User talk:Asma Khawaja

August 2018

I have moved the page Book:Shaking Hands With Clenched Fists back to Draft:Shaking Hands With Clenched Fists, as this is not the sort of thing that the Book name space is for. Wikipedia:Books explains what the purpose of that name space is, and here are a couple of examples of what Wikipedia books look like: Book:Complex Dynamics, Book:Presidents of the United States.

While I am here, I will take the opportunity to let you know that I do not think the draft is ever likely to be accepted as a Wikipedia article unless it is radically rewritten, because it reads as a personal subjective review of the book, rather than an objective report. My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are connected to someone or something you have written about (a few examples are writing about yourself, your business, your band, a member of your family, your client) then you should be aware that Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline discourages you from writing about that subject. The main reason for that is that experience over the years indicates that editors with such a connection to a subject they are writing about are likely to find it very difficult, or even impossible, to stand back from their writing and see how it will look from the detached perspective of an outsider, so that they are likely to write in ways that look promotional to others, even if they sincerely think they are writing in a neutral way. Also, if your editing forms all or part of work for which you are paid, whether as an employee, as a contractor, or in any other capacity, the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require you to state who is paying you, and what your connection to them is. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Asma Khawaja, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms our use and policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 06:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018 (continued)

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There have continued to be problems with your editing, some of them continuations of those you have been warned about above. Here are a few comments about some of the problems.

Despite the message above from Kautilya3, you seem to have continued to edit without logging in to your account. There are several reasons why that is not a good idea. For one thing it may cause doubt or confusion as to whether different edits to a page are from the same person or from different people, which can at times cause problems. A particular problem in this case is that there have been problems with editing, and it is difficult or even impossible to communicate with a person about such problems if she or he is editing from IP addresses which keep changing, as any message posted to an IP talk page may not be seen if the next time the same person edits the IP address has changed. Because of problems with the IP editing I have temporarily protected the draft from editing by new accounts or unregistered editors, so you will be able to edit it only if you log into your account.
One of the editing problems has been repeatedly adding article categories to the draft you created. That has been done at least six times to my knowledge. Those categories are only for articles, and must not be added to the page as long as it remains in draft space. While you may have originally been unaware of that fact, by the sixth time you added those categories you cannot possibly have failed to notice that they had repeatedly been removed, and it is likely that you also noticed the messages about it in edit summaries. You did not receive IP talk page messages about it while editing without logging in, but you are receiving this message now.
Quite apart from the fact that Wikipedia policy does not allow article categories in drafts, Wikipedia also has a policy on edit-warring, which basically says that you must not just keep repeating the same edits when other editors revert them. If you believe there are good reasons for reinstating your edits, or if you simply don't understand why they are being reverted, then please consult the other editors involved and be willing to discuss the issues, rather than just repeating your edits over and over again, presumably in the hope that the other editors will be less persistent than you, so that in the end you get your way because the others just give up. Anyone who persistently edit-wars may be blocked from editing, as may anyone who persistently edits in other ways which are not compliant with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
The draft reads as though it is written to promote the book, and espouse the point of view advocated in that book. A Wikipedia article needs to be written from a neutral point of view, and any content which appears to be promotional may be deleted at any time.
The draft contains content copied from elsewhere, which is likely to infringe copyright. There is a substantial section which states that it contains excerpts from your book, and there is also other content copied from elsewhere, such as a passage taken from a statement by Parvaiz Iqbal Cheema. Even if the quotation from Parvaiz Iqbal Cheema does not infringe copyright, it is certainly plagiarism, as it is unattributed. Even content copied from your own book is not acceptable under Wikipedia's copyright policy unless proof of copyright release is provided. When you post anything to Wikipedia you release it for anyone in the world to reuse it, either unchanged or modified in any way whatever, for any purpose whatever, commercial or otherwise, subject to attribution to Wikipedia. It is very rare that the author of a book to release content for such free and open reuse, and are you sure that you wish to do so? Even if you do, we require proof of the fact. We don't assume that content is freely licensed on the unsubstantiated say so of just anyone who comes along and creates a Wikipedia account. Although I have no reason to doubt that you are indeed Asma Khawaja, we do not know for certain that you are, and many times we have had editors falsely claiming to be people other than who they really are.
I said above "I do not think the draft is ever likely to be accepted as a Wikipedia article unless it is radically rewritten". What I did not know then but know now is that your book does not at present come anywhere remotely near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. To satisfy those guidelines the book needs to have been the subject of substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. My searches for coverage came up with very little, and that little was on Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Wikimedia Commons, Wikipedia mirrors, an image sharing site, and similar. Those are not independent reliable sources. That being so, if the draft were to be made into an article it would be deleted very soon.
In view of the promotional nature of the page you have created and the copyright issues, it would be in line with Wikipedia's deletion policy to delete the page now. Rather than deleting it though, I am posting you this message in the hope that it will help you to understand the issues. However, I strongly urge you to take notice of all that I have said, and consider whether it is worth putting any more work into the draft you have created, since, as I have indicated above, it is unlikely ever to succeed as a Wikipedia article. (Also, please note that if it were moved from drat to article in its present state then it would be speedily deleted. I am allowing considerable leeway to the page since it is a draft and can be changed, but the same amount of leeway would not be allowed for an article.)
Almost a month ago I spent some significant time writing you a message giving you advice on what you needed to change if your draft was to have any chance at all of survival. Despite being disappointed to see that you appear to have taken no notice of that message, I have now spent even more time writing you another message in the hope that it may help you. Please do take note of the information and advice I have given you, as I do not want my time and effort to have been wasted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since posting the above message I have discovered that a substantial part of the draft has been copied from LinkedIn. Please clarify the copyright position in relation to the draft, either by removing all content copied from anywhere or else by providing confirmation that you do have both the authority and the intention to release it for free reuse by anyone anywhere for any purpose subject to attribution to Wikipedia. If you don't do that soon then the draft will probably be deleted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing, because it is clear that you are not here to contribute to building the encyclopedia. Many people initially come to edit Wikipedia with the mistaken belief that using Wikipedia for promotion will be acceptable, but once the situation has been explained to them they know better. If after all the time and trouble I have put into trying to help you you can still openly state that your intention is to use Wikipedia to promote your book then there does not seem to be any purpose in continuing. I also note that you have chosen to ignore what I told you about categories in drafts, and also, more importantly, about copyright. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]