User talk:Jay Bestille

Draft Moved

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Remote Dielectric Sensing, from its old location at User:PalmandMarsh/sandbox. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 04:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Your username - RESOLVED

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. This is a message to let you know that your username, "PalmandMarsh", may not comply with Wikipedia's username policy. Please note that the following types of usernames are prohibited:

• Promotional usernames: Those that match the name of a company, organization, group, website or product (e.g. "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", "Foobar Museum of Art"). However, you are allowed to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you personally (e.g. "Jack Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", "FoobarFan87").
• Usernames implying shared use: Those that directly imply shared access between people (e.g. "Jack and Jill's Account"), or match names of posts within groups or organizations (e.g. "Secretary of the XY Foundation").
• Misleading usernames: Those that contain suffixes like "bot" or "script" and imply an account is that of an automated bot when it is not, or titles like "admin" or "sysop" (implying a position of authority), or match names of living people that you are not, such as famous living people. If you are a famous person editing under your real name and your account is blocked from editing, please note that this is not to discourage you from editing, but rather to prevent any potentially damaging impersonation of you.
• Offensive and disruptive usernames: Those that contain words or phrases that are likely to offend other contributors, directly threaten or attack another person or some entity, contain contentious material about living persons, or otherwise imply you do not intend to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia (e.g. "JohnIsAJerk", "WannabeWikipediaVandal").

For more information, see Wikipedia's username policy.

Please also note that Wikipedia does not allow accounts to be shared by multiple people, and that you may not advocate for or promote any company, group, organization, product, website, person or other entity, nor do we tolerate any other 'bad faith' editing such as trolling or other disruptive behavior, regardless of your username. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. If you do not understand which part of the policy your username may be violating, please don't hesitate to ask. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing this form, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. Adog (Talk・Cont) 18:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

A request to rename PalmandMarsh was made 12/14/2018

Conflict of interest and paid editing - RESOLVED

Hello, Jay Bestille. 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. Melcous (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for declaring your paid editing. I have moved your disclosure to your user page which is where it belongs. Also note that in future, rather than directly editing any articles you are being paid to edit (or have any other conflict of interest with), you are asked to propose changes on the talk page where other editors can review them first. This is most easily done using the Template:Request edit. Thank you, Melcous (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me to this policy's disclosure requirements and I have complied wholeheartedly. Jay Bestille (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate your effort in complying! Just to note, while the disclosures of paid editing should go on the talk page of the relevant article, they should go on your user page rather than this talk page. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: ASVOD (December 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AngusWOOF was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:ASVOD and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:ASVOD, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Jay Bestille! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Jay Bestille, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Video on demand have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:16, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Gennaro Brooks-Church has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Gennaro Brooks-Church. Thanks! Catrìona (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gennaro Brooks-Church has been accepted

Gennaro Brooks-Church, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Filestack (December 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DavidWestT was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Filestack and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Filestack, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DavidWestT (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

January 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Gennaro Brooks-Church, you may be blocked from editing.

It's hard to take your efforts at editing neutrally seriously when you call your clients "pioneers". Grayfell (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Do not create or edit COI articles yourself.

Wikipedia is, primarily, a volunteer project. We do not give special attention to unpaid edits, because we assume that everyone here is unpaid. Almost all editors are presummed to be volunteers working to to build an encyclopedia. Your careful declaration of which edits are not paid is a big red flag that you don't understand what Wikipedia is and how it works. Because Wikipedia's mission is fundamentally incompatible with promotion, advertising, public relations, "personal branding" etc. we have strict guidelines for how paid editing is regarded. Unfortunately, you appear to have been ignoring several of these guidelines. Yes, you have disclosed your paid edits, but this is not sufficient.

You should not be creating articles yourself. You should go through WP:AFC for every article for which you have a COI. No exceptions. Understand?

Similarly the only edits you should be making to COI articles are reverts of vandalism which are completely non-controversial. Substantial edits should be proposed on the article's talk page through Template:Request edit or similar. Understand?

If you can follow these guidelines, you might be able to contribute productively. If you cannot do this, you will be blocked as a spammer, and the project will be better off without you. Please respond here demonstrating that you understand these issues. Grayfell (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Greyfell for this assistance! I am still learning and your guidance will be much appreciated. If you could help me with some of these issues you brought to my attention I would be grateful. I appreciate your understanding that there is a fairly steep learning curve here, but I am trying my best.

Please understand, in the most respectful way possible, that my employer includes Wiki contributions as part of a larger package of services, and I was tasked with the effort...so I am sincerely trying to follow policies as closely as possible and not cause problems. I appreciate your professional response to my mistakes as you certainly understand I do not want to be 'blocked' and am not trying to offend anyone.

I try to vet the subjects as best I can and turn down 99% of the clients requesting an article because they do not have the required variables. The ones I do accept seem, to me anyway, have legitimate notoriety or subject matter which deserves an article, and would be interesting to the readers. I have some articles declined and understand that is a part of the learning process.

If you could mentor me a bit with a couple clarifications I would be most grateful:

UNPAID EDITS: When I started contributing, I had only declared paid edits - not the unpaid ones. However, what I found was that editors would then accuse my unpaid edits as COI conflict. Thus I declare the unpaid ones in the description of the edit and on my talk page. I then never received another COI warning. Thus, I was under the assumption, right or wrong, that editors likes my declarations.

COI CONTRIBUTIONS: I in fact use the article editor your reference WP:AFC and click Are You Being Paid button. After that it takes over. I am not intentionally trying to thwart the policies but just not always sure what is 'right' or 'wrong' sometimes. As for edits of articles, I do use the request changes most of the time, but I will make sure that I use the request template consistently going forward. I don't mind that method and find that the request is address quickly so I'm good with it.

SANDBOX DRAFTS: I tried this method for one contribution, and it was moved to DRAFT be an editor. I also have a scientific contribution in draft form. However, they have been in review for some time. I do realize there is much to get through for the editors - understood. But when I created an article bypassing the draft status, incorrectly I now understand, It was approved/disapproved quickly. Thus you can understand my motivation to use that method. I also notice that antonymous contributions are addressed quickly. Going forward, is there anything I can do to accelerate the review process of my drafts which is the appropriate procedure to use? I have heard from others that some editors have a major bias against paid editors and I certainly hope that's not the case.

PRIOR PUBLISHING ATTEMPTS: I recently contributed an article (musician) but the page was deleted due to a previous failed publishing attempt I was unaware of - even after an extensive search I did not find the previous. If I had known about the previous attempt, I would not have wasted my time. Is there a way to find these previous attempts in another area on the platform I am not aware of?

Again, thank you for this assistance Greyfell, as I feel fairly alone in learning this process. TIA! Jay Bestille (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

It's hard for me to determine which of these I should answer, since you're asking me to teach you a lot of information which has already been explained through links posted to your talk page.

Without specific examples, I can only speculate why anyone else accused you of having a COI, but your editing style is non-neutral, and includes many PR-style word choices. See WP:TONE as a start.

You, as a COI editor, are not impartial in deciding which articles belong and which don't. These things take time specifically because you have to wait for volunteers to get to them. Be patient.

I assume the draft you are talking about is Draft:Happy Perez. When you created that article, a big red box explained that an article with that title had already been deleted. Slow down and read what you are being told.

That article wasn't moved solely because it had already been deleted, although that was plenty. It was moved because the sources were very poor, and probably also because of the COI. Again, repeatedly bypassing Wikipedia's guidelines, even if its only out of impatience, will get you blocked.

If you have further questions, please make them brief and specific. Grayfell (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. It was not Happy Parez but I understand that one had a history before I came along. Specifically, how do I search for past deleted articles? Jay Bestille (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

So... am I training you on how to bypass Wikipedia's policies? Why, exactly, would I want to do that? Yes, some editors have a major bias against paid editors, this is absolutely the case, and I consider myself one of them. Did you stop to think about why this might be a problem? Please take a look at Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia for just a tiny taste of the headaches and hassles this causes. Editors, including myself, have been sued and doxxed and worse over COI editing, so we take this seriously even if you do not.

Do you understand that Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion? This is not rhetorical, I would like an answer to this. Again, fundamentally, Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion. If you try and game the system to get around this, it's only going to make things worse for everyone, both Wikipedia's volunteers, and for Lucid Management or whoever hired you.

Pages are not deleted exclusively because a previous version was already deleted. They are deleted because a previous version was deleted but also the original reason it was deleted had not been addressed. Typically this means that an article was deleted due to poor sources, and the new version doesn't include enough better sources, or both versions fail to explain why a topic is encyclopedic (per WP:N). There may be some other exceptions, such as if sock puppetry is involved, but generally articles are judged on their own merits.

So with that in mind, why do you want to search through deleted articles? As a random, recently deleted example, Shyam Ganesh was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shyam Ganesh. If you go to that page, it will explain that it was deleted. If you type that name in the search box, it will link to that page which will also explain that the article was deleted. If you need more than that, you will need to explain why. Grayfell (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Full compliance with WP:PAID

@Jay Bestille: irrespective of the discussion above, please note that, if you wish to operate as a paid editor on Wikipedia, you must fully comply with WP:PAID. You are off to a good start at User_talk:Jay_Bestille#Disclosed_Paid_contributions:, but you have to go further; If you have been hired and paid via a website (Upwork, Freelancer), you must disclose it. If you—as is implied by your "package" comment—are employed by a company in the course of your editing, you must disclose it. In short, you must disclose the names of any and every employer, client, and affiliate you are connected to, per WP:PAID. Please understand also that complete transparency is your best course of action, for while Wikipedia is built around the idea of WP:AGF, I am noting from this page, COIN, and the Teahouse that your goodwill is being worn thin. Best.--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

A sockpuppet investigation is underway at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Particularinstance. You are invited to comment, and note that this is an investigation and not an indication of any wrongdoing on your part.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Angelo De Augustine (January 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Angelo De Augustine and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Angelo De Augustine, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 09:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Copyright violation in Draft:Remote Dielectric Sensing

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to the page Draft:Remote Dielectric Sensing, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition was deleted under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text—which means allowing other people to modify it—then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later, and the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License." You may also e-mail or mail the Foundation to release the content. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more.

While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page.—Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Filestack

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.

In fact there was no copyright on the referenced source, and we had permissions to use verbatim. This action seems to have ulterior motive per 'editor' Grayfell. This notice and 'user' or 'editor' Fuhghettaboutit will be noted in actions taken outside this public forum. 1/28/2019 via representation by counsel.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Filestack, 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. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

This actions above 'ReDS & Filestack' seems to have ulterior motive per 'editor' Grayfell. This notice and 'users' or 'editors' DGG & Fuhghettaboutit will be noted in actions taken outside this public forum. 1/28/2019 via representation by counsel.

1/28/2019 - Page being copied/referenced for a complaint filed at the Pinellas County Clerk's office via legal representation.

Please read WP:NLT Melcous (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

I've revoked your access to this talk page for the above postings violating WP:NLT; you can appeal your block through WP:UTRS, however until at the minimum you withdraw such legal action/threats you will not be allowed to edit here. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Angelo De Augustine

Hello, Jay Bestille. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Angelo De Augustine".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Gennaro Brooks-Church for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gennaro Brooks-Church is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gennaro Brooks-Church until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Meeanaya (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)