User talk:TPSKaren

August 2017
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Jason Calacanis has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 01:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Jason Calacanis was changed by TPSKaren (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.956377 on 2017-08-07T01:18:47+00:00.

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, TPSKaren. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Jason Calacanis, 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. Thank you. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 17:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Chris Troutman, thanks for your message with regard to my edits on the page of Jason Calacanis. I am new to Wikipedia and the hidden world of editing and verification. I don't believe that there exists a conflict of interest. I am not an employee, colleague, investee. No business relationship exists between myself and the Author, Jason Calacanis. I follow him on twitter and am a member of 2 entrepreneur chat groups that Jason has created on twitter and facebook. I've just read the book, which I purchased, and made the contribution because there wasn't much on there about it. I had quite alot of trouble doing this because things were being deleted/changed and being new, wasn't sure whether it was someone else editing simultaneously. I'd be grateful if you could let me know which aspects of my post you find problematic and why so that I can consider/change it. Kind regards, TPSKaren.


 * TPSKaren, thanks for your note. You should normally sign your contributions to Talk pages with --~, which automatically inserts your username and a timestamp.
 * About your contributions in particular, there are several issues:
 * The blurb from the dust jacket is inappropriate for two reasons: it is a large block of text copied verbatim (and incidentally not formatted properly as a quote) -- see the WP:COPYPASTE policy. This applies even if the text is properly attributed.
 * The blurb is not independent of the subject, unlike let's say a review. See WP:INDY.
 * The publication data should be formatted in bibliographic form.
 * The Amazon rank data is generally not considered encyclopedic.
 * Best, --Macrakis (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Macrakis, Thanks for your note. As I mentioned in my earlier post, I am new to Wikipedia and judging from the welcome email etc that I received, it suggests to me that newcomers to the platform are welcome and that there is a community available to support and help newbies. I am experiencing a very different tone so far I have to say. Firstly, a public label has appeared on the page that I have just edited accusing me of having a conflict of interest with the author of the book I have just edited. Is this correct. Is this what you are suggesting. Despite me having offered an earlier explanation of how I came to write the review, the banner still remains. Why is it still there? As I said, I am new to this editing thing. I don't intend to make a habit of this. My focus is elsewhere and I am already spending more time on this that I had planned or wanted to. I'm sure that you are all dedicated to this work - it's not for me. Whilst I'm sure you are very good at editing, and have provided some tips, it would take me some time to follow your leads to fully understand the many rules etc. If I have made mistakes with formatting, can't you just correct them instead of emailing me? I still have not had a satisfactory answer as to why you think I have posted something that presents as a conflict of interest? If you cannot justify the accusation, shouldn't you remove the banner. This is day one inside the Wikipedia editing 'suite' and I have to say, it feels more like Wikipedia police! I don't think I'll be posting again in a hurry. It's not for me. Too much hassle. I read a book and found that info on it was sparse and tried to fill the space. If it's not appropriate, can you please tell me which info I should remove and why and I'll quickly do it. And please remove that accusatory banner! Thank you.


 * Karen, sorry you weren't well welcomed. We do love new editors, but it's true that it takes a while to learn the ropes. I wasn't the one who put the labels on the article, and I can see how they would bother you. What's going on there is that some editor has noticed what looks like a problem, and doesn't have time to fix it, so he/she tags it so someone else can look at it, and in the meantime readers are notified that there might be an issue with the content. I have done a quick once-over of the article, toning down some of the puffery, formatting the book information you added, and removing the tags.
 * The main thing that I think you need to keep in mind when editing articles is that we really are building an encyclopedia. Information needs to be sourced from reliable, third-party sources, and be neither the editor's opinion (see WP:OR) nor people talking about themselves. There are also lots of rules about formatting and so on which take a while to learn.
 * Again, welcome to Wikipedia. --Macrakis (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time Macrakis and for your understanding. I found the initial treatment extremely rude and upsetting. It seems that left to their own devices, not everyone is as careful as you appear to be. Thank you for making the edits. How long until they filter through and appear? I think this back-office environment is ready for a major update do you? It's not very quick or intuitive to use. Anyway, lovely chatting.TPSKaren (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)