User talk:Txtasad

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mohammad Asad (January 9)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jamiebuba 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:Mohammad Asad 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Mohammad_Asad Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jamiebuba&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Mohammad_Asad reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Jamiebuba (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024
Thank you for contributing to the article Draft:Mohammad Asad. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, your own website, websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight, expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, as one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. Sam Kuru (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As noted above, if you continue to use fake SEO or paid sources for your COI article, this account will be disabled. Final warning. Sam Kuru (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * please excuse, was an honest mistake. would u be kind to please point which source you are referring to here about? Txtasad (talk) 14:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Almost all of them. Techbullion, newedgetimes, newsbreak, vents, outlooks's brand paid placement, theamericaexpress. These are garbage blogs, SEO dumps, and clear paid placement. You will also want to clearly identify your WP:COI before making more edits. Sam Kuru (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:COI is understood. But, outlook article was in context, referring to the isights and predictions about which we were taking, referring to were it was initially published, not as a proof of any assertion and then the sentence ended with its final thoughts substituted by citations from theamericaexpress and newedgetimes where they appreciated it.
 * Have no intentions to violating any guidelines but just wanted to clarify. Txtasad (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, Techbullion and newedgetimes are high domain authority sites. Those are editorial articles. are they never accepted on wikipedia? Txtasad (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You can read our guidelines on reliable sources here: WP:RS. Your own material published on blogs and paid advertorials is not, in any way, a reliable source. "High domain authority" is a SEO marketing term and has zero relation to the validity of a source. If you are only here to promote yourself, it would be a good idea to find another outlet. Sam Kuru (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am a new contributor and trying to contribute as per guidelines and made some mistakes in the process which i wasn't aware of. Yes the digitaljournal article was a pr release and Vents was all about what asad's own opinion, which is understandable.
 * However, Techbullion and newedgetimes articles are neither pr release nor advertorial. These are published by their own editors, desk and are editorial Txtasad (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't tell if you're joking at this point. Per their own 'about' page: "TechBullion offers press release publishing, content writing/promotion, and other digital marketing services to financial technology companies, blockchain technology, financial services, and technology businesses globally.'" It's literally owned by a PR/SEO/marketing company. There are hundreds of ads for paid placement of "guest posts" there on the usual jobs board sites. The article you linked was paid puff peice by a PR consultant. Frankly, they're a blatant PR/SEO site and not really attempting to hide it.
 * 'newedgetimes' is worse; it's a typical SEO blog, faked to look like a newspaper with a fake address in SF. The 'editor' stole her bio from the wikipedia page on Megan Twohey, word for word. Of course, there are gig posts for paid placement in the usual places. I think I've done enough footwork for you; let's leave it at 'I don't think this is a good faith account. If you add another promotional site, this account will be disabled'. Sam Kuru (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know why you would think it would be a joke. From my little understanding what i understand is sources should be independent, mostly secondary and of non-press release and preferably of editorial nature. In case of aggregator platforms original sources should be referred to. Also context matters. These article meet those conditions as far as I am aware.
 * Almost all newspapers and website offer pr release, promotional and advertorial services. So i don't know what was your point highlighting this in case of TechBullion. Their about section also says, it is a London Based Financial Technology News Website, focusing on Global Fintech News and Market. So, i don't know why selective analysis.
 * If you are saying any article from their website cannot be referenced in any context, I would strongly ask is there any list on wikipedia which I can refer to that would objectively tell me not to use those website. Otherwise it's just a subjective and selective analysis without even going through the content and context. Lastly, if it were just for some toying around I wouldn't bother wasting my time understanding your perspective and how to do it right! Txtasad (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes Forbes Wikipedia and countless pages on Wikipedia and on Forbses using techbullion links and cites as verified sources. Txtasad (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Mohammad Asad (engineer) has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Mohammad Asad (engineer). Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mohammad Asad (engineer) (January 20)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ldm1954 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:Mohammad Asad (engineer) 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Mohammad_Asad_(engineer) Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ldm1954&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Mohammad_Asad_(engineer) reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Ldm1954 (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked
It appears you've re-added your self-promotional links to Wikipedia again, despite the warning above. As noted, in the last month you've added references to fake/paid blog like 'ventsmagazine', 'theamericaexpress', 'londonsjournal', 'newedgetimes', 'thesunbulletin', 'newsbreak' and 'techbullion'. You've also added links to clearly-indentified sponsored/paid content at 'digitaljournal', 'outlookindia', 'financialcontent' along with other junk blogs and user-created material at instagram and linkedin. Almost all of these are the same corny press release and other puffery like "In the ever-shifting tapestry of the digital world, Mohammad Asad emerges as a beacon of inspiration, urging us all to embrace challenges and forge ahead in the pursuit of impactful innovation."

This is not a "personal vendetta"; I've removed tens of thousands of spam links and blocked thousands of promotional accounts. It's clear that you're only here to either self-promote, or to promote a non-notable client with absurd arguments. As promised, I've disabled this account. Sam Kuru (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Did u remove techbullion from wikipedia forbes page and thousands other wikipedia pages, who are using it as a verified source for the wikipedia pages? Do have a list of website not use refrences from or a list Only from where to use? Let me guess, 'NO' because clearly you seem to be having some personal problems. Don't act like a gatekeeper here coz u clearly are not. And being neutral is clearly not your forte. PR release was used once clearly not knowing PRs pieces were not allowed.
 * Now regarding outlook brand placement - it might be little difficult to make your biased and uninformed self to understand that any major publication have website policy for maximum number of graphs(images - generally 1 allowed) and words the editors can use in their article which is relaxed for brand story pages which if u read the original research has more than 5 graphs and is a long research article and hence the requirement of brand placement if you want to share your work/research with a wider audience. There are other editors who have covered this in a very brief but not detailed reports. But clearly understanding context would be difficult for you. And techbullion editor and interviewee/researcher both can be reached on linkedin. They reference and discuss this publicly available primary source and hence the reference. Also, wikipedia says - generally brand placement not allowed but context maters. 'Never' word is not used! So go read the policy here RS and flush biases from your mind before recommending anything! Clearly you not working for wikipedia because those folks i assume generally are smart to know this humble to answer, so whatever agent you are working for, naah u are not deterring me but only exposing your hypocritical self. Txtasad (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines. 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:. Sam Kuru (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I removed the duplicate requests and placed your statement within the request as intended. 331dot (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

why is this allowed here (same outlet) : https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Txtasad (talk • contribs) 09:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * First, that is the Spanish Wikipedia which has different rules than the English Wikipedia. Second, Forbes merits a Wikipedia article because it meets our criteria for one and receives coverage in independent reliable sources that can be summarized- that are not paid promotional pieces. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Mohammad Asad (engineer)
Hello, Txtasad. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Mohammad Asad (engineer), 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&#32;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) 14:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)