User talk:TaylorJ1294

This user has publicly declared that they have a conflict of interest regarding the Wikipedia article Vouchercodes.

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Taylor VoucherCodes, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

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 need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Taylor VoucherCodes. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, 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, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
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 must 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 WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. shoy (reactions) 18:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of VoucherCodes[edit]

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 VoucherCodes, 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. Mean as custard (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of VoucherCodes[edit]

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 VoucherCodes, 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. CNMall41 (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of VoucherCodes[edit]

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 VoucherCodes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. Just Chilling (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

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 ~~~~}}.

– Athaenara ✉ 00:42, 19 July 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).

TaylorJ1294 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have made several contributions to other pages, and the VoucherCodes page that I have added to the project several times has been heavily edited to not promote or advertise the company. It simply gave information about the company and a small bit of its history. This does not deviate from any other company page on the whole of wikipedia, in fact it contained far less information on there than most others. I included a Conflict of Interest disclaimer as I was asked to, and did not include any internal links to pages that weren't relevant to the VoucherCodes page itself. Concerning the edits I have made to other pages, the only one that I believe could be considered promotional in nature is the change on the RetailMeNot page, which was simply an internal link to the VoucherCodes page. Given that RetailMeNot is the parent company of VoucherCodes, this seemed like a natural link to include. None of my contributions to Wikipedia were damaging or disruptive because they would not affect anyone's user experience if they were not intentionally looking for VoucherCodes, and the edits I made to other pages were either to correct information, add researched points or to correct grammar. I understand that my persistence with the VoucherCodes page made it seem as though I was solely looking to promote and advertise, and if I need to make more constant edits to other pages then I will. TaylorJ1294 (talk) 08:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You seem to misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a place to merely tell about a company. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability(in the case of a company, that is written at WP:ORG). Wikipedia has no interest in what a company wants to say about itself or what it considers to be its own history. You won't be unblocked to continue to edit about your company. If you want to edit about other subjects, subjects for which you have no conflict of interest, please tell what those might be along with your agreement to not edit about your company. If all you want to do here is edit about your company, you will not be unblocked, and should consider social media, your company website, or other alternative forums where what you want to do is permitted. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 23 July 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 would add that press releases and routine business announcements are not acceptable for establishing notability; Wikipedia is only interested in what independent sources have chosen on their own to write about a subject. Again, please see WP:ORG. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot. Please explain how the pages like MyVoucherCodes are allowed to remain on the site when ours isn't. From what I can see their content is identical. Is this simply because of who posted the page? TaylorJ1294 (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's part of it. You have a conflict of interest and are probably a paid editor.(please review those links) That page may also likely not be appropriate as well, thanks for pointing it out. It is generally not valid to cite other similar articles as a reason for your own to exist, see WP:OSE. Other similar articles existing does not automatically mean yours can exist too. Each article is judged on its own merits. My 331dot Auto Company that I just created does not merit an article because Ford Motor Company merits one. Not every company merits an article here, even within the same field. One company in a field can meet the special definition of notability we have while another does not. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that this is a volunteer project, and as such it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VoucherCodes has a backlink profile containing examples of thousands of independent, respected news sources (both British and international) speaking in detail about the company. Does this not merit notability?

I don't know what a 'backlink profile' is, but I do know that the sources in the article were not appropriate as they were just routine business announcements or press releases, as I stated. If this 'backlink profile' contains more similar sources, those aren't acceptable either. This is all sorta beside the point as you aren't going to be unblocked to edit about your company. If you want to edit about other subjects, please proceed as I state above. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject meets WP:CORP you should be able to cite content directly to reliable, independent sources. Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:15, 23 July 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).

TaylorJ1294 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand the reason for my block was that I continually tried to edit a page about a company that I work for without significant contribution to other pages. Going forward I will make sure to make meaningful contributions to other pages across the project. I believe that I should be unblocked because the company page that I was trying to publish was not damaging or disturbing to Wikipedia, and with the right editing can pass the criteria for notability (the changes to the references are the only ones I'll make in order to comply with the Conflict of Interest rules). I'm happy to address any questions or other concerns on my talk page. TaylorJ1294 (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You seem to be saying you plan to keep on writing about your company. No, you won't be unblocked to do that. Yamla (talk) 13:53, 20 August 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.

Hi Yamla I'm saying that yes, I will try to publish that page again, however I will continue to make contributions to other pages across Wikipedia. The company page that I'm aiming to publish contains no advertorial or promotional messaging and I have a list of references that should allow it to pass the notability criteria. It will not be damaging or disruptive to the project, and I will leave it relatively bare when published to allow other users to edit it as they see fit (if that will help). TaylorJ1294 (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can't keep other users from editing any article you create, even if you wanted to. You don't seem to understand that merely telling about your company is considered promotional. You don't have to be selling something or actively soliciting customers. I highly doubt any administrator will unblock you without you agreeing to not edit about your company, at least for the time being. 331dot (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

331dot That's exactly the part I don't understand and I can't seem to find anywhere on any of the pages explaining why that is the case. If there is nothing promotional or specifically written in order to solicit customers, and I can prove the notability of the company itself, what is the difference between me writing a page for it and somebody that doesn't work for them? TaylorJ1294 (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is your conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company wants to say about itself(or its representative). Per WP:COI: "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgement about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith. COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and companies being promoted. Editors with a COI are sometimes unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing."

Wikipedia wants people who are here to be general contributors, not advocate for a particular company. If you want to be a general contributor, you will need to tell what other subjects you want to edit about. You might (emphasis on might, it's not guaranteed) be later permitted to make edit requests and use Articles for Creation to indirectly contribute about your company, but to have any chance at that you would need to show that you have been a good general contributor and edited properly. I would say it would need to be six months to a year of edits unrelated to your company or conflict of interest(including your field in general) before you could appeal that restriction- but if you choose to make another request, the reviewer will determine that. 331dot (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]