User talk:Sarahadad20

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Sarahadad20, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

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 need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Aerin17 (t • c) 17:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Narayan Hulse has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Narayan Hulse. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disclose paid works before starting the work[edit]

Hello Sarahadad20. 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 very 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 extremely 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:Sarahadad20. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Sarahadad20|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. 78.146.240.103 (talk) 05:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had been doing regular edits but I also wanted to to publish an article on my own. So instead of writing a fresh article, someone suggested me to resubmit a draft that has been declined from Wikipedia draft space. So I went for it and resubmitted Narayan Hulse. Apart from that, my research tactics are quite thorough which might be giving the paid editing impression. I am interested in writing an article and publishing it on my own now. Kindly guide for that. And yes, it was not a paid editing, I did the resubmission out of random. Thanks. Sarahadad20 (talk) 07:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023[edit]

Your edit to Julius R. Nasso has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. —2406:3003:2077:1E60:57C5:A7FA:8B35:1A97 (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What i understand is I violated the policy due to similarity of the content. If similar information is added using the my own words, would that be acceptable? Because as I researched, the profile is very notable and had too many reliable and credible platforms mentioning him but his page contains only limited information about it. If the content is written in own words, would that be accepted? Sarahadad20 (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few issues you should be aware of here. First is copyright; your edit increased the content similarity from around 30% to over 70% because almost entire sentences were copied from biography on Nasso's official webpage. You are correct, you need to use your own words. See the essay about close paraphrasing for more guidance on this.

Second, the copyrighted material has had to be removed from the article multiple times now. It seems Nasso asked employees or paid editors to make the article to say what he wants [1]. Nasso does not have ownership of the article, and such editing violates conflict of interest. If you are editing on Nasso's behalf, this must be disclosed. (Won't go into too much detail, since I see you've already been given the standard template notice about this a few months ago.)

Which brings us to the next point. The main problem with COI editing is that it almost always violates neutral point of view. It does not provide a balanced view of the subject, giving undue weight to positive aspects and downplaying negative ones.

The same can be said for the biography from Nasso's website. It is a primary source, not independent from the subject. It will obviously be biased toward emphasizing his achievements, and may highlight smaller, less important things out of proportion, in addition to simply omitting anything that could put him in a bad light. So you should not be using it as a basis for deciding what to include in the article.

Even if you look for reliable sources and make sure to add citations to ensure the content that you add is verifiable, what you write will carry over the bias that is inherent in that "official biography". It is writing Wikipedia articles backward, only looking for evidence to support the content that has already been decided beforehand. This also happens to be the content that Nasso wants, so you'd be giving a WP:Buy one, get one free offer! (If you're not being paid by him, that is.)

Don't let the biography guide you. In fact, it's probably best to just ignore what Nasso's official website has to say. Instead, start by surveying what all kinds of independent, reliable sources have to report about the subject. Evaluate what is important based on the available coverage, and then make your additions to the article based on that.

Hope that clarifies. —2406:3003:2077:1E60:57C5:A7FA:8B35:1A97 (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for guiding me in such a good detail. I'll look into the sources I collected for this biography. And yes, its not a paid edit. I've watched some of his movies and got curious to look into his Wikipedia page but couldn't find such good detail but on other reliable platforms, all his filmography and career achievements were mentioned which made me do these edits. I'll be careful doing the edits on his page again as the profile is very much notable and even if information is not taken from his official page, majority of notable platforms have coverage about him. Thanks again! Sarahadad20 (talk) 17:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed one of your citations which strangely had last=Twitter |last2=Instagram |last3=Email |last4=Facebook, maybe caused by auto citation formatting features in visual editor? You might want to check its output more carefully in future.

I see that you've used academia.edu as one of the sources for your new additions. academia.edu is actually a social media platform, intended for researchers to share their published research papers. That page, and the contents of the lengthy profile section, are created by Nasso or his staff, and they also appear to be misusing the site to put up news articles about himself. This counts as WP:SOCIALMEDIA, and is a primary source that is not independent of the subject. Do be careful to back your content up with additional credible, secondary sources.

—2406:3003:2077:1E60:CEFF:5CDD:BBC4:2876 (talk) 06:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your support in fixing my mistake. Regarding academia.edu, i cited it after checking its citation ratio in Wikipedia articles. A few sources were weak which is why i added insufficient inline citation template which may help improve this page further. Thanks again! Sarahadad20 (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i cited it after checking its citation ratio in Wikipedia articles I don't know what is "citation ratio". I guess you mean that many other wikipedia articles also have academia.edu urls in their references section. However: those articles are citing academic and research papers that were uploaded on academia.edu by their authors. For example, this is a paper cited in Strait of Malacca article to support the assertion that "Various major regional powers have managed the straits during different historical periods.". It is a secondary, independent source about the subject of "Strait of Malacca".

Your citation is to Nasso's user profile page, and is using the biography provided there by Nasso or his staff, which is written in a very obviously biased and self-promotional tone, in order to support content in the article about Nasso's achievements. The self-serving nature of the material makes it unsuitable. This is very different from the usual cases of citing academia.edu that I describe above. —2406:3003:2077:1E60:CEFF:5CDD:BBC4:2876 (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok got it! Thanks much for the clarification. Sarahadad20 (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the academia.edu source and added various reliable sources from different credible platforms. The profile has so many mentions on reliable platforms and sufficient information can be further added if given more time. Sarahadad20 (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023[edit]

You still have not adequately responded or taken action to the inquiry regarding your appearance as an undisclosed paid editor. If you make any additional edits without complying, you may be blocked from editing. Bilby (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have already responded to the inquiry about undisclosed payments concern. I had been working on identifying what citations and sources are acceptable in Wikipedia articles and I had been doing the edits accordingly. However, I have seen your page and the list of pages that you have mentioned that you are interested in and constantly working on, majority of them are against Wikipedia notability guidelines and most of these pages are lacking citations. Content is poorly sourced or not sourced at all in most of those pages including Artificial stupidity, Big Lobster, Big Rocking Horse, Blanche Cave, Cleopatra 2525, Quentin Bryce, Dragonlance, Warriparinga, Marion, South Australia, Mitchell Park, South Australia, Swarnamalya, and The Dresden Files. Sarahadad20 (talk) 08:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Yes, I was aware that you had responded. I was hoping for an opportunity to manage this a different way, but that doesn't seem to be an option. Well, I hope that I'm wrong about your editing, and at least this is the most interesting response that I've received to date. - Bilby (talk) 10:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to do the edits now? Also, you would often find me editing biographies of people from TV industry, these pages are easy to fix or soure and I really find it interesting. I had been searching links for a biography named Roy Hamilton III and found a New York Times source, multiple mentions. Am I allowed to resume the edits now? Sarahadad20 (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is up to you if you continue to edit - if you do so without disclosing when you are being paid, this account will end up being blocked. This is an issue with the Terms of Use rather than just with local policies, so there is not a lot of room in which to move. - Bilby (talk) 09:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am very well aware of the fact that accounts get blocked when doing undisclosed paid edits which is why I avoid such edits. In fact i had been aproached by a few people to get their pages edited but since this is my only account and I have done more than 100 edits so far, I can't risk getting my account blocked. And yes, if I intend to do such paid edits in future, I will follow the process of disclosure first and might even ask you to help me through the process. So far, all my edits are neutral, unpaid and just contributory. Sarahadad20 (talk) 10:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023[edit]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have a financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. For that request to be considered, you must:

Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future.

firefly ( t · c ) 18:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sarahadad20 (talk) 10:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sarahadad20 (talk) 10:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I tried to mention the reasosn through template but it appears blank here. Typing it here again. No such paid edits have been done so far through my account, I can't risk my account through that. If my edits are giving the impression of paid work, I will work on it further and will make sure it doesn't happen again. I have no such intent of making paid edits through Wikipedia my livelihood and i dont need to. I will however need guidance of editing pages neutrally. Other than that, I ususally do thorough research of profiles while doing the edits which might be one of the reasons its giving an impression of paid edit. It will be avoided in future. Kindly remove the block and let me have the opportunity to learn further from this platform. Sarahadad20 (talk) 10:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]