User talk:Jacobmcpherson

Welcome

Hello, Jacobmcpherson! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! ♫ Douglasr007 (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images • create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

February 2021

Hello, Jacobmcpherson. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page IAMSOUND, 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 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 WP:Spam);
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.--Renat 10:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion request

I've removed (i.e. denied) your Third Opinion request. I can't find anywhere that you're having a dispute with another editor over the things that you listed in that request. More significantly, I can't find a place that any such dispute has been thoroughly discussed on a talk page, which is one of the prerequisites for obtaining a Third Opinion (discussion via edit summaries does not substitute for talk page discussion). Just to get questions answered about the topics you mentioned, rather than dispute resolution, consider the No Original Research Noticeboard and the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries are especially important when you are tagging pages for deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/TFD/CFD/etc.). Please always note what you've done in a brief edit summary. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moving PAID articles directly to article space

Hello. What was the reason for moving Neil Krug directly to article space? Have you read our paid editing advice? To quote that, "you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly". Please use AFC in future. Thanks.--- Possibly (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for Corbu (band). You moved it to article space here.--- Possibly (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

and another.--- Possibly (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did use the process and waited before publishing the article Jacobmcpherson (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see your use of AFC at all in the above links. It's not a matter of "waiting". We do not want paid editors moving articles to article space on their own. Paid editors are also requested to use the talk page for changes to articles with which they have a COI. Can you commit to that in future?--- Possibly (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry who's "we" - is this a consensus based decision? Jacobmcpherson (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"we" is the community consensus, per WP:COI and WP:PAY. I think we need more editors to have a look at your paid editing, so I will refer this discussion to WP:COIN shortly. --- Possibly (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. --- Possibly (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC) Okay, sounds good. I think there needs to be more discussion around paid editors in general, considering I work in a different way than what Wikipedia implies. I do not automatically publish what people ask me to write, and there's often a lot of back and forth with people I publish for. Thanks for opening the dialog Jacobmcpherson (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About administrators

The person who moved Neil Krug to Draft Justlettersandnumbers is a kind of special user we call an administrator. They generally know what they are doing, and have been vetted by the community. It is usually strongly inadvisable to revert their edits.--- Possibly (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the consensus come into play with this?Jacobmcpherson (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems clear that you are ignoring our WP:PAY consensus, so I guess it comes into play there. --- Possibly (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the consensus on that? We're having a discussion about it. I never disagreed with anything. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BY ,way of explanation, this is how Wikipedia works. We allow paid editors, but we have guidelines (WP:PAY and WP:COI) that we would like you to follow. When you step too far over the line (towards promotion and non-neutral actions) by editing articles directly, moving articles to mainspace on your own, removing maintenance templates, reverting moves to draft etc, you run a strong risk of being blocked, as happened below. If you stay within the guidelines, which are admittedly strict, you don't get blocked.--- Possibly (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Krug moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Neil Krug, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. --- Possibly (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I was trying to get clarification on Terms of Service, but was blocked instead

Accept reason:

Modified to partial and discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Appeal of partial block from article space by Wikipedia Paid Editor Jacobmcpherson. –xeno^talk 13:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I've modified this block to allow the user to seek additional clarification per Special:Diff/1011705716. At present, the block from editing articles remains in place, though I'm not sure Request reason remains applicable, and the partial block could be appealed at WP:AN. The block modification should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the block. –xeno^talk 15:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobmcpherson: With the modification I've made above, the block from editing articles placed by Justlettersandnumbers remains in place; they mentioned in Special:Diff/1011705716 they were seeking certain acknowledgements. At present, you can post to their talk page or the linked thread. Wikipedia:Partial blocks are also appealable at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Please let me know if you have any questions or require assistance. –xeno^talk 16:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the request to accepted, you remain partially blocked from article space for which there is an ongoing appeal at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Appeal of partial block from article space by Wikipedia Paid Editor Jacobmcpherson. –xeno^talk 13:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kim Anh for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kim Anh is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Anh until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.