User talk:Enwriter
Welcome!
[edit]Hi Enwriter! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 18:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Hindi Olympiad Foundation (October 30)
[edit]
|
Hello, Enwriter!
Having an article 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! Theroadislong (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
|
Paid editing
[edit]
Hello Enwriter. 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:Enwriter. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Enwriter|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. Theroadislong (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Response: Respected Sir/Madam, I am not in any way being compensated for this article. As my first article I was just looking to help a NGO working for a social cause. Can you please tell me which part of the article seems promotional? I would be more than happy to undo my mistakes and write in compliance with Wikipedia policies. SOF is one of the articles which I used for reference.
November 2021
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Enwriter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I wrote a single article for which I was not being paid. The article did not contain any promotional content as it was just basic information about that organisation. It was keep getting deleted for being promotional. I asked many times for the details of deletion like what line or sentence seemed promotional but I did not receive any response about that. I also stated that I took references from articles that are already present on Wikipedia while writing about that organisation. One of the articles I took reference from Science Olympiad Foundation is much more promotional than my article. I pointed this out too but no action was taken. How is it fair that one article which is full of promotions is still on Wikipedia and another article which is non-promotional gets deleted because it was written by some new writer? I also offered to change or remove the content from my article which seemed promotional but again I didn't get any response. How can somebody write in a space that is filled with admins who are not ready to listen to any explanation and just delete the article without giving any details?
Decline reason:
First, it does not matter what you wrote in the article, what kind of language you used, when you admitted right at the bottom that you are "associated" with the HOF. We strongly discourage any editing by an editor with an active connection to something they're writing about, whether paid or not. There would be ways to develop such an article ... we have a whole section called "Articles for Creation" designed for people who recognize the importance of that policy. You chose not to do that ... even after the article had been deleted once.
Second, per what we refer to around here as the "other stuff exists" argument, I went and looked at Science Olympiad Foundation. This leads me to at least concede one minor point to you ... your article, like that one, was not promotional on its face as it didn't really include any positive fluffy language about the organization. However, the subjects of our articles must also be notable, and we have evolved over the years some pretty hard criteria for judging that. For organizations, we want to see some evidence that the organization has been the subject of multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. For the HOF, you only provided, as far as I could tell, coverage from either non-reliable sources or links to the HoF's website. So it didn't pass that test.
Third, the SOF article does have that kind of coverage, some articles from The Times of India, and as a result, guess what? It references some ... criticism of the organization. How can an article be "promotional" if it includes criticism of its subject?
Lastly I'm not impressed by your attacks on the admins. I'm sure you feel wronged, but unblock requests that complain about the admins who made it rarely end well no matter how justified the request otherwise. I will also remind you that, after the article was originally deleted, your response was to just recreate it. Almost nobody who does this gets a third chance. — Daniel Case (talk) 02:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
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.