User talk:Benparer

May 2012[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Drake Circus Shopping Centre do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia.
• completelyretail.co.uk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's been suggested an external link to http://www.completelyretail.co.uk/portfolio/BritishLand/scheme/Drake-Circus-Plymouth/index is not necessary. Given that the content comes directly from the landowner British Land not Kandahar estates and directly contradicts much of the information on the wiki i.e. it's more accurate and up-to-date I would have thought it was more than relevant but required to verify that the information available was correct. (Benparer - 16:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest[edit]

Hello Benparer. While we welcome useful contributions to Wikipedia, you need to be aware that if you are affiliated with completelyretail.co.uk, you may have a conflict 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 linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
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.
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 conflict of interest.

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. —SMALL JIM 16:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the links to completelyretail.co.uk that you have added to many articles because it appears that your main purpose in adding them is to advertise that company - see WP:LINKSPAM. —SMALL JIM 16:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While it may be true I do have a conflict of interest, I actually thought I was applying relatively mild alteration. I know how accurate our information is as it comes from the landlords themselves and the information on some of them was wildly off base, some of which I altered however without understanding the context of other content I left alone when in doubt. I certainly felt the external link was very relevant. However if you don't think that a page that is talking about a retail park or shopping centre would be added by a link to the commercial information supplied by the landlords then by all means remove it. As you mentioned I may be too close, but having researched a lot of this information on the internet and come across a lot of it on Wikipedia and seeing it sprout disinformation and it being outdated fairly quickly again I thought it was relevant. I suppose in a sense you are saying I was being lazy and actually should have inputed more information rather than just add the link, which I thought was being more careful and unbiased. Would that be correct? (Benparer - 18:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding, Ben. We do take a strong line against any perceived attempt to use Wikipedia for advertising, and the addition of multiple links in different articles to one company is something that we see (and remove) very frequently. Regarding your question, a close reading of that conflict of interest guideline - particularly the section entitled How to avoid COI edits - will tell you what we expect you to do if you wish to edit responsibly. If you really are concerned to correct information about retail parks etc. then I'd suggest that you can do so if you cite the information to the original source (the landowner's website, for instance) and not your own company. Hope this helps, —SMALL JIM 17:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK I guess I understand. The bit I don't is that effectively this is the landlords website of their portfolio. They're governed by restrictive corporate laws that don't allow them to publish this information except through a third party, hence why they are landlord portfolios within our website. The information is supplied direct from the likes of BritishLand, Aviva, PruPim etc. Hence why I think it is a reasonable source of authority, but I take your point re where my conflict is and will desist. (Benparer - 18:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Benparer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has may be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. JarrahTree 22:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Empire Hotel[edit]

Great info - but do you have any WP:RS for that? Please make an effort to WP:CITE info - thanks JarrahTree 22:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do. I will put further information, references and sources in due course which consist of mainly trove newspaper articles, but also family letters and other documents.Benparer (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]