User talk:SteveWilde

June 2018

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Julian Opie. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Russell Young (artist), you may be blocked from editing. Theroadislong (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, SteveWilde. 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 COI 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, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. freshacconci (✉) 14:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at Maddox Gallery. Theroadislong (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Maddox Gallery. you are strongly advised not to directly edit the article Theroadislong (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strategy

Seriously, dude. What on earth makes you think this is going to turn out well? No one is going to be impressed that you tried unsuccessfully to get a puff piece about the gallery into Wikipedia. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Maddox Gallery. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't like the content I originally posted (even though it was factually correct) and the page makes no sense without the content you don't like - yet I can't delete the page and I can't delete the content, even though the subject of the page (Maddox Gallery) actively wants that to be done. So how, exactly, do I please you people? You (collectively) have accused me of being a shill (I'm not). You've applied, in several instances, a frankly arbitrary interpretation of Wikipedia rules and applied equally arbitrary edits (which, given I actually have permission from the people who created the page to delete its content and you don't, seems to me to fit far more accurately your definition of 'vandalism' than my activity). So please enlighten me - what do I need to do to get this content removed permanently? SteveWilde (talk) 09:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you're a paid shill or not, you are (by your own admission) acting on behalf of the business. That makes it less appropriate for you to edit the article, not more. You seem to have a profoundly flawed understanding of what Wikipedia is. It is not Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, Wix, or eReleases: i.e. a place for a business to publish information about itself, and to delete that if they feel like it isn't serving their purposes. The notion that Wikipedia editors don't have the right to delete content from this article without your (or your boss' or friend's or whatever the relationship is) permission is completely at odds with Wikipedia's purpose.

Since you ask: There is a procedure for proposing the deletion of articles that may not belong on Wikipedia. The decision is made based on consensus of Wikipedia editors, not on the wishes of the subject of the article (or its authorised representative). You can find more information at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. And the "good news" is that – since there has been plenty of doubt expressed that the subject of this article is notable enough to warrant an article about it, there's a very good chance that it will eventually be removed. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SteveWilde, JasonAQuest, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maddox Gallery. By the way, that nomination is based on my own evaluation of the importance of the business (as already discussed on the talk-page), and is not a response to any comment made here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 ~~~~}}. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 10:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]