User talk:Scott free0011

Paid editing

Hello Scott free0011. 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 serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

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. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged 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:Scott free0011. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Scott free0011|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. Theroadislong (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being paid for the edits. Scott free0011 (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing again

As previously advised, your edits give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, 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:Scott free0011, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Scott free0011|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No paid editing. Scott free0011 (talk) 13:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

Hello, Scott free0011, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as Quailmail (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest guideline

Hi. I'm interested in the staged photographs featuring members of the Harris County Board of Education, which you uploaded here. You explain above that you are not being paid to edit Wikipedia, so I'd ask you to consider Wikipedia guidelines on conflicts of interest, particularly in relation to edits on the article about Eric Dick (lawyer) , President of the Harris County Board of Education, who features prominently in your photographs.

Can you confirm you are not editing articles relating to yourself, or people you work for, or are personally acquainted with? Your contributions on the article talk page are reassuringly focused on complying with Wikipedia policies, so I'm sure you'll be happy to remove any question of your edits not being in line with guidelines in this matter.

And how did you come to own the copyright on these photos?

Thanks. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your inquiry and for raising these important points regarding Wikipedia's guidelines on conflicts of interest (COI) and copyright.

Addressing the Conflict of Interest

First, I want to confirm that I am fully committed to adhering to Wikipedia's COI guidelines. I am not editing articles about myself, people I work for, or anyone with whom I have a personal or professional relationship. My goal is to contribute to Wikipedia by improving content, ensuring accuracy, and complying with Wikipedia's policies, including neutrality and verifiability.

I understand the importance of transparency in Wikipedia editing, and I appreciate your vigilance in ensuring that editors maintain impartiality. My contributions are focused solely on enhancing the quality of the articles based on reliable sources and public domain materials, with no personal interest or connection influencing the content.

Public Domain Status of the Photos

Regarding the staged photographs featuring members of the Harris County Board of Education, including Eric Dick, these images are indeed public domain. The reason they are not protected by copyright is that they were created by a government entity—in this case, by employees or contractors working for the Harris County Department of Education or a similar government body.

Under U.S. copyright law, any work produced by government employees as part of their official duties is automatically placed in the public domain. This means that these photos are freely available for public use, including on platforms like Wikipedia, without any copyright restrictions.

Conclusion

I hope this explanation clarifies both my adherence to Wikipedia's COI guidelines and the public domain status of the photographs. My intent is to contribute to Wikipedia in a manner that aligns with its standards and policies, ensuring that all content is accurate, neutral, and appropriately sourced. If you have any further concerns or questions, I’m happy to discuss them. Thank you again for your diligence in upholding Wikipedia’s integrity. Scott free0011 (talk) 01:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You did not upload these images on that basis. You uploaded them claiming that you owned copyright on them. You also haven't explained how you came by them. If they are in the public domain, where? If they are in the public domain, as you claim, then please amend the licensing information on these images. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 05:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eric_Dick_HCDE.png#mw-jump-to-license

this one Bjan Anders (talk) 04:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, these are all your uploads and you claim to have taken all these photos? https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Scott_free0011 Bjan Anders (talk) 04:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed. These photos are uploaded correctly. Scott free0011 (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you then explain how you, someone with no personal or professional connection to the subjects in your photos, were taking a staged photo at a private "board retreat" for the HCDE? Why did you also previously claim they were "by employees or contractors working for the Harris County Department of Education or a similar government body", if their copyright actually belongs to you? Can you understand why your explanations are being greeted with scepticism? Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These events are open to the public. You just stand in line and take photos. They post the dates, times, and locations many days in advance. It's really not as complicated as you are making it. Scott free0011 (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott free0011, I've just had a look at the history of Talk:Eric Dick (lawyer). Independently of whether you have, or believe to have, a conflict of interest, your contributions and your focus on this specific biography have been disruptive, with the completely article-talk-page-incompatible Special:Diff/1239352285 perhaps being the most illustrative example, and lengthy discussion responses to simple concerns voiced by others, such as the 7000-character response in Special:Diff/1242856407, or the use of unformatted sub-headings in your 01:02 message above. To avoid any misunderstanding: The lack of formatting isn't the main issue with this excessively formal, wordy writing style.

You may be blocked from editing or topic banned from editing and discussing biographical articles or Eric Dick if you continue to strain the volunteer community's most valuable resource, time, in this way. Keep it concise, accept disagreements and disengage where possible. For most purposes, especially WP:COITALK, the conflict of interest guideline's advice does clearly apply to your editing independently of your perception or contrary statements. If it helps you to avoid a block or topic ban, read WP:COI with the assumption of having a conflict of interest regarding Eric Dick. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Lacey Hull, Eric Dick (lawyer), Jared Woodfill, and Harris County Department of Education) for BLP violations, COI editing.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that you have been using Wikipedia to further the career of some people (which is bad) at the expense of others (which is even worse). Your COI edits on the Dick article are clear, and just a bit of digging shows that you have been whitewashing Jared Woodfill, who is an ally of Dick, and have committed a serious BLP violation on Lacey Hull, whom Woodfill tried to unseat. And to clinch the point on Dick, there's this edit, with its horrible sourcing.
I don't know why I haven't just blocked you altogether; another admin may still do that. I haven't had coffee yet this morning, maybe that's it. But I promise you that if your behavior on article talk pages continues to be as poor as it was (see the note by ToBeFree above, that's only a matter of time. Drmies (talk) 13:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]