User talk:Jonny at Partech Media

Welcome!

Hello, Partech Media, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Draft:Partech, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

Article development
Standard layout
Lead section
The perfect article
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. You can also type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! DACartman (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Partech

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Partech, 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 Wikipedia: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 deleting administrator. DACartman (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Partech

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Partech, 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 Wikipedia: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 deleting administrator. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 2025

Your account has been indefinitely blocked from editing because it has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Also, your username gives the impression that the account represents a business, organisation, group, or website, which is against the username policy.

If you intend to make useful contributions instead of promoting your business or organization, you may request unblock and a username change. In your reasons, you must follow all these steps:

Disclose any compensation you may receive for your contributions in accordance with the paid-contribution disclosure requirement; and
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; and
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked; and
Provide a new username.

To do this, insert the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with your new username and replace the text "Your reason here" with your reasons to be unblocked.

Please note that the new username you choose cannot already be taken and in use by another account. You can search to see if the username you'd like to choose is available. If the search returns that no global account with that username exists, that means it is still available.

Appeals: If, after reviewing the guide to appealing blocks, you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal it by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your reason here" with the reasons you believe the block was an error, and publish the page.

Cullen328 (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 and @Jimfbleak hi both, this user came into #wikipedia-en-help over the weekend asking how to create a draft for a company they work for. I advised on declaring the COI which they did successfully, but then realised their username breaches policy. I asked them to change their username, which they tried to do (I think unsuccessfully). Their draft was promotional but not submitted for review. I gave them advice on writing it to our standards. They came into the channel again this morning after realising they'd been blocked. I will advise them to request another username change.

I think, on good faith, once the user has changed their username they could be unblocked to try again with their draft. qcne (talk) 10:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[with the renamers hat on] Qcne, Partech Media can ask for both the rename and an unblock here, where the two issues can be considered together, using the {{unblock-spamun}} as shown above. Renamers will rename soft-blocked users but seldom hard-blocked users. Cabayi (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Qcne the user had declared a COI, but of course the user name must be blocked. My view was that the text was promotional and merited a hard block. As Cabayi says, the renamimg and unblock can be considered together, but it's often a condition of an unblock that you don't write about the topic that got you blocked. As the blocking admin though, I'm happy to leave the matter to uninvolved mop wielders Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Jonny at Partech Media (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

Jonny Wilkinson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

Inclusion of a personal username, not representing the company. Alongside this, necessary edits will be made to the page. I understand that my previous attempt to create a Wikipedia page for Partech was blocked under condition G11 for being promotional. I now fully understand Wikipedia's guidelines on neutrality and verifiability and will ensure that any future contributions adhere strictly to these standards. Sources will remain independent, and not include PR. I'll ensure that the article is written without bias, presenting information fairly and proportionately. All content will be verifiable through reliable sources, such as reputable publications, books, and articles. I will ensure it remains 'timeless' (no acknowledgement of 'recent' investments) and avoid any company websites as primary sources. I understand this all much more now

Decline reason:

The username issue is now resolved. As I said below, however, I don't wish to unblock you to edit about, in the near term, your company. You'll need to demonstrate through editing the rest of the project, making edits unrelated to your COI, that you understand relevant policies. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Partech Media (talk) 12:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Jonny at Partech Media (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

Jonny Wilkinson at Partech Media (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

Previous username was not personal- this is now a personal account

Decline reason:

As you know, your username is only one small part of the problem here. You need to address your inappropriate edits. Yamla (talk) 12:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, @Yamla, my fault as I'm advising them how to unblock request - they're doing the unblock request and rename request separately and are about to do the unblock request now. qcne (talk) 12:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'd have processed the rename, except it's unclear to me which of the usernames they actually want. --Yamla (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for any confusion- Jonny at Partech Media would be preferable rather than the second option. Hope this is all okay thank you ! Partech Media (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've processed the rename. That resolves the username part of the block. I'll leave the rest for the next reviewing admin. --Yamla (talk) 13:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You declared a COI; as you seem to be employed by Partech Media, you must make the stricter paid editing disclosure per the Terms of Use. I'm usually very, very reluctant to unblock a company representative to edit about their company- as it often ends up as a waste of time for everyone(including the editor) as the company representative has great difficulty setting aside their personal knowledge of the company and can't get away from using inappropriate sources(like the reporting of routine business activities/brief mentions/staff interviews). That said, I'm seeing a little bit more from this request than I do from other company reps. I will ask you this, what are the three(and only three, please) best sources that you intend to use in a draft about your company? 331dot (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will await the feedback from the blocked editor requested by 331dot before commenting further. Cullen328 (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonny at Partech Media, please read WP:ORGCRIT to see how the sources you provide will be evaluated. -- asilvering (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there @331dot. I appreciate your patience with this process, we really are keen to get this right. After having considered many sources, we've selected the following 3 as our best examples as what we'd use for our draft:

https://www.finsmes.com/2018/01/venture-capital-firm-partech-ventures-launches-partech-africa.html

https://weetracker.com/2024/02/19/africa-fund-launch-partech-africa-ii-300m-fund/

https://www.finsmes.com/2022/12/partech-closes-fourth-seed-fund-at-e120m.html

We've ensured that these avoid any quotations from employees at our firm, as we understand this can be deemed self-promotional. We've also avoided articles that simply summarise press releases, as well as other factors. Please do let me know your thoughts. Thank you! Jonny at Partech Media (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These three are just documentation of routine business activities.(See WP:ORGDEPTH) If these are the three best that you have, your company does not merit an article at this time as it doesn't meet WP:ORG. Wikipedia is not a database where existence merits inclusion. Cullen328 may feel differently, but I don't wish to unblock you to contribute about your company. If you want to edit about other topics, please tell what those might be. 331dot (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there @331dot. Upon reflection, we'd like to propose the following article: https://techcrunch.com/2024/02/19/partech-closes-its-second-africa-fund-at-300m-to-invest-from-seed-to-series-c/

The article is significant coverage from a trusted, verifiable source (TechCrunch). It includes much more in-depth insight than any press release concerning the fundraising news. Meanwhile the news itself is much more than routine business activity; the fundraising solidifies Partech Africa II as the largest fund dedicated to African startups, highlighting the company's notability. Whilst there are admittedly a few comments from Partech employees included, we hope that their presence does not taint the article. Despite their inclusion, the article's message does not revolve around their message. Jonny at Partech Media (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TechCrunch's usefulness in determining notability is questionable at best(see WP:TECHCRUNCH). A business that funds startups raising the money to fund startups is a routine activity. If there is coverage that discusses the significance of it being the largest, I'm not seeing it here. That's leaving aside the interviews. My opinion remains unchanged. 331dot (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonny at Partech Media: Please have a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. You may discover that some of the sources you assume are reliable have, in fact, been deemed unreliable or questionable by the Wikipedia community. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also suggest that you and those at your company read WP:BOSS. 331dot (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little out of my depth, as I'm not an admin, but I'm wondering if WP:ROPE would apply here. (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 16:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ROPE is kinda why I asked for sources as I did above. I would have been willing to unblock them if the sources established the notability of the company. They don't, and I think if they were unblocked to edit about their company it would just waste everyone's time(including them) and we'd be back here not long after. Their goals are incompatible with our goals. If another admin feels differently about this, they're free to act, though it won't be with my(or, I presume, Cullen328's) support. 331dot (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thank you. :) (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 17:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the TechCrunch coverage looks legit to me, it's written by an actual journalist and it's not a blog piece. -- asilvering (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot Can you confirm this? We only use articles on TechCrunch that are submitted by journalists and not blog posts

. Jonny at Partech Media (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that anything further here should be done via a new unblock request for another admin to review. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonny at Partech Media, I'd be willing to unblock and let you have another try, but please understand that this would be a real last-chance kind of thing. 331dot is correct that your goals are not our goals. However, if your company meets our notability guidelines and you can write a neutral article about it, we would like to have it, so in that respect our goals align a little bit. Also, it's you who would be wasting your time if you spend a while writing an article and it's ultimately rejected.

I have a condition, though: the only demand you can make on any volunteer's time henceforth is by submitting your draft for review to AfC. Please don't ping people or contact them on IRC or whatever to ask them questions about your sources or how you could make your draft less promotional or anything like that. If you are absolutely desperate to ask a question and don't want to violate this condition, you can ping me, that's fine. (I might decline to answer, though.) Deal? -- asilvering (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Asilvering. Thank you for your reply. I have taken some time to think about what you have said and I am very intent on making this work. It very much my intention to to meet your notability guidelines and to write a neutral article. Apologies if I am mistaken but given that the Partech page has been deleted and my account is blocked from editing, does that not make submitting a draft to AfC impossible? Jonny at Partech Media (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll unblock you, so you'll be able to write and submit the draft as normal. @Cullen328, courtesy ping, I'll give this editor a last chance here, but the condition is that they have to work on it completely on their own, no demands on volunteer time beyond submitting to AfC.

@Jonny at Partech Media, there's a backlog drive at AfC this month, so you're very likely to get an unusually quick turnaround on your draft submissions from now through the end of June. I recommend you work fast! -- asilvering (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've also undeleted your draft in case this will save you any time: Draft:Partech. But a patroller who doesn't check the edit history might not notice and tag it for deletion anyway, so no promises it will stay that way. -- asilvering (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering Thank you very much. I will get to work and promise no more questions! Jonny at Partech Media (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asilvering, I apologize for being slow to respond. I have been assisting a seriously ill sibling in recent days, which is time consuming. Based on the discussion above, I do not object to unblocking this renamed account. Cullen328 (talk) 06:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Cullen328, and I wish your sib all the best. Hang in there. -- asilvering (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Partech (June 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bunnypranav was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

The comment the reviewer left was:

AI generated slop.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Partech and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jonny at Partech Media! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure of paid editing

Hello. You were asked some time ago to make the proper disclosure of being a paid editor, but you still have not done so. The existing {{UserboxCOI}} template on your userpage is not sufficient; please replace it with the {{paid}} template. Thanks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Partech (July 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Snowycats was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please don’t resubmit a draft submission without addressing the previous feedback. There is also no need for the laundry list of external links that don't serve as references...

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Partech and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Snowycats (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]