Jeeves79

Hello Jeeves79, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

---

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

• Table of contents

• Department directory

Need help?

• Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
• Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
• Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

• Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
• The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
• Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

• Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

• Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

• Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

• If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Jeeves79, good luck, and have fun. – Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) ^talk 10:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Wine Searcher COI

 Hello, Jeeves79. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

This is your only warning; if you insert a spam link to Wikipedia again, as you did at Champagne, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for adding spam links. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Monty₈₄₅ 01:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jeeves79 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am new to Wikipedia and have possibly made some mistakes, but nothing deserving of blocking my account. One particular user tagged my changes as 'sneaky' and 'spam'. Both of these terms are incorrect and insulting. They also make a mockery of the idea that Wikipedia pages should be supported by references to reliable sources. Wine-Searcher is a reliable source, as will become clear simply by checking some facts about the site. I understand that a single user linking to one site multiple times may seem like deliberate spam. But anyone taking some time to investigate will see this is not the case. Myself, I am a highly qualified and experienced wine professional, and have been writing encyclopedic wine content full time for many years. This whole experience has been genuinely insulting to me. Please remove the block, and let's get a conversation going rather than just undoing my work and blocking my account (actions which are far from the Wikipedia spirit).Jeeves79 (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You're not going to be unblocked unless you agree to stop adding links to a site with which you are affiliated with (and one that probably doesn't meet WP:RS either). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

What is your relationship to wine-searcher.com? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I am the site's Content Manager (and proud to be so). And yes, I very much understand what might be deduced from that – if one were to judge hastily. I put much of the 5000+ page encyclopedia together myself. That's how I know about its high quality (5 years of hard work). Nice ukulele by the way --jpgordon.Jeeves79 (talk) 03:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that you are using a site you have written as a reference, which is not an accepted procedure here. You also cannot use yourself to reference the quality of your writings on this site. It may be a great site and the most accurate around - but this must be attested by reviewers other than yourself. And even then, YOU should not make links to it - especially in the quantity you were doing. Whether or not this is actual spam, I cannot say. But it looks like spam and is as unacceptable as a result. Sorry, that's the way it is. Peridon (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Well it's good to have heard a clear (human) explanation on this. Thank you Peridon. So where from here? Is it a matter of time or do I need to do something specific to get unblocked? Jeeves79 (talk) 01:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, the block is 'indefinite'. Not 'infinite'. I would think you that should try to convince us that you can be of use to the encyclopaedia without citing yourself or appearing to be promoting. (Promotion is misunderstood by a lot of people who think it only applies to selling things, whereas it can apply to free things, ideas and even CVs (resumés). Peridon (talk) 12:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

As a regular wine editor, I will say that I have used wine-searcher.com as a reference in articles on several occasions. While I would rank it below things like the Oxford Companion to Wine, The World Atlas of Wine, The Sotheby's Wine Encyclopedia and Wine Grapes in terms of being a reliable source, it is certainly more reliable than many online options. It does have its place and use in Wikipedia's wine articles.
However, I agree with the other editors that it is wholly inappropriate for the Content Manager of Wine Searcher to be editing articles and essentially citing himself as the reference with links back to Wine Searcher. I would encourage Jeeves to utilize the talk pages of the wine articles and propose suggestions for improvement edits (which can certainly include a link to whatever Wine Searcher article supports the info). This would allow uninvolved editors without a COI to be able to review the suggested edit and reference link to see if it is appropriate to include. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 15:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all for engaging. It's good to hear real 'voices' rather than automated messages. I understand everything you've all said. Thank you Agne27 for your credit to Wine-Searcher. It means a lot to be ranked along with (even if behind) the works you cited. You can see how seriously and personally I take my work, which might help to explain the (over-)enthusiastic referencing. I can see you take your Wiki work seriously too, so my respect to you on that count. I'm afraid I have very little time in my life for indulging in Wiki improvements, so I can't promise to be of general use to the site. I just hope that the Wiki wine community sees the continuous developments on Wine-Searcher and makes good use of them. Just like Wikipedia, Wine-Searcher is free, independent and useful to all interested in learning about wine. TTFN Jeeves79 (talk) 10:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Agne's estimation of Wine-Searcher, and its approximate position in the "pecking order", of reliable sources on wine. There is definitely some useful content there, but it does not replace some classical printed sources. However, Jeeves79, it makes me concerned that you (especially when seen together with your alter ego 121.98.113.22) have 1) basically ignored the warnings given up until you were blocked, and instead 2) resinstated your links after they were removed, as well as repeatedly removed more reliable print references (such as OCW) from articles and replaced them with Wine-Searcher links, 3) "hidden" these additions/deletions as "minor edits", which they weren't, and 4) claimed that you had no COI which were not the case. So you probably need to convince us that you will take a completely different attitude to future edits, for any unblocking to be contemplated. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)