User talk:Jonscott239

Need change jonscottcorp username to jonscott239, jonscott239Jonscott239 (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of GoVoteMiami for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article GoVoteMiami 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 Articles for deletion/GoVoteMiami 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. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

This article was not deleted based on wiki standards and rules and should be relisted for further discussion and continued edits. Jonscott239 (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)jonscott239

This article should be put back on draft and opportunity to continue to work on it should be allowed. Jonscott239 (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)jonscott239

Issuing level 1 warning about removing AfD template from articles before the discussion is complete. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with GoVoteMiami. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot I  Talk to my owner :Online 12:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

February 2021
Your recent edits to Wikipedia:Teahouse could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

jonscott239 - legal threats are not productive and were not being made. Being concerned regarding rules, violations, and laws and asking questions regarding the integrity of editors and wikipedia users is what helps protect wikipedia from abuse. There is a difference between discussions of violations and making threats. The previous comment is a form of abuse and misrepresentation of information & facts and in fact is a direct "Threat" regarding my concerns. It is inappropriate to comment based on assumptions and all correspondence should be unbias and factual. The statement "could give Wikipedia contributors the impression" is odd. A persons impression, opinion, assumption, idea, thought, are all not a writers responsibility rather than just a personal issue with the user "making an assumption". Writers responsibility is to follow guidelines and rules wikipedia has in place. Also, questioning ones activity and compliance is not the same as threating "off-wiki action.   Jonscott239 (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)jonscott239
 * You said here that "The United States Government needs to be made aware of what is happening on Wikipedia including foreign influence by admins", and later on bring up the SEC and FTC. You cannot use the possibility of legal action as a cudgel to get what you want, even if you aren't the one initiating it.
 * I've been called a lot of things here but never a foreign agent. I am not in the employ of a foreign government. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is a global site not limited to the US. I have no hostility towards you and if there is something that you do not understand about what happened regarding the article, including my rationale for the deletion, I am happy to clarify anything. 331dot (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * However, what I said questions the motive and integrity and was not a threat. The common definition of "threat" is (a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.). The url you provided to my comment focuses on particular behaviors, activities, & motives and the effects they may have on standards and the integrity on wikipedia. Based on the previous comment, you are stating that you have a right to violate any laws, rules, and guidelines, if you choose to do so, Because if anything you do is questioned by a user, then the user is in violation for making a "legal threat" which means users are banned from discussing Potentially unlawful, unethical, and incorrect behaviors and any such "assessment" or "Discussion" is seen by wikipedia as a "threat" which I have had trouble finding where it states that on Wikipedia. Part of the Abuse you have displayed is taking factual statements and comments I made and providing your interpretation as what was actually said rather than "what was actually said" For example, no threat was made and your proof actually displayed a concern and assessment and not a threat per definition of threat. Twisting words, providing opinions on comments as if that was actually said by a user, and causing unnecessary issues consistently is pretty obsessive. With all the articles on wiki, the scams, the violations, and limited administrators, the amount of time and the quickness of your responses regarding the article I posted which was in compliance according to the verbiage in wiki guidelines is really obsessive. Why would you spend so much time and effort targeting me and the article and all the back and fourth discussions when you can use your time on important and critical issues here on wikipedia. I am not trying to win an argument or prove that i am right. No ego on my end. I just want to follow all guidelines and  publish the article so then I can go on to the next one I plan on publishing. I have no desire to debate but keep finding myself under attack. I'll end this comment saying that (if anything I said was "interpreted" as a threat) maybe that interpretation was triggered by the "administrator" knowing they are not acting appropriately. Jonscott239 (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)jonscott239
 * I'm trying to understand where you are coming from but I'm unable to fathom what is behind your comments. I've never had hostility and my intention has been and is to have a civil discussion. I'm not targeting you. I repeat, I am not targeting you. We have over 6 million articles that need attention and only a limited number of volunteers to work on them. That might be why you feel singled out but no one is doing that. I don't want to be right, I want Wikipedia to be right.
 * You say you want to follow all guidelines but reject it when you are told why you were not following them (unintentionally) and what you can do to correct things. I'm still ready and willing to help you, but I won't comment further unless you request it. Please review my rationale for initiating the deletion discussion and ask if you have questions. 331dot (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Why was the article exactly put up for deletion? Is the process fully subjective or is it per guidlines and wiki rules. An editor named Liz issued me a warning randomly without knowing the background and history of events and when reviewing her profile she states the following : ''Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus.'' So based on what this editor states and the comments from other editors and reasons the article was deleted are all in contradiction. If this article is not under attack and please provide any helpful information which does not contradict wiki policy and editor comments/profiles/etc. There have been many threats againest the article from editors and from editors like Liz issuing warnings when I am just looking at facts and following policy provided on wiki website rules. This is an honest, factual, non bias article and I don't understand the reason every edit, there is a problem. Jonscott239 (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)jonscott239

Warning
Hello, I'm Liz. I noticed that you made multiple comments that weren't very civil. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.

''You talk about being attacked but as I review your contributions on Wikipedia talk pages, you insult other editors and accuse them of bias and every evil under the sun. You are not being persecuted. And if you don't cease being disrespectful and insulting towards other editors, I will block you. This is a volunteer, collaborative working environment and we need to work together. Other editors have been very patient with you. Collaboration can only happen when we treat other editors civilly and with respect. Please start behaving this way and cease with the endless accusations and threats. If you don't change how you approach conflict, your time editing here on Wikipedia will be short. For more information, please review No personal attacks. '' Liz Read! Talk! 04:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * What you might have missed in all of your outrage is that 331dot proposed a resolution during the AFD deletion discussion which was to return the article to draft space and submit it to Articles for Creation for further review. You might consider asking them if this is still a possibility but you'll have to stop insulting them long enough to ask for their assistance which they have kindly offered to you several times. Liz Read! Talk! 04:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Liz, I requested that the article to return to draft space and submit it to Articles for Creation for further review. It did not happen. Liz, what insults are you speaking of? I only speak of facts and point out inconsistencies. Liz, you jumped in on a topic with a bully mentality without knowing the history. Disagreeing with, questioning possible motive, and bringing attention to issues is not being disrespectful and insulting towards other editors. It goes both directions as well. You mention this is a volunteer, collaborative working environment however where is the collaboration? Liz, instead of making threats and coming at me with an aggressive approach, it would be more professional and helpful to not take this personal, and to inquire about concerns and contribute in a positive manner. This should really not be personal liz.... Jonscott239 (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)jonscott239
 * I don't see how is making anything personal or making threats or "bullying".  You seem to have a very broad definition of "bullying". We are all being civil and pleasant with you; I honestly can't fathom how you are getting "bullying" from all this.  We want to work with you and my offer to civilly discuss this with you to help you understand this whole thing stands.  I had asked you if you would agree to the article being moved back to draft space and you did not respond. 331dot (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Susanne Koelbl


A tag has been placed on Susanne Koelbl, 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 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. Blablubbs | talk 17:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Susanne Koelbl


A tag has been placed on Susanne Koelbl requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.amazon.com/Behind-Kingdoms-Veil-Inside-Mohammed/dp/1642503444/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. 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. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Blablubbs | talk 17:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

331dot - please work with me and help then. Liz who has not been a part of this process made accusations, issued a warning, wrote in a threating manner, was not civil with her approach, and bullying and in contradiction with what she states are wiki standards on her talk page. She did not offer to help, contribute, or anything. The only thing which is broad is Liz bio, her comments, and the reasons the article was nominated for deletion. Her bio states the following : ''"Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus." '' So is there a strict policy and rules which need to be followed or not. Explain her statement and cross-reference as to why govotemiami was deleted. Unlike Liz statement, I am reading and following the wiki guidelines trying my best to satisfy everyone to publish. Based on what she says, there should not be an issue. IT WOULD be very helpful if you can kindly move the article to draft and provide me exactly why it was deleted and what needs to be fixed. All the other articles are still active and not being deleted which makes me question why this article was deleted and others get a pass. Anyway, are you willing to help   Jonscott239 (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)jonscott239
 * What ignore all rules means is that the spirit of the rules is more important than the letter of the rules. It is not a license for people to do as they wish without justification and without consensus. Users invoking "ignore all rules" must still provide a logical explanation as to the edit and how it benefits the encyclopedia to ignore a particular rule in a particular case.
 * Liz can speak for themselves and they can respond if need be. I see nothing bullying or threatening about what they said, but I am not you. Keep in mind that other editors are free to dive into almost any discussion on Wikipedia at any time for any reason.  They don't have to have been completely involved from the beginning.
 * Wikipedia is a volunteer project with over 6 million articles, and only a limited number of volunteers to maintain everything. It is inevitable that some inappropriate articles will get by us. Some have very likely existed for years.  We can only address what we know about.  If you want to help identify articles that do not meet guidelines and may merit deletion, please do so, we could use the help. All of this does not mean that you have been singled out and picked on- if we did not address one inappropriate article because we cannot address all inappropriate articles, this would cease to be a useful resource for humanity. Again, we can only address what we know about.
 * Please review the Wikipedia definition of a notable organization carefully; specifically this portion. The reason that the article was deleted is that a consensus of editors felt that the organization does not meet that definition of a notable organization.  The article was lacking in independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the organization.  "Significant coverage" is in depth and goes beyond a brief mention, announcement of routine activities, interviews, and primary sources.  Please allow me to explain again the sources that were provided in the draft:
 * cites the mere fact that this organization is registered with the State of Florida. It just cites the brief point and does nothing to contribute to notability.
 * cites a Q&A from the DOJ regarding the National Voter Registration Act. It doesn't mention the organization at all.
 * cites (once the reference to the interview was removed) that the Mayor of Miami supports the goals of the organization. Just a brief mention that a public official supports the goals of the organization.
 * seems to link to a registration form. This does nothing to contribute to notability; it just cited the existence of the form.
 * cites the existence of the Miami Public Library system. Again, adds nothing to notability.
 * simply explains felons voting in Florida. This is not coverage of the organization itself.
 * Articles should not just tell about the organization and what they do, but summarize what others say about the organization. The other editors who commented in the deletion discussion could not find or offer any sources that do discuss GoVoteMiami in depth as an organization without being an interview, announcement of routine activities, or other source.  If say, the Miami Herald wrote a story about how, based on what unaffiliated observers saw, GoVoteMiami registered a lot of voters and potentially tipped an election one way or another due to its involvement, that would be something that would help.  The Fair Fight Action group created by Stacey Abrams is a good example of an article with such sources. 331dot (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Susanne Koelbl moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Susanne Koelbl, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC) Hi Spiderone, I made the edits and changes you reccomended. Thank you Jonscott239 (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)jonscott239

March 2021
Hello Jonscott239. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but 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 serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

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. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged 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:Jonscott239. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. 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. CUPIDICAE💕 19:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I wish I was getting paid but unfortunately I am not as I have no relation to article topic other than interest and familiarity of topic and authors work but fortunately means I am in compliance with wiki guidelines. Article contains cites, facts, references, and is neutral. -Thank you Jonscott239 (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)jonscott239
 * how is this your own work, then? CUPIDICAE💕  19:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

It is not trademarked and allowed for public use. I feel like editors always looking to "catch" someone being sneaky however not everyone has bad intentions. Jonscott239 (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Jonscott239
 * there is off wiki evidence to the contrary however you didn't answer my question. You said that is your own work. Is it? CUPIDICAE💕  19:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove speedy deletion notices from pages you created yourself, as you did at Susanne Koelbl, you may be blocked from editing. CUPIDICAE💕 19:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

What is disruptive about trying to publish an article? No speedy deletion notice was removed by me. I am following instructions and recommendations. Also, I dont understand what you mean by "own" work or what you are trying to insinuate? Why are you so upset and personally angry? Also, Disruptive editing is deleting articles and not allowing me to work on article without being harassed. Making edits to improve an article I wrote is not Disruptive editing based on wikipedia guidelines and is actually what authors are suppose to do. Create an article and work on it to keep improving it. Jonscott239 (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)jonscott239
 * You removed a speedy deletion tag here. If you disagree with the tag, please contest it as instructed. I see no one upset and personally angry with you. Beware in judging emotion through text communication. 331dot (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I never removed any tag on the article. The page was deleted so I went ahead and created a new article with all the corrections recommended by editors. 331dot, Is any article I put up going to be under attack? Whats going on. Jonscott239 (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)jonscott239
 * An edit(that I link to above) that removed a speedy deletion tag was made from this account, that is irrefutable. 331dot (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I did not remove any tag. You told me on the last article to never touch the tags so I know not to. What I did do is when the new article i did today was deleted I rewrote a new article and published with all the correct edits and recommendations. Why you say irrefutable like I am a liar? The 1st article today was speedy deleted and reasons were stated so I wrote and published a new one. I did not touch the tag. Maybe something happened to it on the old article. Im not sure what occured but I did not click, highlight, or change any tag to be deleted. Jonscott239 (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)jonscott239
 * Has someone else used your account? Someone using this account removed the tag. If you didn't intend to, okay, but it did happen. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

No one used my account that I know of because I never share log in info. Not sure what happened. Jonscott239 (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)