User talk:Safaque

This user, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by Upwork for their contributions to Wikipedia.

Ways to improve Atif Afzal

Hi, I'm NearEMPTiness. Safaque, thanks for creating Atif Afzal!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. A good start, but the format of the references does not meet the guidelines. References should start with <ref> and finish with </ref>. This needs to be improved, please. Check other articles for guidance, please.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. NearEMPTiness (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have now made some editorial improvements and think that this article is very interesting to read. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 08:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)--NearEMPTiness (talk) 08:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Payed contributions

Hi,

Please, conform yourself to WP:PAY. You may use {{Paid}} on your user page.

--Lacrymocéphale 09:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lacrymocéphale: Can you please guide me step-by-step how do I do it?

Safaque (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni:

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Safaque (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am a beginner in Wiki contributions and have notified Wikipedia about my paid contributions. Have put template {{Paid}} on my talk page (shown above). Please unblock me. I adhere to all guidelines and never incorporate any marketing or advertising words in my content Safaque (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have not properly disclosed your paid status. Please reread the policies. Yamla (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

A few things: first, anyone who says they are new to Wikipedia in an unblock request usually isn't. Second, paid declaration doesn't matter. That is the minimum requirement to be able to hit the save button. I didn't block you for undeclared paid editing, I blocked you for native advertising, which is all this, this, this and this could possibly be described as. That you declared doesn't matter. I blocked you under local policies on advertising, which are significantly more stringent than the WMF's terms of use. That you declared (which as Yamla points out, you did incorrectly anyway), doesn't have any impact on your block because that isn't why you were blocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why I was blocked @TonyBallioni:. I do not intend to disrupt any project, perhaps if I have proper guidance I can improve all the articles. I sincerely apologize for my unintended promotional contributions. I was informed that you have to make use of the press coverage content to remain unbiased and factual. Please guide me to rectify this. Thank you.

Safaque (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Serenata Flowers

Hello, Safaque,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Serenata Flowers should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serenata Flowers .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Nick Moyes (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes: I am saddened by the notice. I understand the reason cited why the article is subject to deletion. I am currently unable to make any edit in the article. I will ensure I will not such mistake again and relook at the article when I am unblocked from editing. It would be great if you can guide me how to rectify and improve the article. Thanks!

Safaque (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. If you can supply me with links to reliable, independent in-depth sources which talk about the company in significant detail, as per WP:NORG, I will gladly add them to the article. All I could see were innumerable advert/articles placed with the same content into a wide range of media outlets. I do not like to see content deleted, but I do not like to see editors abusing Wikipedia for profit or for the promotion or an organisation, either. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the valuable feedback Nick. I do not have any other source at the moment and it would be unfortunate to see the page deleted. I will be more careful in my future contributions. Thank you for your polite guidance. Safaque (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]