User talk:Alimuzaffa22

August 2023

Hello Alimuzaffa22. 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:Alimuzaffa22. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Alimuzaffa22|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. Bilby (talk) 13:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bibly,

Thank you for reaching out. Firstly I would like to put it on record I am not being directly or indirectly compensated for this article or edits. I came across to this women's story in warzone country in Libya and saw a lot of articles about her on Google and in credible media thus thought this women's story would be an inspiration for many.

I have just started by journey on Wikipedia, I am a journalist based in Dubai and would like to use my expertise to share such inspirational stories, I am working on a few more topics. As I am said earlier I am not being paid in any form. This is solely my own initiative and nothing else.

Being a journalist I do understand that we CANNOT have any monetary value involved in our stories otherwise it just becomes biased and untrustworthy. However, I have taken your comments into consideration and will not be doing frequent edits, it is just that I am a beginner and trying my best to upgrade my skills.

Will be extremely careful henceforth to not give any such impressions. Alimuzaffa22 (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that I am aware that a banned editor was hired to write the article. This creates two problems - as you say, we cannot have money involved in the creation of stories; and we also cannot just accepot the work of banned editors. On those grounds I need to tag the article. I am willing to accept that you are not the banned editor, but the problem is inherent in the article from the first draft. - Bilby (talk) 09:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot accept to have the disclaimer in the article, it lowers down the credibility of the article. when I am statiing on record there were no fiances involved and also the entire article is based on facts and real life story I don't think this is fair.

It brings down the credibility of the personality.

As mentioned earlier I am new to wikipedia and the idea is to contribute to the wikipedia's journey, I am not aware of the editor is banned for whatever reason, nor was he hired, but yes I didn't know how to post on Wikipedia so had been seeing videos on how to do it.

We cannot accept to have the article flagged, can we somehow change the ownership to me? propose us some suggestion but the it not fair to flag the article. Alimuzaffa22 (talk) 09:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, you have no connection to the subject, yet you write "We cannot accept to have the disclaimer in the article" and "We cannot accept to have the article flagged". Personally, what I think is unfair is when people who are banned from editing Wikipedia fail to inform their clients of this, knowing that anything they create is subject to instant removal. The problem is not with the clients, but with the people they hire. Nevertheless, ultimately Wikipedia also needs to maintain integrity. - Bilby (talk) 10:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My dearest Bilby,

I totally appreciate your propmt responses and efforts. I think I wasn't clear earlier in my messages, I am the author of the subject, I wrote the article, I am a Journalist, I have just started by journey on Wikipedia, I am a journalist based in Dubai and would like to use my expertise to share such inspirational stories, I am working on a few more topics. As I am said earlier I am not being paid in any form. This is solely my own initiative and nothing else.

Since, I am new to Wikipedia I wasn't aware how it needs to be published, however the content has been written by me. I did the investigation, research and analysis ultimately developed this content. I am in the middle of writing more articles.

Within this context there has been highest form of integrity and transparency, no monetary value involved nor anyone was hired.

You must have seen the statistics that this page has recieved a significant amount of traffic to Wikipedia. The idea still remains to provide, authentic, reliable and verfied content to the users. And no way that has been compromised, I don't see any issue here.

Thus, the page should not be flagged for any such disclaimers which would undermine the credibility of the personality or draw in a negative impression, her contibutions to the humanity is commendable. Alimuzaffa22 (talk) 11:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the article was published on 08 December, it has been almost 9 months where no changes have been made in the article and now such issues are being raised.

As mentioned earlier, the aricle ticks all the boxes : integrity, authenticity and most relevantly backed with right source of information. Alimuzaffa22 (talk) 11:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that you did not write it. It was written in a single edit by User:Rohtakia. It was then largely rewritten by User:Amuzaffa. Are you saying that you are Amuzaffa, Rohtakia and Alimuzaffa22? - Bilby (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am definitely Amuzaffa and this is my article. I have all the refrences and notes to prove my case.

However I said time and time again I didn’t know how to publish it...I saw youtube videos and others. But the article is my own creation..this is my baby. Alimuzaffa22 (talk) 11:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I think this is as far as we can go here. I'll raise it at WP:COIN and see if we can get some alternative views. - Bilby (talk) 11:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, why are you doing this? Why would want to raise it at WP:COIN

and do you think would it honestly help my case? Alimuzaffa22 (talk) 11:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let us be very clear about something - this is not, never was, and never will be "your" article exclusively. You have no right of ownership or control over any content on Wikipedia, even content that you submit; this is non-negotiable policy (see Wikipedia:Ownership of content). If others dispute your edits, you have no choice but to engage in a process of discussion and compromise on the article's talk page. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what is being raised, I share similar concerns of PAID. The tag has been restored until an editor without a COI goes through and cleans up for any NPOV or Promo issues. I would suggest not removing again without a policy-based reason as it would be considered edit warring. I would also advise to join the conversation at COIN if you feel none of this applies to you. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Tabassum Mansoor while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts before editing further. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Bilby (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alimuzaffa22. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Spicy (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]