Talk:Microsemi

Edit war with Microsemi

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microsemi&action=historysubmit&diff=514522468&oldid=514518447

This IP is from inside Microsemi. Are there any impartial views on the subject? Hcobb (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The well-sourced content should not be removed. --Nouniquenames 15:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Declared COI

I'm user BPQ and work at Microsemi. I'm just trying to help enhance the page with accurate, up-to-date information. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpq (talk • contribs) 15:23, 9 October 2012‎

Thank you for clearing that up. Please be sure that anything you add is backed by reliable sources. If there is any question, discuss it on the article's talk page. You may find the template {{request edit}} helpful. (There is a guide available to help you with requesting edits when you have a conflict of interest.) --Nouniquenames 16:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

"I'm just trying to help enhance the page with accurate, up-to-date information." Uh-huh. Yeah. Right. Qworty (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem with COI editors

The problem with these COI guys, as we see here, is that it's not enough for them to declare their COI and then disingenuously say "I'm just trying to help enhance the page with accurate, up-to-date information." Instead, what we have is blatant WP:PEACOCK, with an employee declaring Microsemi's work to be "prestigious," "historic," "significant," etc. Even more egregiously, a declared COI is never an excuse for edit warring. Neither is it an excuse for whitewashing extremely well-sourced negative material, as this guy has done over and over and over again. This particular Microsemi employee appears to believe that he can use any number of Wikipedia policies as his personal toilet paper simply because he has declared a COI. Well, he hasn't just declared his COI--he has pushed it shamelessly in every edit, in stark violation of WP:NPOV. There's a grand canyon of difference between declaring a COI and pushing a COI down everybody's throat. Declaring a COI is not an excuse for WP:OWN. I think he should forever recuse himself from editing the article. Qworty (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Then who else is going to do it? The only contributions I see being made from others is to revert his edits. If we can't allow someone with a declared COI to contribute even dry facts such as updated financial results, and nobody else is willing to work on it, we end up with the very outdated and incomplete article we have today. 2602:30A:2EA4:2B90:EC28:E5C8:C638:7588 (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Irish operations?

I'd drop Irish operations as being not all that important and merge the rover under a renamed controversies section. Perhaps "media events" or "applications". If the later then the education fudging goes up into a history section (that might get a taste of the Irish, but trimmed down).

Basically I'm saying that the four important parts to this article are:

• It's a company that exists, with a stock listing and such.
• There's a series of steps through history that lead to the current setup.
• They have operations in various places.
• And they make stuff that is used to do things.

Right? Hcobb (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Your ideas for restructuring the article seem reasonable. When you have the time, please do proceed and we'll see what it looks like. There's still a lot of WP:UNDUE left, even after my attempts at clean-up, since the COI editor spent such vast amounts of time and energy trying to make this company sound like the Second Coming of Jesus of Nazareth. "Irish operations" seemed to me, at the time, a good way to scale down the WP:PEACOCK implication that this one small company was taking over the entire European economy. This is why COI editing should always be avoided. For obvious reasons, the self-puffery leads to bloated, unbalanced, and inaccurate articles. Qworty (talk) 01:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)