Jonmarquez

Welcome!

Hello, Jonmarquez, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Help me!

Hey all, Policygenius recently rebranded and we're updating the information on our Wikipedia page. I've updated 99% of our new spelling, but I can't figure out how to update our title. Does anyone have some insight on this?

Please help me with my first Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolicyGenius. I have multiple issues with this page (Orphan status, not enough links to other articles, and category).Any insight or pointers are appreciated and welcome!

Thanks!

Jonmarquez (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jonmarquez, welcome to Wikipedia! I've made a few minor edits on the PolicyGenius page to help things along. For one, I fixed the Category link that was there, it was nested too many times and it had a colon in front which kept it from being listed on the category pages. I suspect PolicyGenius may fall under some other categories also, but we can get to that later. Most of these issues are related and will be resolved naturally once we get the article up to spec. I'd like to point you to WP:COI, as I can see on LinkedIn that you are an employee of PolicyGenius. There are particular rules you need to follow, especially declaring your association with the article's subject. The primary reason for this is so that people understand that you don't have a neutral point of view. The article does appear to have a positive slant on PolicyGenius and we should work to resolve that so the article is more encyclopedic. Statements like "PolicyGenius clients have access to tailored advice through the company's unbiased and accurate insurance quoting platform" (emphasis added) are examples of marketing fluff that isn't really appropriate for an encyclopedic article. Take a look at the changes I made, the articles I've pointed you at, and the suggestions I've made and go ahead and respond to me here. Just add your comments below this, with a colon in front, and please remember to sign your posts with '~~~~'. Again, welcome, and please let me know if you have any questions. Chrisw80 (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this information. I'l work to change the marketing fluff to be more neutral to follow Wikipedia's guidelines. Something I'm not too sure of, and I'm hoping you can clarify, is using the {{Connected contributor|User1=Your username |U1-declared=yes| |U1-otherlinks=Insert relevant affiliations, disclosures, article drafts or diffs showing COI contributions.}} How should I be using this when I'm making edits, and should I be declaring my COI anywhere else?

Jonmarquez (talk)

Hi Jonmarquez, you're most welcome. Placing {{connected contributor|User1=Jonmarquez|u1-declared=yes|u1-otherlinks=[[PolicyGenius]]}} at the top of the Talk page for the article is the correct way to do this (and any other article you edit that you have some direct association with). The page will then flag your posts appropriately as to alert other users. I would also add a free form statement on your Userpage to the same effect. Soliciting others for help regarding neutrality of your edits is also a good plan and will help people realize that you're trying to do the right thing. I hope this helps! I know it might be cumbersome, but being extremely up front about it will help matters in the long run. I'll try to keep an eye on the page to help you along, also. Chrisw80 (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't thank you enough!

Jonmarquez (talk)

Not a problem! I went ahead and moved your declaration on the article page to the article talk page where it's better suited. Also, and please forgive me for my forwardness, but I also changed your comment above to use the <nowiki></nowiki> tags on the example of the connected contributor citation. You can use:

<nowiki>example wiki code goes here</nowiki>

to mark out things that you want to show as an example of wikicode instead of having it be rendered by the software. Also, remember to use four tilde characters ('~~~~') to sign your posts. It looks like you're only using three. Hope this helps! Chrisw80 (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi All,

I've updated my company's Wikipedia page and followed suggestions from the community. I've removed the marketing fluff, but would appreciate another pair of neutral eyes to make sure there isn't anything else I missed. Any other suggestions are welcomed as well! Jonmarquez (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jonmarquez, I took another look through it. I'll be honest and say it still has issues. For instance "...who saw industry a gap in the insurance industry" has a reference for an article that doesn't mention the founders or PolicyGenius. "To confront this issue directly they developed a tailored PolicyGenius Insurance Checkup" sounds clearly like a promotional marketing line. "develop a personalized, in-depth review of all their insurance needs" also sounds like marketing fluff. Can you tell me that "PolicyGenius aims to educate and cover America's underinsured consumers helping safeguard users against financial pitfalls..." doesn't sound promotional to you? I'm sorry for being blunt here, I'm just trying to help get the article to fit within the guidelines better. I usually tell folks to "say more with less". Use some quotes from the sources, make sure ALL the sources actually speak about the company or it's founders, and make sure the sources are independent of the company. Try to tell us about the company, rather than what they offer. Does this make sense? Sometimes it helps to trim back a bit on the article first, and then build it back out. I'll leave it there for now, please let me know if you have any questions. Chrisw80 (talk) 08:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Chrisw80, no hard feelings at all. In fact, your bluntness is appreciated. I've removed a lot of your recommendations, and cited sources that references the founders and what they do. Having another pair of objective eyes take a look at it, hopefully we're getting closer.

Thanks! Jonmarquez (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Help me!

Hey! Policygenius recently rebranded and we changed our name from "PolicyGenius" to "Policygenius". I've changed 99% of our name on the Wikipedia page, but having a difficult time changing the title -- it still says "PolicyGenius". Does anyone have any insight on how to change this?

Thanks!

Jonmarquez (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia should use the spelling most commonly used by reliable third-party sources, see WP:COMMONNAME. Currently that is, without a doubt, "PolicyGenius". In fact, in your quest to promote your new branding you have misrepresented the sources, both here on Wikipedia and on your company's website. That won't do. Huon (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest and Not Notable

This Wikipedia article should be removed. Besides conflict of interest (you are employed by this company as a media marketer), the references do not support that the business is notable Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) - nor are the founders (who are given considerable weight as a reason for the article), notable. This content would apply to any business. 1) We sell stuff. 2) Some people started the business. 3) We got funding. 4) And, BTW, here's a link to our consumer website where the single-focus of the home page is to promote the stuff we sell.

On top of that, it is blatant corporate advertising, which is ethically questionable. Wikipedia is not meant to be a Yellow Pages listing for run-of-the-mill business entities, consider LinkedIn for that.

Please remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcornwall (talk • contribs) 23:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)