Beautifulwriter95
September 2023
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Technopat (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Sheikh Majid Rashid Al Mualla
edit
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Draft:Sheikh Majid Rashid Al Mualla, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. GPL93 (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
November 2023
edit
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Indian Banks' Association, you may be blocked from editing. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Seraphimblade it is a judgement given by court publicy, no personal analysis. Just a fact with proper reference. Please check the references and judgements. thank you. Beautifulwriter95 (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- I did; that's precisely why I objected to it. The issue is that it is primarily "sourced" to an opinion piece, a blog, and much of it is unreferenced altogether and appears to be editorial commentary. If no more reliable sources than that have commented on the matter, it does not bear inclusion in any articles. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Seraphimblade if it is not present in the media doesn't mean that it is false. Does Wikipedia say that court orders are false? I've attached court orders where it accepts its legal structure in the start of the article but application of RTI Act is not acceptable though the same reference. I think you're connected to this group or you're paid to do this job. Beautifulwriter95 (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- You sure caught me. An organization I've never even heard of before this has been paying me to edit since 2004. Ridiculous comments aside, you can certainly talk about your personal impressions of the court case or its significance on a blog, social media, or other appropriate places. You just may not do it on Wikipedia. If reliable and independent sources haven't found this significant enough to report on, then it is also not significant enough to mention in an encyclopedia article, regardless of whether or not it is true. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Seraphimblade if it is not present in the media doesn't mean that it is false. Does Wikipedia say that court orders are false? I've attached court orders where it accepts its legal structure in the start of the article but application of RTI Act is not acceptable though the same reference. I think you're connected to this group or you're paid to do this job. Beautifulwriter95 (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- I did; that's precisely why I objected to it. The issue is that it is primarily "sourced" to an opinion piece, a blog, and much of it is unreferenced altogether and appears to be editorial commentary. If no more reliable sources than that have commented on the matter, it does not bear inclusion in any articles. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.