User talk:Beccasouthcott
July 2019
[edit]Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your contributions. However, I noticed that some of the grammatical edits you're making are not correct. In particular, some of your edits have incorrectly changed "its" to "it's". Because of this, I have reverted those edits. You may find it helpful to review the usage rules for these two words. Thanks, SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Beccasouthcott, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Beccasouthcott! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC) |
July 2019
[edit]
Hello Beccasouthcott. The nature of your edits 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 egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.
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, 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:Beccasouthcott. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Beccasouthcott|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. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. MER-C 17:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)Request for unblock
[edit]
Beccasouthcott (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was blocked for creating promotional content, and being a "spam" account when that is not the case. I am not being paid directly or indirectly by ANYONE to edit or create pages. I am simply only posting about what I know other people find interesting. I do not see how the Bather (clothing brand) article is promotional in anyway. It is providing information about a company that already has a following, and is already recognized by MAJOR publications (GQ, The New York Times, The Globe and Mail, etc). It is backed by genuine sources, and roughly every line of the Wikipedia page is referenced. If you have any constructive criticism on how I can improve my writing going forward (if this block is removed) I'd be happy to hear it. Beccasouthcott (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
That's rather deceptive. See WP:PAID: "Interns, on-loan staff, and unpaid workers, including volunteers, are deemed to be employees. If they are directed or expected to edit Wikipedia as part of their tasks, they must make a paid-contribution disclosure." How you can claim to have personally created the Bather logo and to not be covered by the disclosure requirements escapes me. At the very, very least you have a significant unacknowledged conflict of interest, and of course there's also off-wiki evidence (that I won't disclose here) that connects you to the company. Also, you genuinely don't see how "not making customers choose between practicality and style" or "known for their casual fit, and dynamic prints" is promotional? Huon (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- @Huon: I don't think it's deceptive, because it's the truth. The first line you mention is a quote from an article where the owner describes why Bather was created in the first place. The second is talking about what makes that brand noteworthy and popular. The same way that any clothing brand that exists on wikipedia (because there are a ton, by the way) has a bit of information on why people care about who they are and what they do; it's the "history" of the brand. I did create the image. Bather's logo is from google images, there's an entire website that offers images of surfers for free (unsplash.com), and I am savvy with photoshop. Not that you'd need to be, it's very basic editing. I don't understand how you can block my entire account for an article that has language you could change and/or remove if you feel the need to, and then threaten me with personal information and 0 verification as to whether or not this info actually applies to me. Beccasouthcott (talk) 19:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Telling the world at lengh why the CEO says he created the company is promoting the company. The line about "casual fit and dynamic prints" is not just not supported by the cited source, it's also opinion presented as fact in Wikipedia's voice. Regarding the logo, I'm sorry for assuming that the picture illustrating the article, described as "Bather logo" on Commons, genuinely was the company's logo as opposed to something you made up. I have nominated the image for deletion because in 2017 Unsplash changed their license to something that's no longer compatible with the Commons' requirements. (As an aside, it's quite a coincidence that you found just the image on Unsplash that Bather uses on their About page. I couldn't find it on Unsplash via Google Images. Maybe you could provide a link?)
- You can't quite simultaneously complain that I "threatened you with personal information" and "0 verification as to whether or not this info actually applies" to you. Are you saying that you are not associated with Bather in any way? Pinging Stwalkerster who has reviewed the off-wiki evidence. Huon (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Having seen what Huon is referring to, I can confirm that it would have to be quite an extraordinary circumstance for you to not (currently or previously) have a connection here, and our Terms of Use require declaration of this. Given your apparent attempts to cover this up, it looks to me like you're wilfully choosing to break the Terms of Use. stwalkerster (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I asked Beccasouthcott to disclose their paid status after seeing that off-wiki evidence, and before replying me on my talk page he tried his best to destroy them, but unfortunately, they are still visible on Google. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Having seen what Huon is referring to, I can confirm that it would have to be quite an extraordinary circumstance for you to not (currently or previously) have a connection here, and our Terms of Use require declaration of this. Given your apparent attempts to cover this up, it looks to me like you're wilfully choosing to break the Terms of Use. stwalkerster (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)