User talk:Paul.t.scott

Welcome!

Hello, Paul.t.scott, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as August Jackson, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

Article development
Standard layout
Lead section
The perfect article
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

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, ask me on my talk page. You can also type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of August Jackson

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 August Jackson, 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, group, product, service, person, or point of view 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 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. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editing with a conflict of interest

Hello, Paul.t.scott. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Given your talk page note on the now deleted article talk page, you have both a conflict of interest and a complete misunderstanding as to how Wikipedia works.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding August Jackson

The article was deleted under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Please see the above messages for more information. Uhai (talk · contribs) 23:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:August Jackson Organization Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:August Jackson Organization Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: August Jackson (August 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Timtrent were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

All inline links should be removed, please, and turned into references if appropriate, Wikilinks, or external links in a section so named. See Wikipedia:External links

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:August Jackson and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Paul.t.scott! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

Hello Paul.t.scott. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Draft:August Jackson, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. 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 serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

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. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged 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, broadly construed, 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:Paul.t.scott. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Paul.t.scott|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. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. As you have declared that you are employed by August Jackson you are, by definition, paid to edit the draft. Please correct your COI box on your User Page. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for attending to this 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added the disclosure per your request. However, I am an IT Director for Arc Services and I am paid to run the IT department. They don't pay me to edit Wikipedia or engage in marketing efforts. Which is why I didn't think this was a conflict. I started this because I wanted to see the company history where I have worked for the last 12 years documented. I am hoping other former employees will chime in to fill it out more and make it more interesting. Paul "TheMacGuy" Scott (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it was borderline, but you have been transparent, which is all one can ask. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is trying to delete the article again. I am being transparent I have included citations. Why does this keep happening? Paul "TheMacGuy" Scott (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:August Jackson

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 Draft:August Jackson, 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, group, product, service, person, or point of view 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 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. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete my page. I am working hard to make this compliant and I did as I was asked when I submitted it. Paul "TheMacGuy" Scott (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do I need to do to get this page started? Paul "TheMacGuy" Scott (talk) 22:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for advertising or promotion.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2023 (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).

Paul.t.scott (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am trying to put together a history of our company on Wikipedia. I see other companies which are even referenced in my article Jack Morton Worldwide which was allowed to post the history of their company. Why are they allowed to but mine is flagged as advertising or promotion? :My article is a history of the founding of our company. Our company article is no different than any other company out there and every time I submit it gets rejected for a different reason. So can someone just tell me what rules I have to follow so I can be included like so many other companies whose history is documented here. Paul "TheMacGuy" Scott (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

First there's your repeated references to "our" company, which tells us you have a conflict of interest (and maybe also that you might be letting other people use the account, which we take a very dim view of). Second, most of our articles about other companies exist because independent, reliable, thrid-party sources devoted non-trivial coverage to them and editors here used them as the basis of the articles (if you want to better understand our criteria for what businesses we write articles about—oh, wait, of course you do—see here. By contrast I have looked at the deleted article you wrote about your company, and I do not see any sources listed outside of your company's websites.

I also note that the article includes a lot of puffy prose like "These forward-looking investments, grounded in a commitment to sustainability, accessibility, and inclusivity, has ensured August Jackson remains at the forefront of experiential marketing and ready to serve clients' evolving needs in a post-pandemic world.". (By the way, that should be "have ensured". Might I gently suggest that we might have done you a favor here by keeping some prospective client from wondering, well, if they can't keep their verbs' number straight, what else can't we trust them on?) That sounds more like it belongs on LinkedIn than an encyclopedia devoted to keeping a neutral point of view about the company. And even without the puffery, consider that the overly informative articles most people write about their businesses come across as promotionally intended no matter how hard the writers try to avoid overly promotional language. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:39, 8 August 2023 (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.

Paul "TheMacGuy" Scott (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2023 (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).

Paul.t.scott (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to request to be unblocked. As I have talked to people here I am beginning to get a clearer understanding of the issue that lead to my being blocked. I have had this account for many years and occasionally have contributed and never run into an issue. This is my first attempt at writing an article from scratch. Also the rules have evolved since I last contributed. I have been reviewing them and I would like to have my account unblocked so I can have the opportunity to work with someone so my work can be contributed. I am not a spammer, I worked on a history of the company I work for. I do have a habit of writing and speaking referring to our as a group. Perhaps it is a bad habit I should work to break. I am happy to reevaluate and rewrite the article to make it more neutral. I just needed to know that was what I needed to do. So please unblock me so I can continue to contribute to wikipedia. When I created my account I used my full legal name. Not something a spammer would do.

Decline reason:

You might be surprised how many spammers I have seen use their actual names. We don't block(not a ban, which is different) people for their pronoun usage as we try to be welcoming for all people- though in this case it's hard to tell when you are referring to yourself and when you are referring to your business. If you prefer to use our to reference yourself, you will need to expect such confusion if you are also editing about your business. As noted, your draft had no independent reliable sources. The main purpose of an article is to summarize what independent reliable sources say about the subject, not what it wants to say about itself. As you only seem interested in editing about your company, I see no grounds to remove the block. If you want to edit about topics unrelated to your conflict of interest, please tell what. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2023 (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.

No one else touches my account. My use or our is a pronoun is a personal choice. No where in the article does the word our appear only on the talk pages with other people. Are you using my pronoun choice as an excuse to ban me? Also I listed three sources outside the companies website and other than our URL in the info box nothing linked to any of the company web pages. So it seems to me the reason for by banning is improper. Our purpose of the article isn't for perspective clients, that is what our website is for, and if there is an error or language problem in the text that is what edits are for? Isn't anyone free to edit published pages? Deleting an entire article and banning the writer seems to be quite the over reaction.

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).

Paul.t.scott (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It was wrong to block me because I am not a spammer. I have had an active account on Wikipedia since 2007. I have contributed to several articles over the years and until trying to create a new article have never had a problem or any interaction with any admins. I have agreed to not post an article about the company I work for history again. I have also agreed to stick to editing existing content and not try and create anything new. A previous admin reviewed my draft and oked it with a couple of edit recommendations which I carried out immediately to improve the article I was trying to create. I don't believe I should have been blocked in the first place but have agreed to abandon the work none the less. The reason I was given for my being blocked by Daniel Trent was my use of Pronouns in a discussion referring to our company. Saying the use of our lead them to believe more than one person was using my account. In a subsequent post I stated that is usually how I speak and refer to myself. Our and we even when working on something by myself. I have filed several appeals and apologized for the issue and agreed to not create new articles or to further pursue the one about my company I have been working on. This should resolve the issue and allow my account to be reinstated.

Decline reason:

You were not blocked by "Daniel Trent" (not sure who that is) for pronouns, you were blocked by Bbb23 for continuously trying to add an article with promotional language to Wikipedia, in which you have a conflict of interest that was only declared shortly before your block. In order to be unblocked, you will need to demonstrate that you understand what you did wrong and how you will avoid this mistake in the future in regards to promotional language and citing prose. Z1720 (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2023 (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.

You may have only one unblock request at a time. You may, however, alter your latest unblock request as long as there hasn't been a response.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2023 (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).

Paul.t.scott (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am again requesting to be unblocked. I have agreed to abandon my work on our company page. I have also stated I will not create new articles but stick to editing exiting pages only. In the last denial It was stated that I was continuously trying to add an article which I had a conflict of interest. First, I created the article in Oct 2022. When it was taken down I spent the next 10 months working on it to make it compliant. I asked that it be reviewed and was given feed back which I immediately implemented. The article while still in draft was marked for deletion and I was blocked before I could even contest the deletion or have any discussion with anyone about what I could do to fix it. Now the only place I can post is here and these requests to be unblocked. Every decline of unblocking me has been met with a different reason to decline my unblocking. All evidence I offer is ignored. I have stated multiple times I have had an account here since 2007, I have contributed to several articles over the years, I use my legal name and have written a bio on myself that is posted here. When I asked the last article to be reviewed I was told to post the disclosure properly which I did immediately. I have had no argument with anyone on wikipedia in 16 years. I made one mistake in 16 years and have been blocked for the last 4 days, labeled as a spammer which I am not, and that block is indefinite. I use a strong password, no one else touches my account, I will not write an article about my company or edit articles on any organization I am connected with.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline, even though I already declined an earlier request from thus user, as there's no point in keeping it open with talk page access revoked. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:24, 12 August 2023 (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.

You have wasted enough of our time. You make it sound as if you're a long-term constructive editor who's made only "one mistake in 16 years". This is untrue and disingenuous. You created your account on June 26, 2007. Your first edit was a now-deleted edit on November 6, 2007. Your next edit wasn't until November 22, 2012, five years later. Overall, you have made a grand total of 62 edits, including the edits to this Talk page after your block, of which 28 are live and 34 are deleted edits, all but one of which were to your company, in article form in 2022 and then in draft form this month. The last edit you made to an unrelated article was on January 22, 2016. I have revoked your access to this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]