User talk:Trufflegoblin

A belated welcome![edit]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Trufflegoblin. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome (back) ! MPS1992 (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An extended welcome[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Ronz (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Kang and Co Solicitors Limited[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Kang and Co Solicitors Limited requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Nat Gertler (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to create this page because the owner of the company Marjinder Kang ran for election for Labour in my area during the 2017 UK 'snap election', despite living in a different town and being a trained barrister. After a bit of research I considered him to be an interesting public figure and thought his law company was a good banner under which to categorise existing information. I suspected it may not be eligible but thought I'd give it a try nevertheless. Trufflegoblin (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naveen Jain[edit]

Hi Trufflegoblin. I'd hoped you would have noticed and commented on my breakdown of your first edit to Naveen Jain. I've not gone into such detail with your second edit because it's more of the same, but this time the sourcing is poorer and the content more promotional in nature. I hope we can discuss this further. --Ronz (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronz, you undid the whole edit I made the other day, which I found surprising. I've used Wikipedia for a decade and I'm afraid I don't know what the acronym SOAP stands for, you seem to use it a lot so I'd love an explanation! I'm sure there were elements of the edit I made that could easily have been left in, so please tell me what specific issues you had so I can adapt the content until it fits into the article. Sorry if this is a bit of hassle but I can't be the only person who wants to see this article expanded, so I'd be a lot happier if you could undo the edit then give specific reasons for each part you're taking out. Thanks in advance! Trufflegoblin (talk) 05:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The breakdown of the last edit was good, I did indeed notice, hence the 'thanks' I sent you. When I said 'undo the edit' above, of course I mean 'un-undo the edit' or 'redo the edit'! I think it would be a bit more helpful if you could break it down again because like I said, there are elements that you can leave in the article. Hope all is good Trufflegoblin (talk) 05:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOAP --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, focusing on the book. I'm mixed on including it. The discussions I've seen on including such entries tend toward excluding them unless they are related to an individual's notability or are referenced by independent, reliable sources in a manner that demonstrates some encyclopedic value vs just an entry on a resume. I've not looked for such references in this case, but am glad to help if you think they might be available. --Ronz (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaination of what SOAP means. I have read it and this is not my intention. This isn't a battleground, we both just want to make a truthful, balanced piece. Focus should be paid particularly to point 3. I think if you help people to expand the article within the rules of Wikipedia it will reflect better on your own careful, skilled edits! The article needs to be expanded so I'm happy to collaborate if you are. Trufflegoblin (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first problem is that Naveen Jain is a battleground, made so by some of the worst, long-term promotional editing that I've seen, including editing and interventions by Jain himself, his family members, employees of his companies, and paid editors.

Second, there's your initial comment about the article, and your comments here. Would you like to retract what you wrote then?

The article has been rewritten and reviewed by many experienced editors, and I've taken a back seat to them in order to get the continued complaints resolved. --Ronz (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! Yes, remember I already gave you a lengthy apology for that? I was very frustrated and let the situation get the better of me, people in my industry are interested in the science, not the finance stuff! It was very unprofessional of me and I hope you haven't taken it personally. So I hope we can put that behind us and add some mutually agreed on information into the article. Ideally I'd like Moon Express and Viome expanded and hopefully a bit about the Women's safety prize. I take pride in Wikipedia editing and you clearly do too, so it would be fitting if we could collaborate on this Trufflegoblin (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't recall the apology, and cannot find one. Thank you for the comments here. --Ronz (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Found it here. Knew I wasn't going nuts! Hopefully we're on the same page now. Both neutral people sharing information with mutual respect. I'll try to dedicate some time to it in the next couple of days, one edit at a time so hopefully there's less temptation for you to undo anything. Review what I do, where appropriate add citations that you consider more suitable and text that is more neutral in tone (if I fail to hit that mark) does this sound OK? Trufflegoblin (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the apologies. However, from my perspective you are taking this very personally, while holding on to biases concerning the article subject and me.

Let's cut to the chase. I don't know when you edited with your other accounts, but the conflict of interest guidelines and policies have changed quite a bit in the past few years, and even this year. If you have a conflict of interest with the subject, you need to declare it. Otherwise an explanation of how you came across the article and decided it needed such attention would help as well. --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sorry I have been absent for a while, work has been pretty busy. I came across the article because I frequently talk about the 'new space race' with friends and they told me they had realised the guy with the meteorite collection seems like a bad person and I should check his Wikipedia page. I googled him and saw that the page focused on a negative side of Jain, which did color my opinion of him. Then a few days later I thought 'hang on, there is very little information about the other stuff that initially made me interested in the subject on the article', and seeing as I was going back on to Wikipedia at the time I decided to get involved. This did actually help me to get back into 'Wikipedia mode', and after my initial annoyance I committed myself to making edits through careful consideration rather than allowing things to affect me personally. I repeat, I have no conflict of interest. I just want the article expanded. It must have been annoying to have had the page corrupted by promotional editing from "Jain, his family members, employees of his companies, and paid editors" but now we have both established we have no conflict of interest and I have some spare time this week I'm ready to proceed with balancing out the information from a neutral perspective, hopefully in collaboration with you. Trufflegoblin (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I also appreciate that your response didn't include further comments about me. However, you are holding on to very strong biases about the article and subject. If you cannot let go of those biases, I don't see how you can collaborate with anyone other than "Jain, his family members, employees of his companies, and paid editors". --Ronz (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I finally have some time to work on this today. I have let go of any biases as I have explained in detail above, so please, lets just get on with making neutral edits through careful considerationTrufflegoblin (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh great! I just realised there is a list of sources under the title 'notablility review' on the talk page! It would be really helpful to the article if you could post on the talkpage which of those sources you think we CAN'T use... Even if you think that particular editor has conflict of interest (I assume this from your slightly impolite response; don't worry, as I have explained I have been guilty of becoming similarly frustrated in the past. I later sincerely apologised for this here!) I'm only interested in the usability of the sources. As neutral editors that is all that should matter to both of us. I'm still happy to expand the article one edit at a time so you can check I'm being neutral, just like yourself. Trufflegoblin (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My "impolite" response to blatant behavioral problems is something that you think is equivalent to your comments made out of the blue? I'm afraid not.

The "notablity review" (a real review of notability is an AfD by the way) isn't helpful given the complete lack of screening for general quality of the sources and relevant content. Do you understand how Garbage in, garbage out applies? Or throw enough mud at the wall, some of it will stick? If you start with poor sources, you will not get anything encyclopedic or neutral. In a BLP, you will not get anything at all because they simply shouldn't be used.

The Women's Safety Xprise is something you had brought up that seems due mention. Glad you added it. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for your patient response to my last edit. Yes, it must be stressful having to deal with CoI editors if they keep coming back, I feel your pain and apologise for any offence caused. I guess I wanted the chart to be utilised as a list of acceptable sources, but you're more experienced so I have no problem with its deletion and the way the page is progressing. Trufflegoblin (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional editing[edit]

Your editing on Naveen Jain is promotional.

Hello, Trufflegoblin. 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. 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).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

Please reply here, and disclose any connection you have him with him, his companies, etc, directly or indirectly. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! OK, I'll disclose all my connections to Naveen Jain... ABSOLUTELY NONE! I'm a very busy person and would never consider accepting money for creating or editing articles. I see through my discussions with Ronz about this page that he has had to deal with lots of people who he considers guilty of editing with a COI, but as you will see from the above discussion I am not one of these people and none of my edits have been promotional in nature. It is for this very reason that I am asking that other editors review each of my edits carefully. I have no employer aside from my boss in my job (which has neither a Wikipedia page nor any involvement with Wikipedia). My job is not writing Wikipedia pages! Please give me a list of things that you consider to be evidence for a conflict of interest. My editing on Naveen Jain is not promotional in either intent or nature and I'm sorry you have come to this erroneous belief. I am interested in his involvement with the new space race, and following being given the impression that he was not a respectable person by my initial viewing of this page I decided that by expanding the page it could become a more balanced BLP. I have utmost respect for all other editors, especially those who say they have had to rescue the page from being undermined by associates of Jain and am happy to discuss with any of them how the page can be expanded while retaining its neutrality. Wikipedia can be a frustrating voluntary role if we don't all work together. I repeat, my editing on Naveen Jain is NOT promotional. The edit note I started adding to edits is not intended to be obnoxious, it references the long discussion I have had with the editor Ronz (who I have been very respectful towards), none of which is intended to be a personal attack. This edit has nothing promotional about anything or anyone, it is neutral information about a meteorite collection, not even related to business. I suggest you carefully read all edits and comments I have made regarding this article and I would be happy to honestly respond to anything you find suspect. Hopefully you will accept that I have no COI and remove this from my talk page. Trufflegoblin (talk) 23:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. The editing of fans, can look a look like conflict of interest editing - the underlying issue with both is promotional editing. On the X-prize content, the sources you used were low quality press releases and the like. On the meteorite stuff, the sources were OK but the "renown" was unambigiously promotional, as well as being incorrect English (it would be "renowned"). If you leave out adjectives (like "renowned") and use high quality sources, your editing will be less promotional. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thanks for removing the promotional editing tag. I'm very happy to follow the rules here and my use of adjectives is something I'll pay particular attention to in the future. Thanks for your explaination Jytdog. Trufflegoblin (talk) 08:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to ask you this again. You have now created, then recreated through AfC, a blatantly promotional article about some random company. You are acting exactly like a freelance paid editor. Please reconsider the answers you have been giving about this. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I have also reviewed your edits and it is seems very likely that you are being paid to edit here. This is your last chance to disclose. SmartSE (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hello. No, I only make pages for things I'm interested in and think should be shared with the world. When I discover something or someone that's not got a page and should have one, I try to make it. I work for a living and wouldn't want to be paid for doing Wikipedia as it defies the point of being here. Besides, it would be impossible to make a living editing articles because everyone who edits here has a responsibility to look out for suspicious behaviour. I'm sorry if you think anything I have done is questionable, thus I'm happy to answer any questions you have. I found making edits on a heavily contested page very depressing, so have been more interested in making new pages since then. I was disappointed about the decline of the 'Joe's Basecamp' page. The boss is on my radar because he's quite a progressive campaigner. I wrote an earlier article about him and thought the gym was an interesting and important enough project for inclusion. After the initial decline I asked how to make the page appear less problematic but I guess I don't have enough sources to outweigh the ones that people considered too promotional... hence the page lacked enough information to make it stick. It's hard to let something go when you've invested so much time in it! Disappointing but not the end of the world. Hope this answers your question Trufflegoblin (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Botnik Studios has been accepted[edit]

Botnik Studios, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Chenzw Talk 03:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Joe's Basecamp[edit]

Hello Trufflegoblin,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Joe's Basecamp 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 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.

Vexations (talk) 23:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Joe's Basecamp (April 9)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KJP1 was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

The comment the reviewer left was:

To me, a complete advertisement with no indication of Notability.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Joe's Basecamp and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Joe's Basecamp, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KJP1 (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Trufflegoblin! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KJP1 (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Old account[edit]

On your userpage you say that you used to edit here 6 years ago. Would you please identify the other accounts under which you have edited? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jytdog, I used to use my brother's account when we shared an office, so he should know the login. I've emailed to ask him which login it was Trufflegoblin (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Joe Bonington for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joe Bonington 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Bonington until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

Drmies (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]