User talk:Scottedwardcole

Edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

I'd like the page at "Scott Cole & Associates" to be partially or fully protected. An upset former employee of the firm has been posting defamatory comments around the internet about us and seems to have now made substantial changes to our page on Wikipedia (not to mention some inaccurate statements). Putting back the content back is a substantial amount of work, and it just happened again today (saying we're in a different city than we are, misstating our firm size, making subjective statements intended to derogate us. Since I predict he will simply change usernames to post and/or change more, blocking those changes would solve the issue.

Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did go that page and typed the information in that was requested. Why isn't this working? When I typed what you said to type, someone else went on the page, rolled back what you said to add, and then put back an old (incorrect) version of the page. I'm really trying here to get this right.

You'd need to place it at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, but I'd recommend dealing with the problematic user first. What user is causing the issue? Also, you should disclose if you have a conflict of interest with Scott Cole & Associates. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 08:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote “you'd need to place it at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection” but what does that mean? That is an informational page. How do you “place it” at that page? Do you really mean for me to go in and EDIT the page at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection? Can you be clearer? Scottedwardcole (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and conflicts of interest

Hello, Scottedwardcole. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Alexf^(talk) 20:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Scott Cole & Associates. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, can you tell me what you're referring to so I can consider changing it? I think everything is verifiable. I am actually trying to correct the page since someone/people keep(s) reverting it back to a prior version that is inaccurate (e.g., we are not based in "Concord;" we're based in Oakland, etc.). Are you citing those users making the false statements and continually reverting the page back? I wish I could be told what the issue is before users just revert it back to another incorrect version. Scottedwardcole (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the links I provided will explain everything. You can also see WP:PROVEIT. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 15:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Scott Cole & Associates. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Scott Cole & Associates; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I"m just asking you to slow this down so I can figure out the problem. Scottedwardcole (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've sent me EIGHT message now in the course of like 5 minutes and I'm asking to slow this down, please. Scottedwardcole (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then stop reverting and get the proof you need to make these changes. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You Wrote: "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right." But that's what you're doing here so that doesn't make sense. Why is OK for someone else (you) to edit war (revert the page) just because they think they're right, but I can't put the content on the page that I happen to know is right?? I do happen to know where the firm is located. It's in a building in Oakland, California and yet, you keep changing that information--also without citing anything. I don't get the double-standard, and what kind of verifiability would you need for the location? Do I need to cite the phone book? I'm really not trying to be difficult here but I am looking at the Wiki page for this company this moment now and I really don't see why the page is being flagged. I've neer seen a Wikipage where there is a source for every fact so why is this page being singled out? So, can we make this simple and you can just tell me the content that lead to you flagging it (versus just sending me to generic statements in another Wiki page)? Scottedwardcole (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My final comment: Personal knowledge is not verifiable, either by an editor or one of our readers and therefore not acceptable, even if you're an expert. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you hiding the ball? Why won't you just say what the issue is? I'm looking at Epic Record's wiki page right now and I see all kinds of facts that are not even supported by sources/citations and, for this major company, you'd think there'd be a lot of sources for a lot of very big claims being made there. What this shows is that Wiki doesn't actually require sources to the extent you're claiming (e.g., for an office location). Epic says it's base in L.A. but gives no source. I saw the company in question is based in Oakland, and you say I need a source. That's inconsistent. So, again, to make this go faster, will you please stop the edit war by reverting the page back, and can you please tell me why you flagged the page in question? Scottedwardcole (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FlightTime: the content that you and others have been edit-warring back into this article, and is objected to by Scott, appears mostly to have been added by a WP:SPA (called, would you believe it, "LegalTruth821") in this series of edits, and then reverted back to by people who should know better. This content is mostly or entirely unsourced! It's not surprising that Scott finds this rather annoying! MPS1992 (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scott, I have removed most of the unsourced content that you objected to, and I will be impersonating a ton of bricks (metaphorically speaking) on the next well-intentioned individual that insists on trying to put it back in again. I suggest you avoid editing the article, and instead discuss concerns, suggested changes, errors of fact, potential reliable third-party news sources, et cetera, on the article's talk page which is at Talk:Scott Cole & Associates. MPS1992 (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your username, are you associated with Scott Cole & Associates ? - FlightTime (open channel) 16:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]