User talk:Jedijumpingjack
Speedy deletion nomination of Life of Lowestoft (2020 Documentary)
[edit]Hello Jedijumpingjack,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Life of Lowestoft (2020 Documentary) 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. Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Vexations (talk) 12:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Jedijumpingjack, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.
I noticed that one of the first articles you 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 undone for this very reason.
To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. 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.
One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)
In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.
Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Simplified Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I deleted your article because
- it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the subject, its organisation or company, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company claims or interviewing its management. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls. Obviously doesn't meet the notability criteria for an article here. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Deletion Dispute
[edit]Hello Jim,
I am not related to the project, where did you make this assumption. I am a local living nearby who happens to be interested in the topic and thought it warranted its own Wiki Article. I did correctly reference it, how is a press release not evidence?? What one earth am I suppose to use as evidence if that is not, also there are plenty of wiki pages with no or extremely little references, and references that use press releases, so why has my article been deleted for this reason?
JAack
- Please see WP:Edit war. You can't promote a topic that you have written itself, especially when it's not notable. Be aware that if you revert and don't discuss, I, or another admin, will block you. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Jim,
It is notable, this is what you seem to be missing...? wow idle threat just grow up we are discussing it now! it was correctly referenced, completely neutral and a very well-fitting and needed addition to that segment. Christ can't get anywhere on here.
And anyway you didn't even remove all of it so clearly not a very well job done is it? Proves you're not actually reading it all and correctly checking it... Have you got a supervisor?
Jedijumpingjack (talk) 13:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- Claiming that you are just "a local living nearby who happens to be interested" isn't true though, is it? You worked on the film, and have a vested interest in its success; that's the very definition of a conflict of interest. Yunshui 雲水 14:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Yunshui 雲水 14:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Jedijumpingjack (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Your reason here Sorry why have I been blocked?????????
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I have nothing to do with the creation of the film, why am I being accused of this? Everyone living in the town has an interest in the project, that's why it's a community project. Also what is all this about blocked for "paid editing?? For a start where is your proof and secondly, the project is non-profit so who in they're right mind would be sad enough to pay me to write an article on Wiki. I am extremely close to losing my tempter here so you better give me a good answer! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedijumpingjack (talk • contribs)
- You are not permitted to edit or remove declined unblock requests for your currently active block. Please do not do so again. Note that you do not need to receive money in order to be considered a paid editor; see WP:PAID and WP:COI. I'm making no specific claim that you are a paid editor, just pointing you to the policies involved. --Yamla (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Jedijumpingjack (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Your reason here I do not understand why I have been blocked for "paid Editing". I have not been paid to edit or create anything, the project wouldn't be able to afford it as it is a not for profit as far as I'm aware. May I request your reasoning behind this. I am trying to reply to another ADmin who has very kindly allowed me to explain and potential offer an edit, however I cannot do this as you have just jumped in randomly and blocked me for no reason. I am in no way being paid to do anything, for reasons stated above, please be reasonable and unblock me so that I may reply to this other admin. If you are only pointing out "policies" why am I blocked. This make no sense. I removed the block thingy by mistake as I find it really hard to reply on this platform and didn't know where to space it, so i just deleted everything and started again. Thank you.
Decline reason:
Per user's statement below: On consideration, in my own opinion, I do not believe I should be unblocked, I have been dishonest and unreliable. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Through off-wiki evidence, I have determined this user is almost certainly one of the people explicitly named in the now-deleted article, Life of Lowestoft (2020 Documentary). There's a very clear conflict of interest here. The user seems to be claiming they weren't paid, but remember WP:PAID covers more than just direct financial remuneration§. Regardless, I see no declaration of their conflict of interest as required by WP:COI and in any case, this user should not be unblocked without a promise to avoid further direct edits to Life of Lowestoft, given the prior violations of WP:COI and WP:PROMO. This is my opinion as an administrator who reviewed a prior unblock request, but note I am not the blocking administrator. It's very likely this user is, or was, unaware of the requirements under WP:COI, WP:PAID, and WP:PROMO (though people did try to point this out). It's a common and understandable misunderstanding. --Yamla (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I apologise if I have seemed angry I was just genuinely very confused and my judgement clouded. I understand what you are pointing out, I am genuinely an interested local but I respect that may constitute to a Conflict of Interest, therefore I declare that I will not attempt to edit this page in the future. Is this acceptable? On the conditions of course you withdraw accusations I have been a "paid editor or similar descriptions as described in your policy". Regards Jedijumpingjack (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, this does not match with the off-wiki evidence I have. You are directly and specifically involved, not just an interested local, according to what I see. Note that WP:PRIVACY applies, so I won't disclose what I know, publicly. Reviewing admins are free to search for themselves or contact me in confidence. Frankly, it's not hard to discover that you appear to be directly involved in the project. It's not a problem that you are directly involved if you agree to abide by WP:COI, though I'm a bit concerned with your repeated claims you aren't. It is of course possible that I am mistaken, which is why I'm leaving the review to another uninvolved administrator. Note this comment was written when Jedijumpingjack claimed, "I wholesomely say I am not involved in the project" but that statement has now been removed. --Yamla (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I edited because I hadn't read your message properly. I understand yes that's fine, I hadn't made myself clear and I realise the mistake I made when I had read your policies. Whilst being unblocked would be appriacted, I respect your decision if you decide not to unblock me, however if you do, I promise that I will not edit Life of Lowestoft without first declaring my involvement. I hope this is satisfactory, and I am incredibly sorry for being so misleading and misunderstanding, whilst I have had a wiki account for a few years only the other day is the first time I have edited and I am unfamiliar with how it works. Jedijumpingjack (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
On consideration, in my own opinion, I do not believe I should be unblocked, I have been dishonest and unreliable. If you reach this same conclusion it may be more appropriate to lock/delete my account or whatever procedure is involved. Your decision Jedijumpingjack (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
- Again, you are not permitted to edit or remove declined unblock requests. You are free to remove everything else (including this comment), but you must not remove declined unblock requests again. --Yamla (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.
utrs
[edit]https://utrs-beta.wmflabs.org/appeal/30480 was submitted on 2020-05-29 16:09:25 . This review is now closed. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 17:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Response carried over:
I've read your talk page, and it seems to say the opposite of your claim here. In fact, you wrote, "On consideration, in my own opinion, I do not believe I should be unblocked, I have been dishonest and unreliable. If you reach this same conclusion it may be more appropriate to lock/delete my account or whatever procedure is involved. Your decision".
I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you. I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. Please describe how your editing was unconstructive and how you would edit constructively if unblocked.
Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information. (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks)
--Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 17:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)