User talk:Fasadik

Your submission at Articles for creation: 1979 Wisconsin–La Crosse Indians football team (March 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by 97198 was: 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:1979 Wisconsin–La Crosse Indians football team 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.

97198 (talk) 09:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I see the problem of sourcing, will continue working on it. Fasadik (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Rick Banks for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rick Banks 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/Rick Banks (2nd nomination) 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.

— Moriwen (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

History Merge

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Draft:Rick Banks a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Rick Banks. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Odion09 (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

Hello, Fasadik. Thank you for helping to build Wikipedia-- the world's largest free content encyclopedia. I'm sorry, but a page you created  Draft:Abhishek Bansal has been deleted as meeting one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia-- subjects of articles must meet notability guidelines with reliable sources which are unconnected with the subject and which provide verifiable information. Someone unconnected with the subject needs to have written a great deal about the subject. Please see WP:CORP for subjects that are groups or companies or organizations. Please see WP:ANYBIO for subjects who are people. Please see Wikipedia:Common sourcing mistakes (notability). Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure is a useful tutorial.

Also, encyclopedia articles must be neutral in tone and not use language that promotes or advocates for a subject, or tries to cast the subject in a favorable light. Please see Information on content and common pitfalls to avoid here and here. Sometimes creators of promotional/advocational content are bewildered that it is considered such. If one has been trained to write such content, or if one has spent some time writing such content, one may simply be blind to non-neutral phrases or styles.

Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. A common assumption is that the prohibition against promotional editing applies only to businesses or organizations. It applies to any topic, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc. Persistent posters of promotional content may be blocked from editing.

CV's/resumé's are by their nature promotional. Writing about oneself or any connected subject is discouraged as the connection can make objectivity difficult. Information on avoiding advocational content and common pitfalls is here and here, however be aware that these are not exhaustive.

New article creation can be difficult, but the Article Wizard can help you. The new user tutorial can help you avoid future problems. You can also ask for help at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk, and on IRC chat. Sometimes it is better to first gain experience by fixing and helping maintain existing articles. Wikipedia:Community portal/Opentask contains links to things that badly need doing, if you are so inclined.

-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Fasadik, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as Shraddha2706 (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello Fasadik. 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 compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. 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:Fasadik. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Fasadik|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. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)