User talk:Jrose6

Welcome. I just wanted to make sure you noticed the message on Talk:Moshav Matityahu. Thanks! --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 05:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Marketing Action Optimization

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 Marketing Action Optimization requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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 verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. CharlieDelta (talk) 09:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why the article was deleted

While not all the material in Marketing Action Optimization was a direct copy and paste, far too much of it was. --SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additions of http://.optimove.com

Please stop. If you continue spamming Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.--Hu12 (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Hello Jrose6. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic. 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 egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a black hat practice.

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, and if it does not, 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, 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:Jrose6. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Jrose6|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. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. Citobun (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for using Wikipedia for advertising or promotional purposes. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2016 (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).

Jrose6 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I consider this block unreasonable and unfair. I am a careful Wikipedia editor and I do not use Wikipedia to promote commercial interests. I simply provided articles or edits to articles covering topics which were not previously covered. Did you review all my edits before reaching your hasty conclusion? Only purely factual information was included in my edits. Furthermore, external/objective references were included to support statements as per Wikipedia's policies. I accept that you may not have liked my style and you made mention of this on the specific article pages, which is appropriate. Blocking my account is unjustified, abusive and contributes to Wikipedia's reputation as an elitist system unwilling to be fair and objective to occasional users. I am not an employee of Optimove, but I know a lot about the company and thus maintained an article about it - what is wrong with that? How can someone with no knowledge of a company write about it? Nothing was promotional/sales oriented, just the facts, supported by numerous external references. I respectfully request that you (1) restore the Optimove page, and (2) unblock my account and if you feel that some particular contribution of mine is in violation of Wikipedia's policies, then say so on the particular page, without resorting to unjust, vindictive and heavy-handed measures. Jrose6 (talk) 09:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The Optimove article was written in pure marketing speak (one clue is the word "leverages" in the very first sentence - nobody outside of marketing departments actually speaks like that). Also, you were spamming links to it in the "See also" sections of multiple articles, disguised by piping to look like generic titles (eg "[[Optimove|Customer retention software]]". This really does look like a blatant promotional effort to me. That might not be your intent, and it really does surprise me how many marketing people really seem to think that the world speaks and acts the same way they do - but either way, your approach is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:00, 7 March 2016 (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 just checked your article Marketing Action Optimization, which was deleted as a copyright violation, and in addition to that problem it was written in marketing speak too. Marketing copy, even if it isn't a copyright violation, has no place in an encyclopedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and it was taken from guess where? Yes, the Optimove site. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]