User talk:Tarunk13

Hello, Tarunk13. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article Cassandra DePecol, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. Editing for the purpose of advertising or promotion is not permitted. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID). Thank you. Melcous (talk) 05:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Please stop making the same edits to Cassandra DePecol. I have explained in my edit summaries why I have reverted them, including as noted above that you clearly have a conflict of interest, and that wikipedia works by including what is reported in reliable, secondary sources not what a person tells an editor they would like the encyclopedia to say. You are welcome to discuss any issues you have with the article on its talk page or here, but continuing to make the same changes will be considered edit warring and can lead to you being banned from editing. Also note that your last edit summary was not entirely truthful, you said you "Added few words to the description" when in fact you also removed referenced content. thank you, Melcous (talk) 10:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Cassandra DePecol. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Melcous (talk) 13:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with some changes to wiki page: Cassandra DePecol These changes are being made as the person whose name is mentioned has the appropriate source, I have no intention to dupe or promote someone on Wikipedia by doing wrong. I personally took due care to carefully assess everything and then write something.

By no means I will try to promote or falsify a fact or a person on Wikipedia.

I tried to add the word Entrepreneur and added the source as well, a user (Melcous) seems to have issues with the changes. The changes I am trying to make is not promoting anyone nor harming the actual facts on Wikipedia.

Please help Tarunk13 (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If your edits are being reverted, you should discuss the matter on the talk page. Other editors will comment and a consensus will be reached. If you want more help, change the {{help me-helped}} back into a {{help me}}, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hi Tarunk and thanks for your message on my talk page. As noted above, as someone who has an external relationship with the person who is the subject of the article, you have a conflict of interest and are asked not to edit the article directly, but rather to suggest changes on the talk page. I have given reasons for reverting your edits in my edit summaries, but for example you keep adding the occupation "entrepreneur" but although you have provided a source that uses that word for De Pecol, there is no content in that source to back that up. An entrepreneur is defined as someone who has designed, launched or run a new business, so there would need to be some content outlining how and where De Pecol has done that in order for it to be included in the article. You have also continued to delete content that is sourced without explaining why, I assume because you think it is negative or because De Pecol has asked you to. However, this is not enough - you need to explain why you think the content should not be included, and if other editors disagree with you (as I have done so far) and the content is sourced to reliable, independent, secondary sources then it may stay. Thank you, Melcous (talk) 02:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Hello Tarunk13. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Cassandra De Pecol, and that you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Tarunk13. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Tarunk13|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. Melcous (talk) 07:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hi Tarunk, thanks for your message and thanks for clarifying. You can delete the above note asking about paid editing if you would like to as you have read it and responded to it. I'm still not seeing what would be needed in those sources you have linked to. De Pecol says she owns both an LLC and a 501 (c) - what we need is preferably a reliable, independent source that actually says that, and then that can be included as content (in a sentence or two) within the article. However, doing my own search only turns up her facebook page saying that the 501 (c) was registered four days ago. Wikipedia works by including what reliable sources have reported, so it seems to me that it will need to wait until someone else writes about what that organisation is doing before it can be included here. I'm sorry to say it, but De Pecol asking for that to be added now, just looks like she is trying to promote her new organisation, which we don't do, no matter how noble it is. With regards to Expedition 196, what I can find in a quick search is articles using that as the name of the challenge she undertook to travel the world (which is already included in the article) rather than as the name of a company. Do you have any sources that talk about the company and its ongoing work?
Also, feel to reply to me here on your talk page, I have it on my watchlist so will see it. And when you reply, whether here or on any other talk page, please "sign" your post by including four tildes (~ this symbol) at the end). thanks, Melcous (talk) 07:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

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

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: Player (band) was changed by Tarunk13 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.956662 on 2018-01-30T06:46:45+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 06:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]