User talk:Kelsie Nguyen

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Kelsie Nguyen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I notice that one of the first articles you have edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been reverted for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of deletion, you might like to draft your article before submission, then get me or any other editor to proofread it. To start creating a draft article, just click your user name at the top of the screen when you are logged in, and edit that page as you would any other. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

The one firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that if more than one person is using this account to edit, then unfortunately it will be blocked from editing.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! MuffledThud (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sock[edit]

You are clearly the new account of Startup Singapore (talk · contribs · logs) and a sock puppet of Sruthy (talk · contribs · logs) and Yesheng (talk · contribs · logs). Any more spamming and you will find yourself blocked. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Welcome[edit]

Hi, thks for ur welcome. I would really want to know how i can improve on the recent article on Start-Up@Singapore. I have made changes to improve the original one, which I have saved a copy before you guys took it down for subjective tone or lack of reference I believe. On the new article I published, those subjective, advertising lines are removed, core information is kept and references from outer sources are provided whenever possible. How come it got reverted as soon as it was published? I find it difficult to understand that such editing for the improvement of an article is not supported by you guys? I'm doing a research on the entrepreneurial environment in Singapore, and would like to contribute a series of articles on this topic in the future. Really appreciate it if you guys can give me an advice on what I can do. For the article itself,would u guys look through it again and tell me what went wrong so that I could improve on it? That would help me in my future articles also. Thks a lot and looking forward to you reply.

Kelsie Nguyen (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It's going to be very difficult for you to write objectively about this subject, since you are the PR Director for the program, and it's therefore your job to promote it subjectively. Better to wait for someone who hasn't got such a direct WP:COI with the project to write about it. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You want advice? To put it bluntly: please go away. When your organisation becomes notable, someone with no COI will write about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About COI[edit]

Hi. I know it's difficult for me to write about this competition, but that doesn't mean impossible. And for you guys to just base on my current position to trash the article all together, instead of basing your reasons on the way the article itself is written, it's not convincing!

This is what I find on Wikipedia about COI "If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias. Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's five pillars."

This means that an affiliation of the writer should not be the "death sentence" for the article OR the subject. More reasons should come along to justify its deletion.

About the notability of the subject. There are several reasons why I, as a student studying in Singapore, find S@S something worth appearing on Wikipedia 1. IT's one of the 3 largest business competitions in the nation in terms of not only prize values, but also of resources and supports for the entrepreneurs who participate get along the way(I mentioned the other 2 in the article itself) 2. IT's the only one of the three that is totally run by students. 3. Throughout the years it appears on different media, even got featured on Channel News Asia before. 4. It's participants have gone on to win world-class competitions on a global scale. 2 of its winner last year became featured on Business Week as "Asian Best Young Entrepreneurs"

So, even on a objective point of view, the subject is notable in the context of Singapore. But guys Singapore is a very small country, and its citizens are not that involved in writing articles for Wikipedia.

Coming back to the first point, in spite of my current involvement, my purpose of rewriting the article is to make it more reliable, objective in tone, with citations to third party published sources, and I am fully aware of the unintentional bias. That's why I need your advices.I never hid my identity, and used my real name here, doesn't that tell you something? I have also told you guys my intention regarding the article. So I hope that you at least give me some constructive advices, or SOUND reasons why the article got trashed: anything wrong with the tone? citations not enough? information not correct? etc.etc. I think those are the justifiable reasons, not just saying "this girl is related to this org, SO whatever she wrote can't be objective". Sorry, but that's very very subjective of you guys too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelsie Nguyen (talk • contribs)

Both Muffled and I were disgusted with the way that you claimed above that you were "doing a research". I call that deception. Also, we do not like people who create multiple accounts. Please read this advice to people with a blatant COI. In your case, I note that Vikramparsani (talk · contribs · logs), who edited one of your previous articles, is less of a single purpose account. You might care to contact him. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@RHaworth: I realize we are going no where with you guys constantly accusing me, and I am in no position to argue against you accusations. Btw, this is my only account, and this is my first and only article, which I edited based on the old one that got deleted by you. I guess the advice link you gave above is more useful to me. Thanks for that and I'll look into it. Kelsie Nguyen (talk) 08:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]