User talk:Jamesyessayan

November 2019

Hello Jamesyessayan. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Glenglassaugh distillery, 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:Jamesyessayan. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Jamesyessayan|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. Longhair\^talk 11:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As previously advised, your edits give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Glenglassaugh distillery, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:Jamesyessayan, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Jamesyessayan|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. Longhair\^talk 11:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not responded or taken action to the inquiry regarding your appearance as an undisclosed paid editor. If you make any additional edits without complying you may be blocked from editing. Longhair\^talk 11:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning if you make any further edits without responding to the inquiry you received regarding undisclosed paid editing. Longhair\^talk 11:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Longhair: I have no financial stake in the Glenglassaugh distillery, I'm just a keen whisky enthusiast who felt that the page required updating . Jamesyessayan (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamesyessayan: Some observations... this account was created shortly after the block imposed upon another account editing similar articles in a similar fashion, namely BrownFormanSMWhisky (talk · contribs). Further, your username matches the exact name of a digital marketing firm with alcohol related projects, even mentioning a recent campaign as being White Walker by Johnnie Walker. Not only are you lying about your paid editing status, but I suspect you have also engaged in block evasion by creating this account to bypass the block mentioned earlier. Since you're not willing to be honest I have no option but to block this account and launch sockpuppet investigations should similar edits continue to the articles concerned. You had ample warning to cease editing and engage in conversation but chose to continue editing and ignore all attempts at discussion. -- Longhair\^talk 11:44, 8 November 2019 (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 ~~~~}}. Longhair\^talk 11:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Longhair: I'm completely open to admitting that i created the BrownFormanSMWhisky account. Only because the distillery image i was planning on uploading was owned by Brown-Forman (I'm still very new to the wiki guidelines). Regarding the accusation of my site and paid editing status, if you further investigated you would notice that Johnnie Walker is actually owned by Diageo a rival brand to Glenglassaugh. In addition that work commissioned on a single project basis and is not ongoing.

@Longhair: More than happy to refrain from editing until i've fully grasped the Wiki community guidelines

@Jamesyessayan:So you're still denying any paid editing status? As for your edits under the BrownFormanSMWhisky account, they're far more than simply adding a photo. The issue isn't who owns Johnnie Walker, a previous client of yours, I mentioned that to indicate promotional paid work similar to what you're engaging in now. This is your Twitter page, and you operate a digital marketing firm We've seen this all before and heard all the excuses. I'll leave you with the information concerning paid editing so you can consider where to go from here. One last thing... the issue of the block upon your previous account will need to be dealt with also in addition to the issues I've raised here. -- Longhair\^talk 12:07, 8 November 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

Claims that I have a financial stake in Glenglassaugh are completely unfounded and purely assumptions. Blocks should be implemented on evidence and hard facts, not hearsay. In addition instances such as these should be assessed on a case by case basis. Stating that "We've seen this all before and heard all the excuses" unfortunately doesn't legitimatise any claims. Jamesyessayan (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have not addressed your use of other accounts. There also seems to be plenty of evidence of paid editing, and your statement just attacks the process and not the merits. Please address the concerns you have been asked to. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2019 (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.