User talk:JackTowersLUFC

September 2019
There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group or a web site, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing. Additionally, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you to edit.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In that reason, you must:
 * Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
 * Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block. To do so, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the text at the bottom of your talk page, replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason for thinking that the block was an error, and publish the page. 331dot (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

If you don't see how you have a conflict of interest and think that the conflict of interest policy does not apply to you, you have no pathway to being unblocked. If you are "the only person with knowledge" about this subject, your edits are not valid for Wikipedia, as Wikipedia exists to summarize what independent reliable sources state, not to say what the subject wants to say about itself. Wikipedia treats non-profit organizations no differently than for-profit organizations. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What I am editing is nothing to do with what the subject "wants" to say about itself. I am editing things like our previous Cup winners from last season which is something only someone from our organisation is going to know, independent sources won't have a clue! I literally have no idea what the issue is at all. I am not doing anything for profit or promotional gain, nor will I do so in the future! I am editing facts about Sussex County FA as an organisation. For instance, the year the organisation was formed was wrong, I edited that to the correct year, how on earth does that mean I am writing what the organisation want to say about itself? That is simply the true history of the company! I will never be editing the page to portray the organisation as what you are suggesting. I am editing nothing but true facts of the organisation and I do hope you will reconsider your position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackTowersLUFC (talk • contribs)
 * I have removed the unblock request formatting, as you only need one open request. Subsequent comments should be standard, unformatted comments like this one I am typing.  Someone else will review your request, but I highly doubt you will find someone willing to unblock you if you are going to continue to edit within your conflict of interest.  It is not about profit or gain of any kind; it is about neutral point of view. Please review WP:COI(again, if you have already) which explains this. 331dot (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I will emphasize from WP:COI: "COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and companies being promoted. Editors with a COI are sometimes unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing". 331dot (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

And I am trying to tell you that there is no COI because all I am editing is FACTS about the company it is NOT opinion based.
 * That doesn't matter. Donald Trump or Boris Johnson cannot edit about themselves directly even if they pledge to be nonbiased about themselves. COI is not about what you are doing, but what you are associated with. As long as you continue to not listen to this, I can safely say that no administrator will unblock you. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Am I just outright not allowed to edit that page full stop or is there a right answer you are looking for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackTowersLUFC (talk • contribs)
 * You should not edit within your conflict of interest directly. There are indirect ways to do so- usually through formal edit requests- but for that to be permitted, you need to show that you are interested in editing subjects outside of your conflict of interest as a general Wikipedia contributor. Are there other subjects that you want to edit about?  Or are you just here as a representative of Sussex County FA?(formally or just by association)  To be unblocked, most administrators will tell you that you will need to agree to not directly edit about Sussex County FA and tell what other subjects you are interested in editing about, like (for example) World War II, George Washington, your country's history, etc.  If you have no interest in editing about other subjects, you probably are not going to be unblocked. 331dot (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Your organization is free to have its own website and social media accounts(if it doesn't already) where you can post up-to-date current information, and even encourage fans/readers to look at it for current information as opposed to the Wikipedia article about Sussex County FA, which is meant to be written by independent editors with a neutral point of view. 331dot (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay I'm glad you've confirmed to me that Wikipedia is happy having factually incorrect pages! That's all I wanted to know :)
 * We're not, but it needs to be done in the proper manner. We don't want editors with a conflict of interest editing articles related to it.  Imagine Donald Trump or Boris Johnson editing(either directly or through a representative) their own articles.  That severely damages the neutral point of view we are supposed to have. We're trying to help you understand this, but you need to meet us halfway. 331dot (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I've been trying to meet you halfway, I understand about the conflict of interest I will not continue to edit that page but it's extremely frustrating when everything I edited was not biased it was basic edits that corrected out of date material.

Having reviewed one unblock request, I will leave the latest one for another administrator, so that you get an independent review. However, I will say a few things in the hope that they may to help to clarify some points.
 * Unfortunately, what you say above, far from confirming that you "completely get what [I am] saying", clearly shows that you don't. Indeed, I am puzzled as to how you can reconcile that statement with also saying "I seriously don't understand at all how what I am doing is wrong".
 * Writing to make something appear good, noble, or worthwhile is editing to promote it or to promote its public image, whether or not the purpose of doing so is for "gain". If I went to the article Jane Austen and wrote "Jane Austen was one of the greatest writers of English language novels ever, and I can heartily recommend reading them" then that would be promoting her reputation, and promoting a point of view. Clearly she would not gain from my adulatory remarks, and since I am not a book publisher or seller nor would I, but that does not mean that what I wrote was not promotional in nature. Also, your wording "doing this for promotional gain" appears to indicate that you interpret what I said as being about your purpose in editing, but it isn't: it is about the effect of your editing. If editing comes across to those who read it as promotional then it is unacceptable, whether that was the intention of the writer or not. I have no reason to doubt your word about your intentions.
 * No, I am not saying that "updating something that was 7 years out of date is being promotional", nor that "to not be promotional [you] must leave something 8 years out of date". I was saying that the particular wording that you used was promotional. If you honestly cannot see that wording such as "considered by many to be a forward-thinking, dynamic, reliable and modern County Football Association" is not written from a neutral point of view, then that is an absolutely excellent example of the main reason for Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest: an editor with a close involvement in a subject very often finds it difficult, or even impossible, to stand back from his or her own writing on the subject and see how it will look from the detached perspective of an uninvolved, impartial observer, so that his or her writing is likely to read as promotional even if he or she sincerely intends to write in a neutral way.
 * I am taking the time and trouble to write this out in the hope that it may help to clarify things for you, as I said above. However, I'm afraid every single post you have made on this page has added more evidence that you really do not understand the points that have been made. Have you read the guideline on conflict of interest, which more than one editor above has advised you to do? Have you taken the advice given above to read the guide to appealling blocks before making an unblock request? Although, as I said above, I will not review your latest unblock request, I will say that I think it highly unlikely that any administrator will unblock you unless you can show significantly better understanding of the issues than you have done so far. Whether what I have written here will help you to do so I can't tell, but I can hope so. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * While I was composing, proof-reading, and editing the above message you posted your message saying "Okay I'm glad you've confirmed to me that Wikipedia is happy having factually incorrect pages! That's all I wanted to know". Frankly, if I had known that was your attitude I wouldn't have spent so much of my time trying to help you. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Firstly I am sorry for my attitude it's just because i have spent so much time on this and it has frustrated me. The comments such as "considered by many to be a forward-thinking, dynamic, reliable and modern County Football Association" I completely understand is unacceptable that was me being lazy and not editing accordingly from the information on the website. But other things such as updating the latest Representative Squad that was used, there can't be any argument for that being wrongful use because it was just something out of date that I updated. If you give me one more chance to edit this page and do it in a manner that is completely unbiased and based on solely facts, could you allow me to do that? If you still feel I am being promotional then ban me fair enough but I am just trying to give a fair representation of an organisation on wikipedia which is what it should be about. An independent source would not be able to do this. Once again, I categorically apologize for my attitude I haven't meant to be rude, I just want this matter to be resolved because I haven't meant to be unjust or act in a bad way on purpose. All I want is just to correct what is wrong on the page and I would not need to touch it again after that it is just a few things that are currently very out of date that need correcting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackTowersLUFC (talk • contribs) 14:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, Jack, I understand what you say, including understanding the sense of frustration you mention. Wikipedia can be a frustrating experience for new editors, as I found myself when I first started editing. Also, of course you are 100% right about the fact that there was grossly outdated information on the page, which did need to be replaced. I am willing to reconsider the unblock, and in respect of that I have a few more things I would like to ask you, but I don't have time to deal with it now. I will try to get back onto this when I do have time, perhaps later today, but more likely tomorrow. If you haven't heard from me again by (say) 10 am tomorrow, please feel welcome to remind me by pinging me. To do that, you can post a message including, and make sure that you also sign the message by putting ~ at the end of it. I will then automatically receive a notification. (Note that the "ping" and the ~ have to both be in the same post: it doesn't work if you do one and then in a separate edit do the other.) (Of course there is also nothing to stop another administrator from accepting your unblock request before I get back here.) JamesBWatson (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

(uninvolved editor comment also edit conflict with JamesBWatson) Let me just say something. I am getting IDHT vibes coming from you JackTowersLUFC, other editors have told you that you cannot edit the page about Sussex County FA as you have a COI yet you keep saying you want to edit the page. Any edits in violating of COI regardless of bias get removed. Further, if its not in an independent source, it cannot (or should not) be placed on Wikipedia, if that means the page is outdate so be it. We have to uphold the integrity of an encyclopedia, you wouldn't (or shouldn't) see this occur on Encyclopedia Britannica or any other encyclopedias for that matter, Wikipedia is no different. Tknifton (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate you being understanding and I get what you are saying. I do completely understand there is a conflict of interest but my point was if I can just edit this page once more with a completely neutral standpoint, would you be able to review that and accept it to stay if you believe it to be okay? If not then no worries I thank you for taking the time to help me anyway! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackTowersLUFC (talk • contribs)
 * Hi JackTowersLUFC - it appears JBW is occupied elsewhere right now. As per his note above, I would be happy to consider this unblock request during this interregnum. However, since there's been an extended and evolving discussion since your last unblock request, can you first confirm if the Unblock Reason posted in your last Unblock Request is a current, correct, and accurate version of the reason you are requesting unblock as of this timestamp? Thank you! Chetsford (talk) 02:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Recommendation
JackTowersLUFC - before replying to the inquiry I posted in the preceding section you may find it helpful to take just a few minutes to read both WP:EDITREQ and WP:DONTGETIT, the latter of which was previously posted by Tknifton. Doing so is, of course, completely optional but I feel as though your likelihood of replying to my question in a way that would result in your unblocking would increase to almost 100-percent if you did so. I think everyone on this page is in your corner and, were you to spend just a few minutes reviewing the information on those two pages before responding, you would end the day completely satisfied. Chetsford (talk) 04:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Jack, your ping never reached me, as you didn't sign your post with ~, which, as I explained above, is necessary for a ping to work. Now, over two weeks later, I don't remember what the "few more things I would like to ask you" were, but I suggest you follow 's advice. JBW (talk) Formerly known as JamesBWatson 16:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)