User talk:Kashem overflow

Put your messages here.

September 2021

You supposedly are a brand new user, even though your account was created last January. Your edits to date have been disruptive; I have reverted all of them. You should not tag any articles for deletion as you do not have sufficient experience. If you persist in disrupting this project, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: J. M. J. Supramaniam has been accepted

J. M. J. Supramaniam, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

– robertsky (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Foundations of Real-World Economics has been accepted

Foundations of Real-World Economics, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Lopifalko (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.174.89.81.141 (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rebill (June 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chris troutman was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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:Rebill and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Rebill, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to 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.

Chris Troutman (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

June 2022

Hello Kashem overflow. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Draft:Rebill, 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:Kashem overflow. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Kashem overflow|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. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @Justlettersandnumbers, Thanks for your concern and reminding me of the Paid Editing COI rules. I believe I don't come within this category of COI. I strongly state that, I am not being paid, compensated or offered any services directly or indirectly in exchange of editing on Wikipedia. As I have connection with the subject, I tried to write the article as neutral as possible, though it might seem non-neutral from your side and I apolozise for that. I should have been more careful about that. But with faith and trust I have declared my connection with the subject on my User page and on the article talk page also.

Again, I am not a paid editor on Wikipedia and I don't offer this type of paid services. And I also don't advertise myself on any platform.

Thanks again. Kashem overflow (talk) 09:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

OK. So what exactly is your connection to Rebill? Even if you work there as an intern or something you are still considered to be a paid editor. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Justlettersandnumbers, No, I don't work for this firm or got paid. I have a firendly connection with the owner. Owner is a friend of mine, Nahuel is the name. So, do I have to mention his name on the COI? And does it still be counted as a Paid editing? And is there any formalities to be done to prove that it is not a paid work?

Thanks. Kashem overflow (talk) 10:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

November 2022

Hello, Kashem overflow, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. MarioGom (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

January 2023

It has been found that you have been using one or more accounts abusively or have edited logged out to avoid scrutiny. Please review the policy on acceptable alternate accounts. In short, alternate accounts should not be used for the purposes of deceiving others into seeing more support for your position. It is not acceptable to use two accounts on the same article, or the same topic area, unless they are publicly and plainly disclosed on both your and the other account's userpage.

Your other account(s) have been blocked indefinitely. This is your only warning. If you repeat this behaviour you will be blocked from editing without further notice. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Rebill

Hello, Kashem overflow. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Rebill, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Rebill

Hello, Kashem overflow. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Rebill".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have a financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. For that request to be considered, you must:

• Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
• State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
• Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future.

GeneralNotability (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello @GeneralNotability,

First of all, I am not being paid by any of the topics that I have written. And the two articles that I have published, which had COI declarations, I have declared that. I am mostly a reader here, and I don't do so many edits. The edits that I have made has nothing to do with any payments or any sorts of payments. You may indicate the Draft:Bashar Georgis article, which could be paid. I am not being paid or have any kind of COI with the subject. He is a filmmaker from Bangladesh and I knew him by his works.Just out of interest I developed his article and put some references on. How on earth this could be a paid work? There was another editor who started the draft, he might be paid or not (He is his Id- Sabih Omar) and I just developed it. What is wrong with it? And how did I advertise anything? Why I am being blocked for advertising or promotion? For which article? Please indicate the exact articles or edits. Kashem overflow (talk) 06:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I am looking at an Upwork post that matches some edits you've made, and even without that evidence the pattern of articles you've created and edited pretty clearly looks like you've been editing for pay. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @GeneralNotability,

First of all, I am not even on Upwork. Even if I was on Upwork I would have declared that. I know how to handle COI and also did that in my two articles. So it is certain that I know how paid editing works. But I had and still have no financial stakes.

And can you please share which of the edits felt like I did for money? And exactly which Upwork job you are looking at? I mean which article you are talking about? You blocked me for advertising and promotion. Where is the advertising or promotion I made? Please indicate those. Kashem overflow (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

First of all I am not alleging anyone for the block. But the admin who blocked me for advertising or promotion also said that I failed to adhere to the paid editing disclosure. I have published three articles till now. Two of them were published via AFC because of COI. And one was published directly. So it proves that I am aware of COI and paid editing rules. So I would never make mistakes regarding this intentionally or unintentionally. I am not sure, because the blocking admin didn't mention which of my editing made him block me but I believe that the recent concern was raised after my contribution to Draft:Bashar Georgis. Before me, Another editor published the article and got rejected. And then with good faith, I just added some references to the article. I didn't know if the previous editor User:Sabih Omar was paid or not. I just improved his article with good faith.

• I am already aware of the rules regarding paid editing and COI editing. With good faith, I can say that none of my editing till now was directly or indirectly paid Or I get compensated by any means.
• None of my editing reflects that I have created an advertisement or anything related to this.
• The blocking admin states that he saw the Upwork job, which matches my editing. But didn't clearly mention which article. And the thing is I don't even have an Upwork account. Let alone getting paid by anyone through Upwork. If I had any I would have mentioned that. Cause I clearly know the TOC.
• I have been reading Wikipedia articles for my own research for over three years. In the meantime, if I had encountered with any situation where I could improve, I have done that. I always like to read Wikipedia articles. But before any editing, I had done my research and tried to educate myself about the rules regarding any editing. This even happened now. After getting blocked. I took time to read all the rules and crosschecked each and every edit that I made and also read the rules about creating unblocking requests. Then I am here to request unblock.
• I strongly state that I am being clear and honest with my editing till now, and will always be.

So, I would like to request to evaluate my request and unblock me. And permit me to contribute to Wikipedia in good faith. Thanks. Kashem overflow (talk) 05:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I can't speak to the Upwork issue as I don't have access to the ticket cited, but I see some of the same red flags in your editing as GeneralNotability. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:43, 7 August 2023 (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.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bashar Georgis (November 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Darling were:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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:Bashar Georgis 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.

—darling (talk) 02:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Kashem overflow! 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! —darling (talk) 02:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)