User talk:Thunder1200

Hello, Thunder1200, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!  -- WikHead (talk) 05:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Erik Buell Racing. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion.

You have re-added irrelevant details to this article praising Bruce Belfer's personal capabilities and promoting the business name, after I removed the content for the first time. Both of these are contrary to Wikipedia policy. I left an explanatory note in the edit summary, but it seems you ignored it. Thank you.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A CEO of a corporation is likely in a better position to have the resources and skill set necessary to acquire another company. So I fail to understand why this is considered a promotion. Would you rather it state he is the Chief Executive Officer of a metals manufacturing company? Thunder1200 (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to state any of this. We don't care about what individuals think about it. This is considered as original research. Wikipedia works on the basis of citing published material which is supposed to be better-researched than the average man-in-the-street could. If a reader wants more info, the link should allow for this and for the readers to make their own conclusions. It's not incumbent on us to draw conclusions on behalf of the readers.

Repeated addition of irrelevancies comes across as non-neutral, suggesting the editor has a connection with promotion of the individual and business name. I hope that clarifies it. I have to abide by this, as does everyone. Thanks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is stating that Mr Bruce Belfer is a engineer more factual than stating he is a CEO (his current professional position)?

Or perhaps I simply need to ref http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/blog/2015/08/exclusive-buyer-of-erik-buell-racing-speaks-out.html Thunder1200 (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't followed this until now, and only glanced at it, and a disproportionate amount of time can be wasted having to check everything - while I'm doing this, I'm not doing what I should be doing... It is a minor-importance article, and - to repeat - the article is about EBR, not Atlantic Metals Group LLC, CEO, VP, or intern, assetstripper, venture capitalist...too much information. The above citation is just a way of a journalist correctly 'padding-out' his article, which is old news now; that same content does not make it encyclopedic for ongoing Wikipedia purposes. IIRC, I had to re-write the prose added which was simply copy-pasted from a news article (not allowed) with the edit-summary "ce to address GF newbie copyvio in previous edits".

Why do you want to 'big-him-up'? Or put LLC? On the basis that he's out of it, was never in there, if the present version is accurate - that he did not raise the finance - then it's more reason to down-play it. I used the terminology appropriate at the time, to achieve a neutral-tone, by comparing sheet-metal fabrications to completely-different, high end motor engineering.

It's a bit subjective; it would be different if it was the Yoshimura organisation or similar with a proven track record in machine development, which would attract wider coverage. But for a manufacturer of fire escapes and garbage chutes, it's not 'proper' to publicise the business name to any extent. There's more to it, involving SEO - Search Engine Optimisation - that is, to return high Google search ratings, which is what most commercial businesses want, and Wikipedia almost-always shows highly, so a firm stance has to be taken. We see a lot of this. You'll also notice your prose relating to your observations of Twitter has been deleted, not by me - Connecticut. It happens.

You'll notice I'm writing English, not American, so this subject/article is a bit distant for me. We've had a similar thing going on with Hesketh - somebody buys the rights to the name, buys an American engine, makes a prototype, then writes his own Wikipedia page. Again, I've not followed it through trying to prove sources, but it has gone quiet, and we don't promote his other businesses.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 02:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not over and there is a court date January 14th to decide the fate of EBR. If I was researching EBR and saw this incomplet & inaccurate wiki, I'd believe that EBR is dead and buried. This is not the case and while you seem to be the content and format police you've offered no positive assistance to update the entry with accurate information. You have done a terriffic job of keeping it inaccurate and out dated.

Firstly, Wikipedia is not a news organisation - that's what search engines are for, when seeking multiple choices for research. Second, the articles are often incomplete & inaccurate. Wikipedia should not be considered a reliable source. I already skimmed through the sources added by the Connecticut editor and saw the 14 Jan date - but WP is not a news organisation, so it does not need to be added now, in real time. The same thing happened a few years ago with a US businessman buying the rights to the Vincent name, and then died Vincent Motorcycles#Vincent Motors. I accept it is important to you, and adding your own thoughts and interpretations might seem the way forward, but it's not the Wikipedia way that we all have to follow. The term "defunct" which you objected to was enabled 16 April by someone very knowledgeable in Seattle. You can't change the template wording to 'paused production'.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have now spent an hour researching and updating EBR to my satisfaction, not because of your negative comments, but as I found the content to be unclear compared to the citations. It now reflects the source material faithfully, and I hope this satisfies your requirements regarding article-accuracy. The Twitter and Facebook fansites are just slap-on-the-back nonsense of no significance. I am intrigued to know what will happen, as it's unclear just what is on sale to be worth millions with such a large amount of creditors registered.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]