User talk:Carolinebycaprice

May 2013
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors&#32; according to your reverts at Caprice Bourret. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Begoon &thinsp; talk 09:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Edits to Caprice Bourret
Hi Carolinebycaprice. Your edits at Caprice Bourret have not been constructive. The proper protocol for all users is that if you want properly sourced information removed (and if you have information that indicates that the Jewish Telegraph is wrong) then you need to take it to the talk page for consensus. Also I note, you deleted information provided by the Jewish Chronicle as well. Thanks! Patapsco913 (talk)

This is your last warning; the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Caprice Bourret with this edit, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. DVdm (talk) 10:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Caprice Bourret. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. BencherliteTalk 11:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You must discuss on Talk:Caprice Bourret what the problem is, rather than simply remove the bit you don't like again and again. If you promise to do so when requesting an unblock, then any admin may unblock you without further reference to me if s/he is satisfied that you understand the problem with edit-warring.  If you continue this pattern of edits, though, future blocks will be longer. BencherliteTalk 11:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Have you read our conflict of interest guideline? — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 17:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note that Wikipedia is not a social media site - you and By Caprice do not have any greater say over Wikipedia's content than any other editor (arguably less, in fact, since you are very strongly discouraged from editing articles with which you have a conflict of interest). Whilst you are welcome to make suggestions on the the article's talkpage, please do not alter the article's content without providing reliable sources for any changes that you make. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  12:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Mother's background
Can you please change the description of Caprice's mother from Jewish to American. It is misleading since she's not religious at all and it's a wrong description of her (unless the proof will be given). However, there is a proof that she's American: http://www.californiabirthindex.org/birth/valerie_ann_pion_born_1949_3976995

Thank you

Article Format
Hello, I have a quick question. Can we change back the format of the article? Before the order of the sections was Film and TV Theater Music Filmography

Also the filmography is hidden which looks convenient but actually creates few difficulties. Basically the fact that filmography is hidden slightly devalues it. It creates the message that it is not really important and not worth being out there. To use a similar example, please visit Elle Macpherson's wikipedia article, all her filmography is listed clearly.

If we could change that it would be also important to move Theater and Music back before the filmography, because a lot of people wouldn't reach the end of the article, for example journalists researching info for the interviews (obviously not all of them, but there is still a chance).

I understand as I work for Caprice I am the interested part here, but I am not 'trying and turn it into a puff-piece'. As everyone else in wiki-community we can suggest our changes, so please let me know if the format can be chenged back to previous.

Thank you

Any response please?
 * You should ask this on the article talk page - very few people will have your talkpage watchlisted, and I nearly missed this question. I prefer it as it is now, and if it was expanded I'd tend to think it might need trimming a bit - but you'll get a wider range of opinions on the article talk page. Thanks. Begoon &thinsp; talk  14:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Speeches section
The section was removed as unencyclopedic.

You agreed not to make edits like this without prior discussion on the article talk page.

I've tried to be helpful, but if you continue to bombard the article with promotional dumps of content like this I'll have to ask for our policies on COI editing to be a lot more strictly enforced.

Personally, I'm disappointed. I removed, without prompting, a lot of the bio stuff you objected to while you were blocked, because I want the article to be accurate and fair. But it's not a place for puffing up your employer's image. You really need to understand that. Begoon &thinsp; talk 15:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Begoon for your feedback. I think the problem here is the different understanding of the meaning of the word 'encyclopedic'. I gathered all the references to support the facts about Caprice's speeches. It is important information if a businessman or a businesswoman is invited to hold a business speech, this indicates their recognition. Thank you for your cooperation earlier. I want you to know that as a new wikipedia community member I learn how to cooperate with you and I may make some mistakes but there is no goal to disappoint anyone. Again, thank you for your correction.

How about adding this paragraph instead:

Business/Corporate Speeches

Miss Bourret has been invited to numerous business events to hold a speech. Caprice talked openly how she developed/built her brand 'By Caprice' from scratch. Topics included funding, marketing resources, government grants, cashflow, employees, management, brand integrity, leadership within the office space, etc.

Also, I was asked to change a photo with the more current one. We have all the copyrights, I will go through the guidelines on how to change the photo but if anything goes wrong please don't take it personally.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolinebycaprice (talk • contribs)


 * It's just not worth its own section. I've added a sentence for you, here: link.


 * Where is the photo? If you put it somewhere accessible online, I can fix it up for you - we may have to sort out permissions/copyright details etc. Or upload it yourself and then we have 7 days to fix any problems with the image if there are any.


 * I'm not taking anything personally - I'm actually trying to help you. The best thing for you to do is suggest edits only, on the article talk page. That way things don't get fraught again with the risk of you being blocked again, for longer.


 * The most important thing is for you and your employer to get away from the idea that this is a place to promote yourself, or a place to host a glowing resume. It's not. This is always difficult for people with a COI to understand. It's very hard to step back and be objective when you are close to or employed by the subject. That's why we have the guidelines and policies. We don't make them up on the spot - they have evolved after much experience of COI editing.


 * It's probably going to help you to read WP:COI again, carefully. If you have any questions, just ask. Thanks. Begoon &thinsp; talk  11:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Jewish Mother
I undid your revision: You started a discussion to seek consensus for the change. That's good. Unfortunately, after only one reply in the discussion, asking you to explain your reasoning more, you decided to ignore the discussion and make the edit anyway. That's not how consensus works - read WP:CONSENSUS.
 * Firstly the source for the information is in the article, contrary to your edit summary.
 * Secondly the discussion on the talk page was ongoing, with only one reply.

This is not what you agreed to in your unblock request above, and it doesn't make helping you very easy. The discussion may well have developed in favour of your proposed change given a little time.

There is no WP:DEADLINE on wikipedia, and consensus is critical to our article writing process. As an editor who says they are employed by the subject of the article, you really do need to take extra care in these areas, as others have stressed above. Thanks. Begoon &thinsp; talk 10:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

September 2014
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Caprice Bourret, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Neil N  talk to me 17:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)