User talk:Sarahadad20

Welcome!

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

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

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

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]