User talk:Lottiegordons

January 2022

Hello, I'm Tacyarg. I noticed that you recently removed content from Gordon's School without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

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

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Tacyarg (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you are continuing to edit this article, but your username suggests you have a conflict of interest. Do you work for or represent this school? Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 11:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as before, do you work for or represent this school? Tacyarg (talk) 10:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please reply to the question about your conflict of interest. Tacyarg (talk) 07:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, yes I am an employee of Gordon's School. Lottiegordons (talk) 13:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding and confirming your conflict of interest. Given this, please stop editing the article directly and follow the guidance above to disclose your conflict of interest. You can request changes on the article's Talk page. Tacyarg (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As before, as you have a conflict of interest, you should not edit the article directly. You can request changes on the article's Talk page. Tacyarg (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Gordon's School, you may be blocked from editing. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Tacyarg (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paging @Tacyarg. Tacyarg to the white courtesy telephone. The COI (actually paid) editing has started again - see contributions and message on my talk page - so perhaps you want to add your two cents here? 10mmsocket (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the WHITE phone! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:13, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree you, 10mmsocket, and The4lines, that Silver8irch (talk · contribs) or Lottiegordons should propose their changes on the article's Talk page, broken down into smaller individual requests and using the format "change x to y". Lottiegordons and Silver8irch, have a look at the guidance at Wikipedia:Guide to effective COI edit requests and Wikipedia:Sample edit requests. I will link to this discussion on the article's Talk page and on Silver8irch's Talk page.

From a very quick look at the proposed changes to the article, I agree with Nobody that not all statements are cited, and of course should be. Too many citations are primary sources (around ten, again from a quick look). Some other sources may be too closely associated with the school (the Diplomat reference looks like an ad, ending Gordon’s School is unique. Book a visit and find out why; the Absolutely Education article was written by a member of staff at the school). Not all references have full information - author, date etc. The article should be written in British English ("program"). The citation for Hannah Russell's attendance doesn't mention the school. There is no information about the school's academic results (a problem with the existing article too). Personally I don't think Ofsted judgments should be in the lead, but I know others may disagree.

Quick thoughts for now. I may have time to look at the existing article at the weekend or next week - it could certainly be improved. Oh, and I see Silver8irch's comment I won’t make direct edits to the article without community support. Silver8irch, you shouldn't make direct edits in any case, but request them on the Talk page. Tacyarg (talk) 19:09, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The citation for attendance of Ellie Boatman at the school also doesn't mention the school. I had already replied to Lottiegordons on the article's Talk page about Boatman and the need for a published source. @Silver8irch: please would you make sure you have read through the guidance about sourcing and editing in general - referencing for beginners is a good place to start - before asking us to review changes? I will put the links to guidance on your Talk page. Tacyarg (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems overly complicated. They are proposing a rewrite of the article. They helpfully posted the complete new version in a Sandbox page. I would accept the new version, then begin refining it down through normal editing processes that anyone can be involved. The COI editor can propose changes (to the new version) on the article talk page. I think the new version has more to work with, and trying to piecemeal it into the current article will be difficult. (disclaimer: I have no COI. I was made aware of this page due to a random post on my bot's talk page probably they saw I had a history of posting here). -- GreenC 20:04, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

Hello Lottiegordons. 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 employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. 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 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 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:Lottiegordons. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Lottiegordons|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. 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. This is the message I said that I would leave for you. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on seeking assistance and other stuff

Hi Lottiegordons. For future reference, I think you'd be better off asking for assistance first at Talk:Gordon's School than posting essentially the same message on the user talk pages of multiple Wikipedia users. There was really no need to post the same message on 14 different user talk pages, when a single post on the article's talk page would've more than sufficed. If your intention request doesn't generate a response after about a week, you could ask for help at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. While I'm sure you meant well, some people might perceive your user talk page posts as kind of spamming and, thus, might not respond at all or not in a favorable way if they do.

You might also want to keep in mind that Wikipedia often moves slower than things out in the real world; so, article content might seem outdated when compared to other websites or social media. This, though, is by design because Wikipedia doesn't place as much of a premium on being "up-to-the-minute accurate" as perhaps some other websites might do. The best way for Gordon's School to keep the world up-to-date about what's new at the school is really via its own official website and social media accounts. Wikipedia isn't really geared for such a thing and will always lag behind what the school is able to do on its own, and there will always be limitations on even what can be done on Wikipedia. If the school is somehow trying to include Wikipedia in some kind of strategic plan to enhance its online presence, then such an attempt will almost certainly end in failure simply because the school has no real editorial control over what's written in the article. Even if, by chance, the person the school is paying to help "update" the article ends up being successful in getting some changes made, the consensus could change shortly thereafter and said changes could be undone completely or morphed into something else. So, it might be a good idea for the school to worry less about what's written about it on Wikipedia, except perhaps to point out any violations of a major Wikipedia policy or guideline (violations of WP:BLP, WP:DEFAME, WP:COPY, etc.). Trying to have the guts of the article entirely re-written runs the risk of being seen by a lot of Wikipedians as an attempt by the school to "control" the article even if that's not what the school is intending at all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:55, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]