May 2024
edit
You have used sources that are either clearly noted as paid placement, unmarked press releases or marketing content, or blatant fake content farms which house unmarked SEO placement. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. These sources step far beyond those policies. Please carefully evaluate your references in the future, and ensure that you are in compliance with our mandatory paid editing disclosures. Sam Kuru (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Sam Kuru,
- Thank you for your message. I want to clarify that I am not being compensated directly or indirectly for my edits. I appreciate your vigilance in maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia, and I will continue to ensure my edits meet all necessary guidelines. I see where the problem is. Some of the sources mentioned seem to be unreliable. Can I remove them so that such a view does not arise? I am keen on expanding the accurate and correct space of Wikipedia and am new to this area. Also, if you look, most of the sources are correct. Please guide me and review your process. @Kuru Megrad123 (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- usawire.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://spam.usawire.com
- ventsmagazine.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://spam.ventsmagazine.com
- bytevarsity.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://spam.bytevarsity.com
Hello Megrad123. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Draft:Blu Bank, 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 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 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:Megrad123. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Megrad123|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. Sam Kuru (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Sam Kuru,
- Thank you for your message. I want to clarify that I am not being compensated directly or indirectly for my edits. I appreciate your vigilance in maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia, and I will continue to ensure my edits meet all necessary guidelines. I see where the problem is. Some of the sources mentioned seem to be unreliable. Can I remove them so that such a view does not arise? I am keen on expanding the accurate and correct space of Wikipedia and am new to this area. Also, if you look, most of the sources are correct. Please guide me and review your process. @Kuru
- Megrad123 Megrad123 (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sure. I think it would be best to contribute on another topic where you may have more skill in evaluating sources. This entity has clearly engaged in a large amount of SEO, and I fear that your next addition of SEO garbage will lead to this account being disabled. Sam Kuru (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Kuru, I’ve made an effort to check the sources and guidelines before starting my writing. You’re right, I should have been more meticulous. I realized that ventsmagazine.com was not a suitable source to use because it appears to be a press release. I’m a bit unsure about usawire.com, as it does publish relevant categories, but I’m still evaluating its credibility. However, the other sources I used don’t have many links in the text that would indicate they were written with SEO purposes in mind, especially since they are independent media. In fact, many existing Wikipedia articles link to them. I’ve put a lot of time into this first article, and I really want it to be published because it’s discouraging not to see any results yet. Of course, I’ll make the necessary edits, but I’d love to see at least one article go live. Megrad123 (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Kuru I respectfully request that my article be reinstated so I can make the necessary corrections. I have invested considerable time in it. You may remove the sections where you think the sources are problematic, but the rest of the content is based on independent sources and adheres to Wikipedia’s guidelines. @Kuru Megrad123 (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Kuru, I’ve made an effort to check the sources and guidelines before starting my writing. You’re right, I should have been more meticulous. I realized that ventsmagazine.com was not a suitable source to use because it appears to be a press release. I’m a bit unsure about usawire.com, as it does publish relevant categories, but I’m still evaluating its credibility. However, the other sources I used don’t have many links in the text that would indicate they were written with SEO purposes in mind, especially since they are independent media. In fact, many existing Wikipedia articles link to them. I’ve put a lot of time into this first article, and I really want it to be published because it’s discouraging not to see any results yet. Of course, I’ll make the necessary edits, but I’d love to see at least one article go live. Megrad123 (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sure. I think it would be best to contribute on another topic where you may have more skill in evaluating sources. This entity has clearly engaged in a large amount of SEO, and I fear that your next addition of SEO garbage will lead to this account being disabled. Sam Kuru (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
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.
- Well past good-faith acceptance here. You've deliberately used and restored black-hat SEO sources into material written like adcopy. Other sourcing reads like PR. Unless there's compliance with WP:PAID, I simply do not believe you. Sam Kuru (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)