User talk:Leslie Wells

Welcome!

Hello, Leslie Wells, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Draft:Incentive Solutions, 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! GPL93 (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Incentive Solutions

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Incentive Solutions, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. GPL93 (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether this account is operated by the same person who operated an earlier account which has been blocked from editing, or by another person working on behalf of the same business. However, either way this account has been used to evade the block on the other account, which is not permitted by Wikipedia policy. This account has therefore been blocked indefinitely from editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} to the bottom of the talk page, replacing the words "Your reason here" with an explanation of how you will edit in future, which must not be promotion of the company you have edited about. However, I strongly recommend that you don't do so without first reading the guide to appealing blocks. JBW (talk) Formerly known as JamesBWatson 20:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

hello! Thank you for proving an explanation for blocking me, however I would like to appeal and request being unblocked as I was mid-conversation with an administrator on their talk page about how to improve an article I created. I respectfully request this block be lifted to allow the constructive dialogue to proceed. Leslie Wells (talk) 20:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. – bradv🍁 02:44, 20 September 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.

I can't speak for Bradv in his reasons for declining your unblock request, but I can give you a few pointers to the kinds of considerations which would be likely to result in any unblock request being declined in the present situation. Firstly, you are unlikely to be unblocked in order to discuss with another editor, as you can do that on this page. The administrator you were "mid-conversation with" is KillerChihuahua. She asked "How exactly is that company notable?" She should get a notification of this message, so she will be aware of what you have said, and she may choose to watch this page to see if you answer her question here.
As for what would be a suitable answer to KillerChihuahua's question, there are, in my opinion, far too many guidelines on what makes a subject "notable" enough to be the topic of a Wikipedia article, and most of them are far too long, making it confusing and intimidating for a new editor. However the two which are relevant in this case are the general notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). You may also find Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations helpful. It is a page of advice which various editors have compiled, rather than an official guideline, but it does collect together various pieces of information relevant to your situation.
I think it is unlikely that any administrator will unblock you unless you show that you understand the guideline on conflict of interest and will comply with it. That guideline does allow you the possibility of creating a draft article about your company and submitting it for review by an experienced independent editor, but it does place restraints on your editing. You also need to explicitly state what your connection is to the company you have written about (e.g. an employee, a marketing contractor, or whatever), and it would also be advisable to state exactly what your connection is to the account Incentive Solutions (e.g. the same person, another employee of the same company working in collaboration with that person, etc). JBW (talk) Formerly known as JamesBWatson 10:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Incentive Solutions

Thanks for pinging me, JBW. Leslie Wells, we can easily continue here. No need for unblock. How exactly does Incentive Solutions meet our notability guidelines? Killer Chihuahua 12:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for writing here! I believe the following sources can contribute to the article's notability, meeting the guidelines for sourcing/verifiable evidence:

Leslie Wells (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reformatted the links, and changed from a bulleted to a numbered list, for ease of discussion. I hope you don't mind my editing your post. If so, please feel free to revert me. Killer Chihuahua 18:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all - much better! Thank you. Leslie Wells (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite welcome.

Ok, the naming of a new CEO, for example, does not make a company notable. How do any of these links show the notability of the company? (Please refer to the links by number and do not repost the links, thank you so much!) Killer Chihuahua 18:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers 2-6 and 8 are all guest articles authored by Incentive Solutions executives, who were considered to be expert sources by these notable publications. Thank you, again!

Leslie Wells (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then they're not helpful, we can strike them. They're promotional; they're by Incentive Solutions (or its personnel) and not about Incentive Solutions. So you have 1, which is the one I knocked out first, and 7. 7 is self-published, a promo or press release type piece. What you need to provide is multiple sources which meet our reliable sources guideliness which are not by anyone associated with Incentive Solutions, which name Incentive Solutions, and which describe the company or mention it in some way that makes it clear the company is notable. You don't have that. Killer Chihuahua 20:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! The following are non press release/promotional mentions that I hope can work as reliable sources:

Leslie Wells (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]