User talk:Sean.Begley

Welcome!

Hello, Sean.Begley, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Ziad K. Abdelnour does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. 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 {{Help me}} 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! HiDrNick! 19:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Hello, I'm EoRdE6. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the page Ziad K. Abdelnour, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest

Hello, Sean.Begley. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people you have written about on Wikipedia (specifically Ziad K. Abdelnour), you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Doing things "at request of Ziad" is not looked upon well here. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 19:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversion of a declined pending change

Got a notice that you reverted my declining of a Pending Change that you authored. Your edit indicated that you believed "family office" was the issue; it was not.

The summary statement, "after a career on Wall Street trading physical commodities and advising and investing in privately-held companies" did not appear to be supported by your source, and read to me as somewhat promotional padding, unnecessarily added to the fact of the company's creation, which was already in the article. In addition, the source is the company's own About page, which may be ok for basic factual details, but is nonetheless written in a promotional style, with self-referencing comments like "customers around the world rely upon," "reliable," and "dealing with the right 'operators'," making it seem less reliable than a neutrally written About page. Your edit also removed the name of the company he founded.

For those reasons, it seemed like an unnecessary, poorly written, and possibly non-neutral addition, so as a Pending Changes reviewer, I reverted it. --Tsavage (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]