User talk:Corey a jones

Hello, Corey a jones. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Globe Life and Accident Insurance Company, 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.
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. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

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.

Whilst I accept you have declared the interest on your user page, you have continued to make edits, rather than requesting edits be made, because you have a conflict of interest - Arjayay (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Arjayay. I assure you that I have used the utmost caution in editing the content on the referenced page above. One major edit involved a claim that had a reference that had no supporting information relating to the claim. I requested this section be removed on the Talk Page and received no feedback from any editors after four months. At that point, I made the change myself and fully documented the reasons why. Please let me know if there is another way I should have gone about this in the case of there being no response from editors. This is the only change of substance I have made. All my other changes have been minor. They have simply been matters of fact (rather than opinion) with clear citations based on public information or simply improving wording and flow. Additionally, I have added citations on statements that did not previously have citation. I invite you to review my changes and please let me know if any changes do not meet the neutral point of view standards of Wikipedia. Thank you for your concern. I'm certain we have the same goals in mind. Corey a jones (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect no-one replied to your request on the talk page, because it was not flagged-up - very few people are likely to go to a talk page on a (please excuse me) relatively obscure article, otherwise.
For information of how to flag requests, please see Wikipedia:Edit requests, as is mentioned in the COI documentation.
Although I accept your edits have been fairly neutral, there have been problems in the past with editors (possibly interns?) editing Torchmark and their sub-company pages in a promotional way. - Arjayay (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help Arjayay.