User talk:MikeBlom

Welcome!

Hello, Vazival, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Roku, Inc., seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, please see:

• Policy on neutral point of view
• Guideline on spam
• Guideline on external links
• Guideline on conflict of interest
• FAQ for Organizations

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can . You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and how to develop articles
• Help pages
• Tutorials
• Article wizard for creating new articles
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Grayfell (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Your edits still appear to be promotional. Please neutrally summarize reliable sources with preference for independent and secondary sources. Please also disclose if you have a conflict of interest with Roku Inc. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by grayfell (talk • contribs) 07:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Grayfell for your introduction. Your message makes sense, and will suitably align my future edits / creation efforts. Vazival (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure. I have added the content supported by reliable, independent and secondary sources. I have also created a user page and have mentioned there that I don't have any conflict of interest with Roku Inc and few other companies. I have passion about certain technology areas, and I have been a user of innovative tech products made by Roku and other companies. Vazival (talk) 06:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Please be more cautious of sources and again, avoid adding promotional language. I would also recommend that you be more cautious of editing while logged out (WP:EWLO). Please remember that Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or advocacy. Investopedia is not a reliable source (per WP:INVESTOPEDIA), and neither is The Daily Mail (per WP:DAILYMAIL). The page Wikipedia:Reliable sources explains this more comprehensively. Grayfell (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. Sure, I will keep your remarks on Investopedia and The Daily Mail in mind, and will carefully read up Wikipedia:Reliable sources too. Yes, I will henceforth edit only when I'm logged in.

As for avoiding promotional language, I agree that one should not use Wikipedia for promotion or advocacy. After receiving your last feedback, I have tried to write down only easily-verifiable facts as they are, while trying to be neutral and without expressing my opinions (thereby adhering to all the points from WP:PROMOTION, in my understanding). Also, the facts I have chosen to mention are the ones I find as being relevant in the context and as being important to communicate. Having said that, I do understand from your message that my attempts are still short of meeting the standards or expectations on the platform, and would exercise greater caution going forward. Vazival (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I have just made further edits to all three articles (Block Inc, Roku Inc and Affirm Holdings), and I believe my present edits are in compliance with the Wikipedia policy of reporting verifiable facts (not opinions) from secondary sources while not being promotional. Looking forward to your feedback whenever convenient. Thank you. Vazival (talk) 03:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your edits still seem promotional. I trust that your passion for innovative tech products is sincere, but your contributions to Wikipedia are not neutral. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business journal and not a platform for public relations, so terms which might be appropriate in a business context are outside of the formal WP:TONE articles should be written in.

As for sources, you've added this source to Roku, Inc.. That source specifically says "Disclaimer. This case is intended to be used as the basis for class discussion rather than to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of a management situation. The case was compiled from published sources." If those cited sources are reliable, read those and then summarize them in the body of the article, as appropriate, and only then add details to the lead.

At Affirm Holdings you added this source for blandly promotional details about Affirm's purported use of "machine learning". Did you actually read that source? Did you read the parts where it talks about usury laws, payday lending, and the company's ties to the PayPal Mafia and Peter Thiel? Using a complicated source for a mostly-promotional detail is cherry-picking.

It appears to me you've been adding promotional details to the article and then googling sources to support these details afterward. This is bad practice for a number of reasons. Look at what reliable sources say, uses those sources to add content to the body of the article, and then, if appropriate, summarize those details in the lead without using buzzwords or biz-speak.

Grayfell (talk) 06:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for a rigorous feedback.

I completely agree with your remarks on the quality / suitability of sources I have chosen. I think my enthusiasm arising out of a positive impression about these companies (together with Block Inc) and a general preference for early-stage tech companies over large corporates has caused me to not carefully look through the sources.

As for the information I've added to Affirm Holdings, I think that Affirm's use of machine learning for underwriting loans is a critical component of the company's technology, and it makes sense to mention that in a suitable way / tone. I however agree that my previous tone (on Affirm's use of machine learning) was promotional, especially since the quality of the source I cited was poor.

As for the information I've added to Roku Inc, I understand that Roku's existence as a business is primarily due to their role as an aggregator of viewers, content producers, TV makers, advertisers and software developers. Although I haven't mentioned anywhere in my edits, I find most of Roku's peers -- most of them are large corporates such as Google TV, Apple TV, Samsung's Tizen) --- to be not engaged with all the elements in the streaming TV sector like Roku does, and I think Roku won't really survive in the streaming sector against these large corporates unless it didn't manage to aggregate those elements quickly enough after it was formed in early 2000s. Keeping this opinion aside, I think it makes sense to mention about Roku's role as an aggregator, if quality secondary sources support that mention, given Roku's deep engagement in the streaming sector. As for sources, my cited source(s) on Roku wasn't (or weren't) up to mark as you've mentioned, and I take a note of your related remark.

As a relatively minor matter, your present edit of Roku Inc is factually inaccurate at one place. At one place, your edit says that "[Roku] licenses streaming content to other companies". In reality, Roku does not license streaming content to anyone, but licenses its smart TV interface -- a TV operating system called Roku OS -- to other companies (TV manufacturers). It also buys streaming content (TV shows) from content producers, and distributes its own content (through Roku Channel) and third-party content from Netflix, Disney+ (through apps running on Roku OS). Vazival (talk) 03:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Affirm Holdings aren't going to work. The sentence In 2021, Affirm was recognized as being among the leading buy now, pay later services globally. fails on multiple levels. This is a vague claim presented via weasel wording, and the source is flimsy and doesn't appear significant enough for the lead even with context. It appears to be yet-another poor-quality corporate blogspam source which is not an WP:RS but is, arguably, a WP:SPS. Additionally, that source did not directly support wording you added. Readers would reasonably expect to know who "recognized them" as such, and why also why they should care about that. Peacock-words like "leading" are also overly promotional and inappropriate for an encyclopedia.

I absolutely understand that it helps to summarize your own conclusions on a topic to understand the bigger picture, but this can lead to its own set of problems. Few of these commercial data 'insight' blogs you have cited, on articles or here in this discussion, are persuasive or reliable in isolation. Also, combining sources to support conclusions is known in Wikipedia jargon as "synth". Synthesis of sources is not acceptable. Summarize what reliable sources are saying. Do not combine sources to support novel conclusions of your own design. (Additionally, see WP:FORBESCON and WP:TECHCRUNCH.)

I have adjusted the wording on the Roku article. Grayfell (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for another constructive feedback. That's much appreciated. I will carefully read up all the links in your feedback and take suitable precautions going forward.

(Relatedly, for what its worth, I did not find your recent edit summary on the Affirm Holdings article to be constructively worded. In particular, I thought that your words "stop spamming" construed an example of heavy-handedness and were based on a conclusion that I was in fact spamming. I do not think I was spamming at all; I do not find myself to be violating the guidelines from WP: SPAMMER.)

Thank you for your adjustment of the wording on the Roku article. I appreciate that. However, I think your adjustment does not accurately or reasonably communicate the fact on hand. In particular, stating that Roku operates "an advertising business which sells ad space and licenses software to other companies" is misleading because Roku's advertising business (which sells ad space to marketers) is exclusive of Roku's licensing business (which sells OS licenses to TV makers). Roku's Form 10-K for the year 2022 (refer "Out Business Model" on page 6) informs that Roku's business activity involves (a) selling ad space, (b) licensing software to other companies, and (c) selling subscriptions to distribute third-party content, aside from selling consumer electronic products etc. Your edit mentions (a) and (b), but not (c). Moreover, the wording of your edit implies that (b) is part of (a), which is not the case. Vazival (talk) 13:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The lead of an article should summarize the body, per MOS:LEAD. For this reason, it is common for leads to not have any citations at all. The body of an article should be mainly based on secondary and independent sources. Primary sources can, optionally, be used to fill-in non-controversially important details, but we use independent/secondary sources to guide which details are important.

So for the Roku article, the goal is not to reflect how the company describes itself, but instead how reliable, independent sources describe it. I have no particular attachment to the wording I added, but the lead isn't the place to add details from a comically boastful 100-page SEC filing, for example.

To put it in simpler terms, the lead needs to be broadly accurate, but not necessarily precise.

Further, I think saying the company "offers subscriptions to distribute content on its streaming platform" will be too confusing to uninvolved readers. The way this is phrased could imply that other companies are the ones buying a subscription, instead of Roku taking a cut of user's subscriptions. Just as importantly, the article doesn't explain this in the body, so it's premature to add it to the lead.

I notice you removed the CNBC source. That source seems like it could be useful for summarizing Roku's subscription middle-man model, but again, this should happen in the body, first.

I would also, again, caution you against over-relying on WP:TECHCRUNCH for these kinds of things. The DigiDay source seems more substantial and more reliable, but it doesn't seem to emphasize this subscription model as being vitally important to the company -these subscriptions are only mentioned in parenthetical dashes- so it seems like a missed opportunity here.

To avoid these kinds of WP:DUE issues, look at what sources are saying first and attempt to summarize those. Resist the temptation to start with first-hand knowledge and work backwards. I and most other Wikipedia editors do this to some degree, so it would be hypocritical of me to pretend it's unforgivable, but it can lead to problems like this and makes the article much harder to read and edit in the long run. Grayfell (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for another constructive and highly informative feedback. Deeply appreciated.

While I am yet to fully absorb the information from your most recent message and the one before, most (or all) of what you have said appears insightful and totally agreeable from a quick read. Thank you again. Vazival (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I have committed more edits to the Roku Inc article while trying to adhere to the guidelines you recommended. I enjoyed the experience and saw / appreciated the merit of (at least some of) the guidelines. Thank you. Vazival (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Roku OS has been accepted

Roku OS, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Qcne (talk) 12:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Vazival (talk) 12:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Roku OS, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Equalwidth (C) 06:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Help with Anthony Wood page

Hi Vazival, I am working to expand the page of Roku's founder, Anthony Wood (businessman). I see that you've done a lot of work on Roku related pages, and I hope you will consider implementing the edits I suggested at Talk: Anthony Wood (businessman)#Expand career section. Thank you, YZ for Roku (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi YZ for Roku, thanks for messaging and for sharing that you work for Roku. I am happy to update the page on Roku's founder, Anthony Wood.

I find that your suggested edit Talk:Anthony Wood (businessman)#Expand career section does contain meaningful and relevant information. It indeed helps build a good, all around image of Anthony Wood in the reader's mind. However, I also find a small number of issues in your edit which would need a fix before the edit gets incorporated.

Firstly, I find that many sources cited in your suggestion are not explicitly declared as reliable by Wikipedia (read WP:RSPSOURCES). Examples include MarketWatch, niood, SFGATE, Fortune etc. Although such sources actually seem reasonable to me personally, I have seen in the past that information from sources not explicitly declared as reliable by Wikipedia often gets challenged, rendering the effort to incorporate such information as fruitless.

Secondly, it seems some of your edit suggestions contains "original research" which is not permitted on Wikipedia (read WP:OR and WP:NOREX). For example, the sentence "Wood was interested in coding at a young age" might indeed be a fact, but no reliable source directly states this fact explicitly. This sentence appears to be a conclusion drawn based on the Ahoy Magazine page you have cited, and is therefore your own research.

Thirdly, it seems some of your edit suggestions are not verifiable since they are not directly supported by a source (read WP:VERIFY). Examples include "While in college, Wood started SunRize Industries ...".

Fourthly, some of your edit suggestions do not appear to be written from a neutral point of view (read WP:NPOV). Examples include "Wood was inspired to invent ...".

Could you kindly update your suggested edit so that it does not have the above issues? I would be happy to take forward your suitably crafted suggestion so that the potential of seeing a challenge to the edited article gets minimized.

Just in case, if you are looking for a short list of guidelines around what types of edits work well with Wikipedia, you may also wish to read "10 simple rules" on WP:10SIMPLERULES. Vazival (talk) 04:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Vazival, thank you so much for your thorough response. I have gone through all of your feedback and I have posted a response on the article Talk page here. YZ for Roku (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Just incorporated (most of) your suggested edit. Vazival (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your attention to this page. I've added another request on Anthony Woods's talk page. I hope you'll take a look. YZ for Roku (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)