User talk:Scottdaddy2222

Welcome!

Hello, Scottdaddy2222, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Scottdaddy2222. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. People with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, see the conflict of interest guideline and frequently asked questions for organizations. In particular, please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, its competitors, or projects and products you or they are involved with;
instead, propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing, and autobiographies. Thank you. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kazmandu2. Thank you. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you because you appear to be Kazmandu2 evading a block. There are also promotional concerns. What concerns me most is that you posted on another admin's page claiming to be the author of the draft for Rockstar Marketing, yet this was an article edited only by Kazmandu2. Kazmandu2 had been specifically told that they needed to disclose their conflict of interest since it was extremely obvious that they were a paid editor and one that was editing on behalf of Rockstar Marketing. Your username gives off enough information that I was able to find evidence that you are very likely the owner of Rockstar Marketing and your comments here asking for the draft to be restored shows that you are aware of the draft and its reasons for deletion and therefore are aware that part of the reason the other account was blocked was because they deliberately tried to hide the fact that they were a paid editor. If they'd disclosed their COI status, all that would have happened was that I'd have warned them to try to remain neutral and to work closely with non-COI editors. I wouldn't have blocked them, however by lying about their COI status they forced my hand.

Per Wikipedia's guidelines, all editors with a COI are required to disclose this status, especially if they are directly asked. Kazmandu2 deliberately lied about this and their ties to the company. To make matters worse, they made an ad hominem attack while doing so, which showed even more bad faith. Now your comments on Seraphim's talk page give off the extremely strong impression that you're Kazmandu2 or at the very least, someone who works directly with them, as you referred to the draft as your edits. This means that not only did you not disclose your COI under either account, but you tried to evade the block. Not disclosing a COI and then trying to evade a block is one of the worst things you can do on here because from here on out it's going to be that much more difficult for anyone to assume good faith on behalf of yourself and your company. If you're not Kazmandu2, then you need to have a serious talk with your employee because their actions have made your entire company look bad on Wikipedia.

If you have a COI on Wikipedia you are required to disclose it. Not doing so is extremely unethical and runs the risk of backfiring by making not only your company, but all of the people you represent look extremely bad by association, especially since there's always a trail left behind that shows that there was undisclosed paid editing. One of the companies that did this got so much media coverage of their poor behavior that they have a Wikipedia article - and not a good one. I have to stress that this was an extremely poor decision to not disclose a paid editing status and then to try to evade detection. All paid editors are required to disclose their status. Period. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]