User talk:Contentwriter.FJDC

October 2023
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Dentistry have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 08:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Dentistry was changed by Contentwriter.FJDC (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.905566 on 2023-10-03T08:57:12+00:00

Hello, I'm Deltaspace42. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Mother's Choice (Hong Kong) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Deltaspace42 (talk) 12:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello Contentwriter.FJDC. 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:Contentwriter.FJDC. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. 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. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

National varieties of English
Hello. In a recent edit to the page The Prince of Wales's Charitable Fund, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the first author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Deltaspace42 (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Blocked
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Graham87 (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

We don't have shared accounts here (which might be the case with you per your user page) and your English is inadequate for contributing here. I'd suggest contributing to a Wikipedia in a language you know better – either Punjabi, Urdu, or something else. Graham87 (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I truly appreciate that you wasted your time criticizing the editor but I won't waste mine just wanted to let you know that I am new here and I am exploring how Wikipedia works. At least support me instead of criticizing my edits. Thank you.Contentwriter.FJDC (talk) 04:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Contentwriter.FJDC (talk) 04:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

What do you plan to write about instead, now that you (hopefully) understand WP:COI and understand you won't be unblocked to write about Fatima Jinnah Dental College and Syed Baqar Askary? For that matter, I don't see where you declared your conflict of interest, which is not an optional step? --Yamla (talk) 10:48, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

You now have three simultaneous open unblock requests. There's no need to make a new unblock request simply to answer a question and indeed, it's abusive to do so. Which single unblock request do you want reviewed? DO NOT ANSWER IN THE FORM OF YET ANOTHER UNBLOCK REQUEST. I'll also note there's basically no chance you'll be unblocked to continue violating WP:COI, given your history of abuse in that subject area. --Yamla (talk) 10:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Respected administrator, I apologise for my previous lack of knowledge on the appropriate method of responding to your inquiries without utilising an unblock template. As you have duly clarified, I will now proceed to provide my responses without relying on the aforementioned template. As per your request, I have presented my unblock requests for your assessment. Additionally, I have addressed your inquiries, and I kindly request that you take all of these factors into consideration when deciding whether to grant me the unblock. Furthermore, I am currently committed to refraining from any further violations or abuses of the policy.
 * You have not answered my questions. --Yamla (talk) 11:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The single Unblock request that I want you to review is this one "According to the guidance provided, it has been brought to my attention that the username is intended to signify a role rather than an individual. Therefore, I would like to request a modification to the username to reflect the designation of "Fatima Jinnah Dental College writer." Furthermore, I created an additional account due to the repeated denial of my several unblock requests, leaving me with little alternative but to attempt the creation of a new account. I deeply regret my actions, as they are deemed illegitimate according to the standards outlined by Wikipedia. I acknowledge my lack of attentiveness towards the policies and operational guidelines of Wikipedia. I respectfully seek the acceptance of my unblock petition, and I provide assurance to the administration that I will refrain from participating in any form of illicit behaviour henceforth. Thank you for your consideration. I eagerly await a favourable response."

You created two additional accounts User:Research writer FJDC and User:Fatima Jinnah Dental College- content writer. One I could understand as not knowing about sockpuppetry rules. But Two??? One of which was after the block was changed to a sock block. That's a disregard for the socking policy. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Respected administrator, I was unaware of the sock policy, which led me to create other accounts on Wikipedia. Upon reviewing the regulations, I learned that having multiple accounts is permissible as long as they are not used for illicit purposes. Following several unsuccessful attempts to acquire access, I created a new account. However, shortly after its creation, I encountered another instance of being banned. Consequently, I made yet another attempt to create a new account on the same day. At the time of creating these accounts, I lacked knowledge of Wikipedia's sock policy. Consequently, my third account was blocked. Subsequently, while reviewing the block reason, I familiarised myself with the aforementioned policy. In light of this newfound understanding, I refrained from creating another account and instead sought aid from the administrators. I respectfully request that the administrators consider accepting my unblock requests, as I assure them that I will refrain from engaging in any more illicit or disruptive actions.

 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ creation log] • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]) )

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.