User talk:Trufflegoblin

A belated welcome!

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

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

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]

Naveen Jain

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 frustratedhere!) I'm only interested in the usability of the sources. As neutral editors that is all that should matter. I'm still happy to expand the article one edit at a time so you can check I'm being neutral, just like yourselfTrufflegoblin (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]