User talk:Prestonwood

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, please come to the Newcomers help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. PaulShanks^talk 03:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Jack Graham Official.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jack Graham Official.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Prestonwood. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Prestonwood Baptist Church, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI 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 COI 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. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:31, 24 September 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

Do not understand why this account was blocked in June of 2022 after not having posted for quite a while and only making simple, factual edits Prestonwood (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

So I'm seeing a few issues here, which I will list in no particular order.

Your username is that of your church, which violates the username policy as accounts are for individuals only, which must be indicated by the username. You don't need to use your real name(we discourage it, in fact) but you need to use something individualistic. Something like "JohnPublic of PBC" would be acceptable.
You are editing about your church directly, in violation of the conflict of interest policy; edits should be done indirectly, as formal edit requests on the article talk page(Talk:Prestonwood Baptist Church) If you are an employee of the church, or compensated in any manner for this work(doesn't have to be money) the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure.
Getting to the block itself, I can believe that you have no other accounts. However, if someone else at your church(with or without your knowledge) is editing about it, this would be what in Wikipedia jargon is called meat puppetry. The investigation of this matter(linked to in the block log) says that would be a definite possibility.

You will need to tell us a new username that you want to change your username to(and make sure a single person is exclusively operating this account), tell us how your future edits will be consistent with the policies I describe here, and tell any other topics unrelated to your church that you might edit about as a general contributor. I am declining your request, you may make another for someone else to review, in which you address these points. 331dot (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2022 (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.

Please help unblock this account. Was just about to make a couple simple edits of staff changes and could not believe this account was blocked after not having posted in months. Just reviewed the notes and there are not multiple accounts being used here under any scenario so very confused here. Prestonwood (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

Need another review please I still don't understand here please help. I'm fine changing my username to anything you want...how about PBCGuy? As stated previously I haven't posted in months and was just going to make a minor edit to a staff position change and found that the account was blocked and false accusations were made without warning or ability to defend by a more savvy Wiki user than me. This can't be how this is supposed to operate Prestonwood (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2022 (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. Yamla (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2022 (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've fixed the formatting of your request; all edits should be placed in the larger edit window, not the smaller section header/edit summary window. You can avoid creating section headers by clicking "edit" and not "new section" ar the top of this page(in full desktop mode). 331dot (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your chance to defend is now. Please address the points I made above(other than your username which you did address). 331dot (talk) 14:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So just to make sure I understand the policy is to block someone (and the IP address for the church/organization in question from what I'm told) using false info prior to any process for defense? I really find this hard to believe. And I'm sorry but still don't understand what I'm supposed to say. I'm happy to follow any and all policies and I have nothing to do with any other accounts being accused of. Our church has over 50,000 members with hundreds "working from home" in our cafe and lunch room daily so our IP address is used by hundreds every day and to unilaterally block our IP is not rightPrestonwood (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]