User talk:Alwaysinhotwater

Thanks for your contributions to Hassan & Roshaan. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and it is promotional and reads like an advertisement. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. Can you please highlight which areas are promotional and written like an advertisement? Would appreciate your input.

TIA

WikiProCreate (talk) 03:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not draftify old articles, as you did at Jason Emer, see WP:DRAFTNO for further information. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProCreate, please review WP:DRAFTIFY for guidance on when it is appropriate, or not appropriate, to move an article from main space to draft space. In this case, this article was too old (older than 90 days) to be draftified and it also survived an AFD discussion so it was not appropriate to move this article to draft space.

If you have questions about Wikipedia policies and practices, please bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. I clearly missed that. I will be careful from now onwards.

Appreciate the feedback.

WikiProCreate (talk) 05:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WikiProCreate. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Hassan & Roshaan, 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:WikiProCreate. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=WikiProCreate|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. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Saqib. I appreciate you trying to contribute to Wikipedia, but you're kind of making a baseless claim here and it is hurting my reputation on Wikipedia. Please do not make claims when you do not have proofs. If you are talking about the change of spelling, that was pointed out by my friend as all the official social media handles and the articles have it spelled this way. If I had been paid to do this, why would I get the spelling wrong in the first place? I really appreciate you trying to help, but this is hurting my work. I am very well aware of the fact that paid advocacy is discouraged on Wikipedia and would not, knowingly, put myself into it. Wikipedia editing is something I do out of my will to research and see my work up there on this platform. Would appreciate if you could remove the paid advocacy tag, you can add the promotional tone stuff on the tag, as it may allow other editors to contribute, but this is a wrong claim.

Please note that I am not, in anyway, trying to argue here. I am defending my work that I have done on my own, putting in my time and effort into it.

WikiProCreate (talk) 10:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the edits I have made were after you pointed it out the promotional tone and requested more references. Now, that I have made the edits, on your feedback, you marked it as paid advocacy. You may be an expert editor and an older user than myself, but you're kind of making things difficult for me.

WikiProCreate (talk) 10:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib WikiProCreate (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look - everyone has their own perspective, but here’s how I see it. When a newbie creates an article about a subject that isn’t notable and it feels overly PROMO, and then they revert the draftification, it’s a good indicator that there might be UPE or a COI. I’m not going to remove the UPE tags. Instead, I’ll take this to AFD so the community can decide whether the article should be kept or not. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your perspective, but honestly, you've got this wrong. I appreciate your due diligence. It was after you pointed out that I made edits to improve the article. And Hassan and Roshaan are noteworthy enough to be on Wikipedia, same as Young Stunners, Abdul Hannan, Hassan Raheem, and many others.

WikiProCreate (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK let the community decide if they’re notable enough to be on WP or not. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hassan & Roshaan 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hassan & Roshaan 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 until the discussion has finished.

— Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. — The Anome (talk) 09:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @The Anome

I do not understand why am I being highlighted as someone with a conflict of interest with a popular band? It is funny because they are way out of my reach. But i understand if my nature of edits suggest that and I am willing to offer you an explanation or justification of whatever you point out. Can you let me know, what proofs or evidence would you need to clear your doubts? Thank you

WikiProCreate (talk) 09:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me why you chose the name "WikiProCreate", and in particular what "Pro" is meant to mean? — The Anome (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is rather simple. It related to simple creation and contribution? My mind did not even think about how its going to get me highlighted? If i am someone who does it for people, how come i would not be aware of being careful while choosing my username? How does that make sense.

WikiProCreate (talk) 10:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProCreate, I'm glad you renamed your account, but your edits may be monitored for a while so please don't mistake it for wikihounding. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, by all means.

Alwaysinhotwater (talk) 07:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Christien New. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability, it is promotional and reads like an advertisement and you may have a possible Conflict of Interest. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of moving the draft to the main namespace like you did at Hassan & Roshaan, please follow the AFC process and submit it for review. If you choose to bypass the review process, I may take it to AFD. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will do that. However, the page was already reviewed by an editor @Xegma as well.

Alwaysinhotwater (talk) 07:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Look - I posted this here because I've observed you used clearly unreliable sources to BLPs such as Komal Aziz Khan. It's important to remember that BLPs fall under WP:CTOPICS and editing in this area should be approached with care! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Thank you.

Alwaysinhotwater (talk) 04:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Christien New. Thanks! Xegma(talk) 19:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]