Cromng

August 2012

Hello, Cromng. 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 Covance, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

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. Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the note. It's not a flag; it's just a notice that if you are involved with this organization or otherwise have strong feelings about the subject, you should avoid editing the subject for obvious reasons. As you feel there is an issue with neutrality, you pursued the correct paths of action, but the result was not a consensus in your favor. In fact, the only comment I saw about the images was one objecting to their removal. It is our responsibility as a tertiary information source to represent the preponderance of secondary sources about a subject. Even if you are involved or associated with Covance, you must recognize that the amount of media coverage about animal abuse is not small. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)