User talk:Chancellor Tobias

September 2019
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:. MER-C 19:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi MER-C I tried to start a discussion on your talk page but I'm blocked. I believe that's the right protocol, unless I'm wrong, so I'm forced to ping you here instead. Apologies if I'm mistaken about the procedure, this is all very new to me. I was hoping to appeal the indefinite block on my page, as well as the deletion of my article Pocket Aces (Company).

I'm aware Wikipedia has strict policies on advertising and promotional material. As such, I researched all the instruction pages I could find about it and attempted to stick to the rules. If there's any content that seems biased I'm willing to work on it and make any changes required. For the rest of it though, I've cited articles from news publications as well as disclosed that I'm not affiliated with the company but have been contracted to make a Wiki page for them. I was hoping to understand then why you've taken this action. Chancellor Tobias (talk) 08:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The content was full of waffle. But that's beside the point - the very fact that you wrote it makes it promotional. You do not get to make the decision to include articles about your clients.


 * You are expected to be here to improve the encyclopedia. You are blocked because your client commissioned you to edit Wikipedia for marketing purposes. MER-C 10:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to clarify here because I believe I did improve the encyclopedia. The subject of the article itself is a major Indian media corporation with no Wiki presence, though some of its shows are. And though it would technically work for promotional purposes, the same could be said of a page for a brand like Nike or Microsoft for instance. If there's anything that seems off I'm absolutely willing to change or delete, and obviously other editors are free to do that as well. But deleting the whole page as spam though it's cited and corroborated accurately seems excessive.


 * When I read Wikipedia's rules, it said nothing of content not being allowed because it might used for a brand to build a presence. It explicitly said advertising is not okay, which was not present in the article in any way, shape, or form. It was wholly factual, written based off news reporting from over the past few years, with every effort on my part made for it to be unbiased. Indeed I even proactively disclosed that it was something I was paid to do on the article's talk page, as required by Wiki's guidelines. What I don't understand then is why such guidelines exist if they're meant to be ignored when considering the validity of an article. In short, I wasn't contracted to make the company in question look good, just to provide them with a presence where there was none, within the regulations of the platform.


 * Had there been any controversies to report I would have been obliged to let them know that including it would be absolutely necessary. However they're only six years old, and in that time there's been no reportage of scandal, controversy, or legal issues. I feel like I've done my due diligence to make sure this article lives up to Wikipedia's standards and I'm being penalized for the (disclosed) reason for its creation, as opposed to the article itself being honestly evaluated. As such, I'm appealing to you to please reconsider your stance on this and see if the article is informative, factual, and honest in its content. Because if that's the case, it seems like any issue of COI as you've pointed out is moot. Chancellor Tobias (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "Build a presence" = social media marketing = explicitly disallowed. Your actions do not improve the encyclopedia - they do exactly the opposite. Wikipedia readers expect content that is independent, reliable, encyclopedic and written by volunteers. Sponsored content (i.e. advertising) is none of those things. MER-C 19:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

If I may clarify, I'm trying to understand the discrepancy here between the rules as written and as applied here. The Criteria for speedy deletion indicates that deletion is recommended only if an article has to be fundamentally rewritten to conform to a neutral point of view. All anyone keeps saying so far is that it was "blatant promotion", without even mentioning how that is when everything within has been sourced and cited from news articles of major publications based in the same country. Is there a particular part that is promotional that I've missed? Because I wasn't even given a chance to change it, and anyway the speedy deletion shouldn't apply there. Is all of it promotional? Then how is it different from a Wiki page of any company? I even followed a similar flow of construction to fit in with the pages of similar companies and not appear biased. There is even a pre-existing page for its child brand because it's noteworthy enough for it. I'm just failing to understand how all of these conflicting rules and statements lead to here. The page in question might be doomed, but I'm trying to understand whether the core issue here is my writing, or the existence of the page itselfChancellor Tobias (talk) 08:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Only one of your edits (to Draft talk:Pocket Aces) has ever been deleted, and that was simply because it was a bad redirect. Your changes to Pocket Aces were not speedily deleted, they were reverted. If you had created the page from scratch, it would definitely have been a candidate for deletion under criterion G11, but since no G11 speedy deletion took place, your argument is irrelevant. Since you asked, the core issue is your writing, not (necessarily) the subject matter; you may be excellent at writing advertising copy or website content, but you have not demonstrated any ability to write for an encyclopedia - quite the reverse, in fact. Combined with the fact that you are also a paid editor, this is ample reason to prevent you from editing Wikipedia. Yunshui 雲 水 09:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough then about the second bit, but I'm confused what you mean about the first part. The page Pocket Aces (Company) was indeed one I created from scratch, which was subsequently deleted and then redirected back to the poker terms page by someone else. Or am I mistaken about that process somewhere? Chancellor Tobias (talk) 09:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The sequence of events was as follows:
 * You created a page, Pocket Aces (company).
 * Another user, User:CambridgeBayWeather, moved this content to the title Pocket Aces (which was previously a redirect to Glossary of poker terms). Pocket Aces (company) was deleted as a needless redirect.
 * Since the content was blatant advertising, the page Pocket Aces was then converted back into a redirect to Glossary of poker terms.
 * The content you created is therefore still visible in the page history] for Pocket Aces, despite that page now being a redirect. It was never deleted. Yunshui 雲 水 11:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)