have been meticulously attempting to work with Administrator McGeddon during the editing of the article, in particular to ensure that any content I add to the page is objective and cited based on wikipedia standards.

I appreciate your honorable intent with regards to protecting the integrity of the Wikipedia community. Please treat the content with equal respect and objectivity as is the intent of the Wikipedia guidelines, and judge it based solely on it's merit as content relevant to the subject of the article that is properly cited to ensure it's legitimacy.

Simply stating that company certifications contain no encyclopedic value does not make it so. Take the following quote from Certification, One of the most common types of certification in modern society is professional certification, where a person is certified as being able to competently complete a job or task, usually by the passing of an examination. Removing these certifications and awards from the page introduces a biased viewpoint by ignoring a large part of the history of the company and it's development which is detrimental to an encyclopedic exploration of the company.

In reference to your second edit repeating your initial argument without expanding your argument or providing any clarification as to why you take the standpoint of the listed Certifications and Awards having no encyclopedic value, If your arguments are rejected, bring better arguments, don’t simply repeat the same ones. And most importantly, examine your argument carefully, in light of what others have said.

As importantly please review the following statement of guidelines from Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, There is no rule on Wikipedia that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article. Such a rule would clearly contradict Wikipedia:Be bold. There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption.[1] Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information.

According to Wikipedia NPOV guidelines this dispute should be followed with actual contributions, not simply making an arbitrary accusation of bias. From Wikipedia:NPOV dispute Everyone can agree that marking an article as having an NPOV dispute is a temporary measure, and should be followed up by actual contributions to the article in order to put it in such a state that people agree that it is neutral.

Also beware that by not making actual contributions you may be violating the intent and abusing the use of the NPOV Tag. From Wikipedia:NPOV dispute If your sole contribution to an article is to repeatedly add or remove the tag, chances are high that you are abusing your "right" to use the tag.

I have clearly stated any potential conflict of interest with regards to my editing the article according to wikipedia standards for doing so. From Wikipedia:Conflict of interest When someone voluntarily discloses a conflict of interest, other editors should always assume the editor is trying to do the right thing. Do not use a voluntarily disclosed conflict of interest as a weapon against the editor... Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this COI guideline. An editor's conflict of interest is often revealed when that editor discloses a relationship to the subject of the article to which the editor is contributing... The perception that “he who is not for me is against me” is contrary to Wikipedia’s assume good faith guideline: always allow for the possibility that you are indeed wrong, and remember that attributing motives to fellow editors is inconsiderate.

The NPOV process is meant to be used when an editor does not disclose his/her relationship to the article subject From Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest, In case the editor does not identify themself or their affiliation, reference to the neutral point of view policy may help counteract biased editing.

In closing, I do not dispute your intent, only the accuracy of your claims and the lack of supporting information regarding the reasons for the deletions you have made from the article. Please do not continue to remove content from the College Hunks Hauling Junk page without providing fact based, objective reasoning behind your actions.

ChrisTheHunk (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tampa, Florida

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Tampa, Florida. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. You really should review and adhere to Wikipedia's conflict of interest, self-promotion, and user naming policies. Zeng8r (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ChrisTheHunk. You have new messages at Zeng8r's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at American Moving & Storage Association, you may be blocked from editing. MikeWazowski (talk) 01:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are clearly acting as a rogue authority making blanket determinations that are at odds with objectivity. You have continuously flagged and removed content that is placed in good faith with knowledge and citations to back up it's validity and notability. This is another example. Here are articles that are a direct verification of the content that was inappropriately removed from the Tampa page. I will look into whether your actions here demonstrate a clear case of harassment and based on my findings, will pursue the matter according to Wikipedia standards.

[Bay Business Journal College Hunks Hauling Junk relocates to Tampa Bay]

[Bay Business Journal College Hunks Hauling Junk holds franchisee convention]

[Bay Business Journal College Hunks Hauling Junk founders jump in Shark Tank] ChrisTheHunk (talk) 01:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC) [New York Times Hauling Junk (With a Touch of Class)][reply]

It's not personal; it's wiki-business

Um, to whom are you referring to? I'm just an old semi-retired editor here. Due to the problems repeatedly mentioned above, your edits have been removed by at least a half-dozen other editors plus an automatic anti-spam bot to the point that most of your contributions are now gone. This will continue to be the case until/unless you read and adhere to the wikipolices linked repeatedly on this talk page.

The main issue, again, is your obvious conflict of interest which drives you to insert mentions of your company into articles where they do not belong. For example, do you really think that the name of the CEO of a junk removal company belongs in the CEO article? Do you realize how long and unmanageable that entry would become if every moderately-sized organization in the world (for this is a global project) listed their CEO's name on there? You did the same sort of thing with at least a dozen other articles, all since cleaned up by various other users.

Those citations you listed are not the point. Nobody's claiming that the company does not exist. The problem is that, due to your close connection with the organization, you seem to have no perspective on how and where to write about it on Wikipedia. Zeng8r (talk) 00:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I see that the the College Hunks Hauling Junk article is much improved today due to the collaboration of other editors. They know what they're doing, please follow their lead(s). Zeng8r (talk) 01:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]