User talk:Oakpont

Article creation

Regarding creating Bell Resources at the current redirect: Wikipedia is not a business directory. If you really want to create a good article, follow the procedure at WP:AFC so the article can benefit from the usual quality review process for new articles. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bell Resources Limited (August 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MassiveYR 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:Bell Resources Limited and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• 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.

MassiveYR ♠ 19:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Oakpont, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! MassiveYR ♠ 19:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you doing paid editing?

Hello Oakpont. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, especially if you represent oakpont.com, but that 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 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, 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:Oakpont. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Oakpont|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. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

As per the above comment, what you removed smelled very much of paid editing. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Seriously!! I am trying to correct mistakes on Wikipedia and all I get is a lot of road blocks and attempts to discredit legitimate edits. No I am not getting any remuneration for these edits. I am doing this from my home and at night in my own personal time. By the amount of articles and time you spend on Wikipedia perhaps this a question I should be asking of you - Is this your paid work? You seem to have it in personally for me just because I am new and only have 1 topic ... Why? This is so pointless and I have wasted so much time trying to update basic information on on a single notable topic that I have knowledge about that is so outdated and incorrect. I should be asking what is your agenda in not updating the information to be correct? Explain that one to me !! In 1990, Bell Resources Ltd changed its name to Australian Consolidated Investments Limited. The company name Bell Resources has not been the legal company name for over 26 years! During 1999, Australian Consolidated Investments Limited was suspended from official quotation on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX). In 2002, the company change its status from a public company to a propriety limited company. The Bell Group Ltd (The Bell Group) is the parent company of Australian Consolidated Investments Limited. These are facts. You can not dispute this information as this is what has occured in the corporate history - Refer to ASIC if you want to verify my detail. --Oakpont (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Correcting details is fine - but removing details of The Bell Group collapse is incredibly suspicious given your editing history and will be reverted. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Oakpont. While your efforts to improve the article are appreciated, what you are actually doing is not OK. You are adding unsourced content (based on your personal knowledge), and the actual content has a strong point of view. So it is pretty obvious to experienced editors like Bri, Drovers Wife, and me, that you have some connection with The Bell Group. Whether you are being paid to edit for them (which -- although it is surprising to you to be be asked - is actually very common and not an unreasonable question for Bri to have asked) or you work for them, or you used to work for them. Or something.

We have a policy about paid editing, and we also have a conflicts of interest guideline, and both of them call for editors to disclose any connection they have to the subject matter they are editing. They also have additional steps to managing the COI, but it starts with disclosure.

So - would you please disclose your connection with the company, so we can help you get oriented to working in Wikipedia? Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Bell Resources Limited concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Bell Resources Limited, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Bell Resources Limited

Hello, Oakpont. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Bell Resources Limited".

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. HasteurBot (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)