User talk:RachelTan

Hello, RachelTan. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
 * instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies.

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.Deb (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Cockroach (finance)


A tag has been placed on Cockroach (finance) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from page 6 (file page 12) of http://schueffel.biz/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Schueffel-2017-The-Concise-FINTECH-COMPENDIUM.pdf. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

'''I checked the corresponding source prior to citing it. It clearly states that material in this booklet may be reproduced by any means for educational and scientific purposes without fee or permission with the exception of reproduction by services that collect fees for delivery of documents. Hence quoting this source does dot constitute a copyright infringement. '''

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Paytech


A tag has been placed on Paytech requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://schueffel.biz/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Schueffel-2017-The-Concise-FINTECH-COMPENDIUM.pdf. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Nat Gertler (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I see above that you say that "I checked the corresponding source prior to citing it. It clearly states that material in this booklet may be reproduced by any means for educational and scientific purposes without fee or permission with the exception of reproduction by services that collect fees for delivery of documents. Hence quoting this source does dot constitute a copyright infringement." However, that is not sufficient permission under Wikipedia's rules. See our guidelines on donation of copyrighted works to see what licenses we need in order to use copyrighted material. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

That is sufficient, check the copyright statement in the book in conjunction with the corresponding Wikipedia guidelines.

Speedy deletion nomination of Wealth Tech


A tag has been placed on Wealth Tech requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://schueffel.biz/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Schueffel-2017-The-Concise-FINTECH-COMPENDIUM.pdf and https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-wealthtech-daniel-tammas-hastings-cfa. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Nat Gertler (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The article does not constitute a copyright infringement as the author made provisions for citing it in his copyright notes.

Minor edits
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Nat Gertler (talk) 03:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

'''Thank you for the advise! Will do so in the future!'''

Your questions at Talk:Paytech
I am responding to your questions at Talk:Paytech here, as that article is facing possible deletion and, when a page gets deleted, the talk page about that page is removed as well.

It's not that Wikipedia has commercial purposes, but that Wikipedia's educational goals are served by creating a license that allows commercial purposes. If someone wants to create a for-profit textbook that includes Wikipedia articles, the license that Wikipedia works under allows them to do so. Wikipedia itself does not make a profit from that use, but it serves the goal of spreading knowledge.

As for quotations: you can read a good essay on the appropriate use of quotations in Wikipedia at Quotations --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

'''The thought that a scholar will use Wikipedia as a source from a textbook is pretty far fetched due to the low scientific value of Wikipedia. However, a scholar may go to the source of a Wikipedia article and cite that with quoting the corresponding sources. And that by definition can't constitute a copyright infringement. '''

But in any case, I will use quotation marks in the future.

Speedy deletion nomination of Cockroach (startup)
Hello RachelTan,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Cockroach (startup) for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Hangon_preload&preloadtitle=This+page+should+not+be+speedy+deleted+because...+ contest this deletion], but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Kagundu Talk To Me  08:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

'''My contribution was tagged for "speedy deletion" because it seems to be promotional. I am flabbergasted. Not only is the content non-promotional and in line with all Wikipedia guidelines, I am not even told what I could possibly being promoting here? An academic book that is available for free?'''

Proposed deletion of Wealth Tech


The article Wealth Tech has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "An apparent neologism that has not gained much traction. While initial Google results say thousands of results for both 'WealthTech' and 'Wealth Tech', clicking through one finds that there are fewer than 140 actual non-duplicate results for each, some of which are not this usage."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nat Gertler (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

'''@NatGertler: can you please explain which method you applied to find out that among there are only 140 non-duplicate entries among two terms which have EACH more than 40000 Google hits. This can hardly be done by a quick "click through". With these many hits and with conferences held on that topic and books being published, I still believe WealthTech deserves an entry on its own.'''


 * Very simply, I started paging through Google's result. The number of results that they claim on the front page is generally an exaggerated number. On page 16 of the results for WealthTech, I get the message "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 156 already displayed.

If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included." (The number this morning was in the 140s.) Even with the repeated search, it ends on page 44 (of 10 results per page), with the notation "Page 44 of 433 results (1.17 seconds)". --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Sales presentation, you may be blocked from editing. Andyjsmith (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, one of your primary purposes here seems to be adding links to schueffel.biz all over the place. We don't link to self-published works or personal pages; therefore, I have removed them. See WP:ELNO for further guidance. Furthermore, if you have any association whatsoever with schueffel.biz then you have a conflict of interest, in which case you should read Conflict of interest and refrain from adding any further links. If you believe your link is worthy of inclusion, propose it on the talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

'''@Anachronist and Andy Smith '''I have no clue why you accuse me of disruptive editing. I finally found a solid source on the topic of Fintech => "The Concise Fintech Compendium" and I am being accused of promoting a page by the name of schueffel.biz. I had a closer look at it: there is not even any product or service being promoted there! It's a page of a university professor... And the same source can also be found on ResearchGate.net. So what is it you're accusing me of? There are so many terms and expression on Fintech existing on Fintech which are not being explained on Wikipedia and as a student one can struggle very hard to find. I thought I could help expand Wikipedia share this knowledge with others, but for some reason you're obviously trying to cut me off. Can you please explain me why? THANK YOU! Rachel'''


 * I explained why above. I didn't accuse you of disruption. However, your contributions so far suggest that one of your purposes here is to promote a personal, self-published page on the web, describing what appears to be a self-published e-book by an obscure professor. Of course it's found on researchgate.net. One of the primary functions of researchgate.net is to "create exposure for your work" and that professor evidently took advantage of it. Wikipedia doesn't exist to promote, publicize, or "create exposure" for anything. This isn't an appropriate link on Wikipedia, regardless of whether or not you have a conflict of interest with it. If you want to link to a book, the best way isn't to link to the author's personal page, but to use the "isbn=" attribute in the cite book template. The fact that the book doesn't even seem to have an ISBN or DOI suggests further that it's is a self-published source, and we try to avoid citing those. It may be OK if he's a recognized expert in his field, but that hasn't been determined yet, and in any case the link is still inappropriate compared to using the ISBN if it exists. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

'''@Anachronist: I can't help the impression that you want to silence me and no longer contribute to Wikipedia. Is that the goal? to turn Wikipedia into some sort of old boys network would decide over everything? I just checked Google Scholar: what you call an "obscure professor" has many entries and citation. He has published in international double-blind reviewed journals - if you're familiar with that term. I even found his resume on the Web: a doctorate from the University of Reading - according to Wikipedia one of the top research institutions of the UK! So what is obscure about the author? What would a ISBN change??? Anyone can obtain an ISBN. It much more appears to me that you want to shut me down for whatever reason. Well, you have succeeded. I will no longer contribute anything to Wikipedia after this entirely destructive experience. I believe that this is exactly NOT what Jimmy Wales had in mind when he created Wikipedia. But rest assured, I'll keep on recommending this book - as well as many other sources! - to my family, friends and fellow students. You won't keep me from doing that.'''


 * Wow, talk about unfounded accusations, just listen to yourself. I gave you advice and reasoning, grounded in Wikipedia policy, why your link is not acceptable, and how to make it acceptable. It is inappropriate to link to anyone's personal web page, unless you're writing an article about that person. If you cannot or will not listen due to some perceived persecution on your part, I don't know what else to say. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Talkback
Nat Gertler (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Wealth Tech for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wealth Tech is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Wealth Tech until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Andyjsmith (talk) 08:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Paytech


The article Paytech has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Neologism. Fails WP:GNG"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Andyjsmith (talk) 08:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)