User talk:TheRemoteWorker

November 2023[edit]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to Offshoring because they seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 08:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I think it might have been a mistake since I found the external link extremely relevant to the topic. I would request you to reconsider. TheRemoteWorker (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did at Outsourcing, you may be blocked from editing. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not for search engine rankings, I truly found the content useful wrt the history of outsourcing. And that is why I only added that bit. Else I could have spammed the page with multiple pieces of content.

While I understand the relevance of you "protecting" Wikipedia, please check what is relevant and what is not before banning people. TheRemoteWorker (talk) 07:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you found useful, you also copied verbatim into (for example)Outsourcing. This is a copyright violation, a practice that is strongly deprecated on Wikipedia. The source that you have (repeatedly) inserted into articles is neither good nor useful and is simply an advert for the Indian workforce to be used in outsourced tasks. There could hardly be a more obvious example of spamming. Finally, you aren't banned, but it might happen in the future if you continue editing in this way. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, please clarify that if I am citing the reference of a particular statement deemed as a copyright violation or spamming? And secondly, while I understand that the context of the article is on a different topic, I have cited the source since, as I mentioned, the paragraph was interesting and relevant to the history of outsourcing. While I appreciate your cause of stopping spammers, if my intention was to spam or add in inappropriate links, I would have done so irrespective of the context. Wikipedia has always been an amazing resource and I am trying to add things which I believe would enhance it. If you feel that adding in copy without giving a proper citation to its source would enrich the information and not be considered spam, then that might be unfair to the author of the article I am citing.

You are aware that Wikipedia offers no-follow links, so none of these help "boost" social rankings, then why would someone waste their time and add in contextual content if not for the motif to enhance Wiki? TheRemoteWorker (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And if you believe you have the power to ban my freedom to expressing my thoughts, please go ahead and do so. TheRemoteWorker (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: GrowYourStaff (December 21)[edit]

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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:GrowYourStaff 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.

Qcne (talk) 09:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheRemoteWorker! 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! Qcne (talk) 09:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:GrowYourStaff[edit]

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:GrowYourStaff, 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. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:19, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]