User talk:JonathanBentz

Welcome!

Hello, JonathanBentz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 19:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:New york zip code map.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:New york zip code map.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Florida zip code map.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Florida zip code map.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Alabama zip code map.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Alabama zip code map.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Texas zip code map.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Texas zip code map.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Ohio zip code map.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ohio zip code map.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getmyhomesvalue.com

A tag has been placed on Getmyhomesvalue.com requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. justinfr (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getmyhomesvalue.com

The entry you provided read more like an advertisement than a neutral encyclopedia entry. I rejected the original tagging for lack of notability because the page did indeed assert notability. If you can write a better version they you can go ahead and do so. If you want more time to prepare an article then create a page in your userspace (on a page like User:JonathanBentz/Getmyhomesvalue.com) and then move it to Getmyhomesvalue.com. If you are in any way associated with this company then I recommend you don't write an entry for it. Hut 8.5 11:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Getmyhomesvalue.com

A tag has been placed on Getmyhomesvalue.com 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 or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases do not constitute reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Getmyhomesvalue.com

I have nominated Getmyhomesvalue.com, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Getmyhomesvalue.com. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? 9Nak (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see this entry has quite a history, and a lot of work from you. But I'm afraid the assertion of notability just doesn't cut it, in my opinion, which is why I put it up for discussion and possible deletion. And your opinions really are welcome in that discussion. But, as noted above, please beware of conflicts of interest. 9Nak (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signing Comments

Hello. When making comments on talk pages, please sign your comments by typing four tildes (~~~~) or clicking the signature button. It makes it much easier for other editors to tell who left comments. justinfr (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much appreciated. justinfr (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zip code page deletions

Just FYI: there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florida zip codes about deleting the zip code pages you created. - Brian Kendig (talk) 07:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:California zip code map.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:California zip code map.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Pennsylvania Precision Cast Parts

A tag has been placed on Pennsylvania Precision Cast Parts 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 an organization or company, but it does not 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Codf1977 (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Getmyhomesvalue com-screens.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Getmyhomesvalue com-screens.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dorner Mfg. Corp.

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Dorner Mfg. Corp., and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.insideview.com/directory/dorner-mfg-corp.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Reading Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Freightliner (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Messer Cutting Systems NAFTA

Hello JonathanBentz,

It seems to me that an article you worked on, Messer Cutting Systems NAFTA, may be copied from http://www.messer-cs.com/eu/about/history/. It's entirely possible that I made a mistake, but I wanted to let you know because Wikipedia is strict about copying from other sites.

It's important that you edit the article and rewrite it in your own words, unless you're absolutely certain nothing in it is copied. If you're not sure how to fix the problem or have any questions, there are people at the help desk who are happy to assist you.

Thank you for helping build a free encyclopedia! MadmanBot (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Deb. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

File permission problem with File:Texas zip code map.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Texas zip code map.jpg, which you've attributed to ZipCodeGuy.com. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —innotata 20:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:JonathanBentz

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 User:JonathanBentz, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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 removed 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. Wikipedia is not a free webhost for anyone's Internet marketing resume. – Brianhe (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gmhvlogo2008.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gmhvlogo2008.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ppcp logo.gif listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ppcp logo.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited DJ Skee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TLC. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, JonathanBentz. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing

Hello JonathanBentz. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a black hat practice.
Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.
Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:JonathanBentz. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=JonathanBentz|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply to your message: it was left on my talk page archive so I didn't get a notification. If the editing is not paid, that is fine, no need to disclose what isn't happening. I left the message because the article at articles for deletion was highly promotional before cleanup, and seemed to have people recruited for it. Your sandbox showed it in its original form, and with a lot of the promotionalism concerns and canvassing, paid editing becomes a concern. If you are being paid to edit, you do need to disclose it, but otherwise, just make sure to follow our neutral point of view and biography of living persons policies. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I removed the new page reviewer userboxes from your userpage because your user rights log doesn't show it. If there is anything I was missing, please let me know. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please reply here. Jytdog (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm - I am not being compensated as a paid editor.

Really, you need to respond on the WP:PAID thing

You still have not responded or taken action to the inquiry regarding your appearance as a paid editor. If you make any additional edits without complying you may be blocked from editing. Jytdog (talk) 04:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jytdog as I mentioned below after User:Doc James set up my block, I did address this claim before, back in April. Admittedly, I did not follow the proper procedures - but I have addressed this below. Any assistance I can be provided to help get this block lifted would be greatly, greatly appreciated. I don't understand why someone who has an interest in working on biographies of living persons is constantly accused of being a paid contributor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanBentz (talk • contribs)

September 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of indef for TOU violations. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to disclose before being unblocked and agree to follow best practices. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JonathanBentz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It appears I am being blocked because of someone's perception of me as a paid contributor, which I am not. I responded to the paid editing alert from User:TonyBallioni back in April on his talk page - as he documented - at that time. My apologies for not following the porper procedures at that time. As he mentioned in his reply to me at that time, "If the editing is not paid, that is fine, no need to disclose what isn't happening." I have made no violations, and my edits to the page you flagged follow a neutral point of view. Why am I being blocked for clearing up factual inaccuracies on a bio of a living person?

Decline reason:

The evidence presented below by Jytdog, combined with off-wiki evidence has convinced me that it is more than likely that you have been paid to edit here. You have not been blocked for merely editing biographies or creating articles about companies but because you have added promotional content to articles that are likely about your clients. If you still disagree, please address why you have made the edits that Jytdog has linked to below. SmartSE (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Jonathan and unblock reviewer: this block is partially due to off-wiki evidence that can't be posted here. Personally I don't think there are sufficient grounds for a block but more eyes on the situation can't hurt.

Jonathan - I am going to remove the second unblock request above as it is just a reply to Jytdog rather than in response to the block notice. SmartSE (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocker review and User:Smartse, first of all their edits are spammy. There is also strong evidence of COI that has gone undisclosed. I am against unblocking at this point in time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence is now conclusive that they are involved in undisclosed paid editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can gather, User:Doc James is basing this claim of "conclusive" evidence that I am an undisclosed paid editor based on the simple fact that I have attempted to create company pages in my history. Is a Wikipedia user not allowed to create company pages without being flagged as a paid contributor?JonathanBentz (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No it is because you work for some of the companies you have created pages about. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I see clear (off-wiki) evidence that we're looking at paid promotional editing - WP:Outing policy prohibits me from sharing it here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it too and concur. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

what prompted my concern here was this talk page note, followed by this edit. That is an article that has been subject to a ton of promotional pressure from the subject of the article; what in the world prompted this editor to show up there, with that message from the subject of the article?

The history of their Userspace edits and sandboxes, shows a bunch of articles that fit the profile of paid editors:

20 August 2009 prepared "Getmyhomevalues.com" which per the redlink was created 3 times before it was AFDed leading to a SNOW 4th deletion. This is very typical paid editor stuff.
oldest version 10 April 2015 (was moved on 6 April 2017 per history) is about Hosted exchange, which looked like this as of April 2015. The JonathanBentz account has never edited that article. What is going on there?
this version at 6 April 2017 is about Tomas Gorny which you can see there has been created and deleted eight times. The history of promotional pressure there is ... remarkable.
this version at 8 August 2017, pretty much exactly matches our current article on Shape Security (a software company, one of our most common subjects of paid editing) which was created by a Benji the Pen. That is just.. odd.
diff series ending 16 August 2017 was copied to mainspace here and is PerimeterX, another software company.

as for edits outside their sandbox...

Special:Contributions/75.150.135.242 made an edit to the getmyhomevalues,com sandbox, 3 edits to the AfD for getmyhomevalues,com and this comment to an editor about the AfD. But more concerningly that IP shows spammy/promotional/SEO edits, like this and this and this.And this edit to General Digital (LCD monitors), which adds a link to this page as a ref, authored by a RW person named Jonathan Bentz, which is a blog post (the only one they ever posted there, per this. Again this looks a lot like some self-promotion and work for a client to get a tag removed from an article.
this account created the General Digital (LCD monitors) article which was very promotional as created, including the typical excess ELs and unsourced promotional content etc, that we typically see from paid editors. Per its editing statistics, this account is the biggest contributor by far. Even now that article reads like an advertising brochure and has unsourced, promotional content in it.
here and here, spammed in links to epakmachinery.com
spammy series of edits to Palermo's Pizza; the next edit to that article is from an IP with a very similar edit note style, removing negative content (which if this was a paid gig and if that IP is this user, was probably the main objective to remove)
more recently, this series of promotional edits to Brian Solis, one of these motivational speaker/entrepreneur people that we get a ton of paid editing for... and bunch of which was subsequently removed.
and this diff series to DJ Skee which includes a bunch of unsourced, promotional content,and adding File:DJ_Skee_on_Skee_TV.jpg, which this user uploaded with a note saying "own work". That appears to be taken in the TV studio. How did that happen?
I saw they had edited Mezzanine and thought -- oh maybe they do just edit normally sometimes -- but here is what they did. Some more SEO editing, complete with a registered trademark symbol for the apparent client's trade name. Was removed later with edit note unreliable source, marketing claims.

I do not believe that this person is not editing for pay, and it appears to me that pretty much the only thing they do is add badly sourced or unsourced promotional content to WP. I cannot see how this is a bad block. Jytdog (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is too bad this person appears to have chosen to go down the "black hat" industrial waste dumping/undisclosed paid editing path (see User:Jytdog#Paid_editing_in_particular). There are paid editors and PR people who at least say that they try to be part of the editing community in good faith per Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms. Jytdog (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They formerly disclosed on their userpage that in the RW they do online marketing; there was apparently an earlier version of that page that was speedy deleted as a self-promotional abuse of USERPAGE. Jytdog (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. He says he worked for this company and edits about said company.[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of General Digital (LCD monitors)

The article General Digital (LCD monitors) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Delete and start over hopelessly promotional article created by now-blocked advertising account.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of PerimeterX

The article PerimeterX has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Delete and start over hopelessly promotional article created by now-blocked advertising account.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to review this article and/or provide a response on the Talk page of PerimeterX, but I need the ability to edit something (at least Talk pages). Is there a way someone can remove my indefinite block so I can provide the insights everyone needs to help resolve this issue? Thank you for your assistance. JonathanBentz (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the block is not going to be lifted. You can post what you want to say here and ask for someone to copy it across for you - I'll be happy to do it if I'm around. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Boing! said Zebedee. I will post what I want, and greatly appreciate your assistance. JonathanBentz (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the significant trimming of material deemed promotional by administrator Bri on 6 September 17, any indication of this article being deemed "promotional in nature" has largely been removed. One revision I may suggest, in order to keep the page in line with quality standards, is the removal of the company's recognition in Dark Reading. In the Recognition section under 'Company History', it may be necessary to remove the company's inclusion in "20 Cybersecurity Startups to Watch in 2017", as that is not a vetted industry recognized list. Other than that, again, I am of the opinion that anything promotional in nature has been removed from the piece already, and that the proposal for deletion should be removed.

It is worth noting at this point that the article basically becomes a stub (I'm not an expert on these things, of course), in spite of several noteworthy secondary resources documenting the company's progress. However, I believe with this amendment to the article that the proposal for deletion can and should be removed. JonathanBentz (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied that to Talk:PerimeterX. I'm not sure what's going to happen, because this is an unconventional way to contest a WP:PROD. Usually all that is needed is for you to remove the PROD tag, in which case it would have to go to a WP:AFD discussion to seek consensus. However, obviously, a blocked editor can not do that, and I suspect many would suggest that a blocked editor does not have a right to contest a WP:PROD - but that will be decided by the admin who reviews it after 7 days or so. If it is deleted, you would still be able to get it back by making a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, but for that, you would need to get yourself unblocked first. Having examined this case in some detail (including examining off-wiki evidence, which WP:OUTING prohibits me from sharing here), I suspect that might not be easy - but if PerimeterX is deleted, then it's the only way you're going to be able to have any influence over any of the articles you created. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JonathanBentz, to expand on what Boing! said, you are subject to a checkuser block. Administrators who are not checkusers cannot lift the block, and since your current block has been placed by a sitting member of the arbitration committee, it is unlikely to be lifted without consulting them. To repeat what Boing! said, the odds of your block being lifted are very low. You are a paid marketing worker, who was blocked for lying about that and refusing to disclose, and then you edited with three connected accounts in violation of our sockpuppet policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the further detailed explanation TonyBallioni, I appreciate the fact that you have been a rational and helpful Wiki administrator. Thank you for the advice to contact the administrator who placed the CU block, I will follow up with them and see where that gets me. The statements you made above range in their factual accuracy, but yes, I am well aware that there are some COI issues with my account that I need to attempt to address. JonathanBentz (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an entirely inappropriate use of a talk page by a blocked editor. The 'only thing that the blocked editor can use this page for, is to discuss the unblock. User:Boing! said Zebedee I have removed the content that you copied to the Talk page of the PerimeterX article. You really didn't want to violate MEAT did you? Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, a fair point. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paid Contributions Clarification

As many of you have noted in the above section, I have made paid contributions to Wikipedia as part of my employment at Internet marketing agencies. I lied about this and attempted to do this under the radar in the past in an attempt to 1 - avoid potential WP:COI concerns that may hinder my abilities to place content for my clients and 2 - because I was ignorant of the developments in 2014 that led to the Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms. Had I taken some time to properly educate myself on those developments, my approach to how I would have handled making contributions to Wikipedia would have been done in a different manner.

Over the last few weeks, I have been introduced to the proper way PR and digital marketing professionals are expected to engage with the Wikipedia community by checking out users like MaryGaulke, who clearly have a great understanding of the right ways to navigate contextual edits for their clients.

Please note that I am committed to changing my ways, and promise to disclose any future edits for pay. I will also avoid editing pages directly in the future where I have a COI. Instead of simply making edits under my own discretion, I will put edits through peer review with a proper disclosure. Also, I promise to provide links to well-sourced, neutral content and not simply add promotional content that serves the goals of my clients.

I want to make things right, for a variety of reasons (as a father, as a Christian, as a marketing professional who works for an agency that places a high value on transparency). If Drmies or Doc James are willing to lift the indefinite expiration of my block settings, I would like to begin taking some steps to using Wikipedia the right way, and follow some of the examples I have seen of PR professionals who properly understand how to use Wikipedia. JonathanBentz (talk) 02:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm yes, it can be done; I know one or two guys who do it. Also, I'm a big believer in redemption--Christians will or should know what I mean--so I could agree to this. But can you convince Doc James? Or Boing! said Zebedee? Or TonyBallioni? Drmies (talk) 03:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be quite clear on this: I will oppose any appeal for this account to be unblocked. IMO, whatever our current policy is, using Wikipedia for personal gain is totally unethical. Anyone who accepts compensation for their work on Wikipedia is exploiting the unpaid human resources of the others who build it for free and keep its content clean. 'And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.' Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the feedback. However, citing a verse like that one gives the appearance that you are comparing Wikipedia to a "Temple of God". Citing that verse and using that as a comparison for how everyone should handle this situation does not feel like the right approach to take, in my opinion. JonathanBentz (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm not impressed by someone who professes Christian principles (and claims to place a high value on transparency) only after having been caught. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just thinking a bit more, any consideration of an unblock should take into account the following...

JonathanBentz now says he was ignorant of paid editing rules, yet in the "Paid editing" section above he was informed of the problem by User:TonyBallioni in April 2017 - so he's lying even in this latest appeal to us. You can read his evasive response here for yourselves.
Then on 6 September he added "Just to confirm - I am not being compensated as a paid editor". A lie.
Then after being blocked, "I don't understand why someone who has an interest in working on biographies of living persons is constantly accused of being a paid contributor." Hmm.
First unblock appeal, he says "It appears I am being blocked because of someone's perception of me as a paid contributor, which I am not". Another lie.
In subsequent discussion, "From what I can gather, User:Doc James is basing this claim of "conclusive" evidence that I am an undisclosed paid editor based on the simple fact that I have attempted to create company pages in my history. Is a Wikipedia user not allowed to create company pages without being flagged as a paid contributor?" Obvious dishonesty.
Then, while this account is blocked, User:Jonbmx3 starts up again after having been inactive, declaring "Looking forward to starting up my use of Wikipedia again after several years of non-activity" in the user page (this is while JonathanBentz is blocked still proclaiming innocence). As a result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JonathanBentz, the account is checkuser blocked, and User:Slmahnken and User:Haleysteed are also checkuser blocked. I know who those final two accounts belong to, so do others investigating this, and so do you Jonathan - and you have made no mention of your socking and of those two other accounts in this latest appeal.

I count at least six violations of "Thou shalt not bear false witness" there, one of them committed while trying to convince us of his repentance! I put it to you that this is not a set of actions that one would expect from an honest Christian who just made a mistake, and that what we are hearing now is not genuine contrition but a PR expert trying to soft-soap us with the kind of words he thinks we want to hear. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One final thought (for now). Despite being a PR and SEO expert, JonathanBentz has shown a stunning naivety regarding the abilities of the rest of us to use search engines. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Slmahnken, User:Haleysteed, and I share an employer. They are not SOCKs of mine, and should not be viewed as such. We share IPs because we work in the same office locations. Once we get this whole thing cleared up, those two users will also be subjecting themselves to proper disclosures. JonathanBentz (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate all of the feedback from you, Boing!. Again, I'm coming to everyone here in an attempt to come clean, and move forward. I acknowledged above that I had previously lied, and while I have made paid contributions, not every edit I have ever made was a contribution in exchange for compensation (either direct or indirect). JonathanBentz (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is the vaguest chance that you will ever be allowed back on Wikipedia. Especially as you have now misused a respected world religion in your arguments. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments, since I was asked to weigh in here. I'll keep it short to avoid gravedancing:

This user has still not addressed the fact that he socked. I'm not talking about the two meatpuppets that Drmies CU blocked, but the obvious sock account User:Jonbmx3, that we have clear off-wiki evidence is the exact same person, not just a coworker. This evidence has been presented to the functionaries mailing list.
I think the relationship they describe with the now CU blocked meatpuppets is likely not true either. ~~Those~~ One of the accounts only started editing again after Doc James' initial block of this account, and Drmies was able to find them using CU. That suggests all the accounts are likely working at the same office, which would contradict at least part of the statement above.

Basically, if this goes to UTRS or Arbcom, I think we've run out of good faith to give to an account that has been lying to us for months, and who above didn't address some of the reasons behind the current block. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of those two co-worker accounts, one resumed editing after JonathanBentz was blocked, and the other had been editing a couple of weeks previously on one of the same articles as JonathanBentz, PerimeterX. That doesn't look like a coincidental co-worker to me, but clearly two of them working together for the same client. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, Boing! I thought both had waited until after the block. Also, yes, very clearly a connection there. I've updated my statement. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can an editor please move this content to my User page?

Professionally, I'm a Digital Marketing Manager at Direct Online Marketing. Previously, I have also been employed by ProspectMX (now Lupeer), also an internet marketing firm. Because of my employment history, I have been NPOV on company pages and topics related to certain organizations (where applicable, that list is included below). Due to some hard lessons learned, moving forward, I plan on being a proud participant in the joint statement of ethics for communications firms on Wikipedia.

This list will be updated as the list of companies I represent gets updated. Also, as I do move forward in my dealings on Wikipedia, I'll work only in the talk pages and make it clear that I do have a NPOV due to my employment on behalf of any company.

During my time at Direct Online Marketing, I have had the pleasure of working with other Wikipedians like Stephanie Mahnken and Haley Steed. One of these users is still actively employed by Direct Online Marketing (Mahnken), while the other is not (Steed).

Companies for Which I Have or Have Had a COI

Not by me, and for good measure I've just withdrawn your talk page access. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just leave this link here because I'm supposed to, but don't be too optimistic, most of us admins work there too: Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan: you hit me up on the wrong email address but that's OK. I'm not sure what to tell you. The first avenue toward unblock is UTRS, via the link given above by Kudpung. You were CU blocked because CU found all those accounts were essentially operated from the same place and via the same machinery. You're saying these were co-workers; even if that were the case it doesn't essentially alter the situation since it was the abusive part of the collusion that got you blocked. If you want to stand a reasonable chance of getting unblocked you'll probably have to cop to the multiple accounts, or make sure that there will not be any collusion from that location/IP address/ISP/etc. (If it wasn't you it's still WP:MEAT--look it up.) So, one marketer, one account. Professions of faith and fatherhood and whatnot won't help much, I'm afraid, and it muddies the water.
I'm always fine with someone getting another chance, but you're going to have to live with the decisions made here (on that Gorny AfD, for instance) and work within the parameters. I don't know how promotional the articles were, but when someone is socking (or meating) AND has a COI, editors come down like a hammer. So, I think you should spend a few minutes figuring out how to put all this together in a brief and accessible way: volunteers at UTRS (or, in the next step, at ArbCom) will want to see your commitment to Wikipedia's policies. (To the UTRS volunteers: note that the editor seems to have disclosed their COIs...) Good luck, and Roll Tide, Drmies (talk) 02:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The other issue that a UTRS volunteer would have to consider is the repeated lies, and not admitting the truth until it was beyond denial. Undeclared paid editors who just didn't understand how to do it properly often get a second chance, but ones who repeatedly lie to us, and abuse multiple accounts (and not just those two co-workers' accounts - there's User:Jonbmx3 too) to try to continue their paid editing while blocked, are less likely to get a welcoming response from the community. Reviewers need to read this whole talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

JonathanBentz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #19955 was submitted on Dec 05, 2017 16:53:38. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

like others above, i would request that any UTRS reviewers carefully review the discussion on this page. I remain concerned that this person:

a) has not acknowledging lying to everyone here

b) has not been straightforward about the sock/meat that has very obviously gone on

c) has proposed we add the bizarre statement "Because of my employment history, I have been NPOV on company pages and topics related to certain organizations (where applicable, that list is included below)." Perhaps they meant "POV", but altogether that part of the statement and the rest, is something quite ... ugly and PR like, and very far from the simple statement i had advised them to make in the email discussion i had with this person. Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]