User talk:Juniorjustice

Welcome!

Hello, Juniorjustice!

I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Taabii (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You, Hope would make a positive contribution towards informed learning. Juniorjustice (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

Hello Juniorjustice. 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 employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. 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:Juniorjustice. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Juniorjustice|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. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not,

If there would be I would have disclosed, I trying to make this platform informative,

kindly acknowledge the efforts

Regards Juniorjustice (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You claim that you took this picture and it looks like you had very close access to Mr. Alam. You also uploaded this picture and, though you didn't write that you created it, did not provide the necessary information.

Regarding your draft, you have no sources. 331dot (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not,

I am an avid writer trying to contribute to accessible and open learning for all.

I found the article relating Mr. alam at Wikitia and bonafide interest believe that this must have a page as in future I oversee growth.

I request you be kind enough to align with my justification, in addition I also leanring and making changes to the article the Wikipedia is suggesting. Juniorjustice (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but if you yourself did not take the picture of Mr. Alam, you cannot claim it as your own work and claim that you hold the copyright as you are currently. If you did not take the picture, you must immediately without delay go to Commons and either 1) request deletion of the image or 2) show that the image was originally released under a copyright compatible with Wikipedia's(allowing for reuse by anyone for any purpose with attribution). If the original copyright is unclear, you must assume the image cannot be used here.

Images are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. Images can wait until the draft is placed in the encyclopedia- which is a long way from happening right now.

It's highly recommended for new users to not dive right in to creating articles- which is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia. It's best to first gain experience and knowledge by editing existing articles(of which there are millions that need work),as well as using the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for the guidance Juniorjustice (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted Draft:Md Tauseef Alam about a person whom you describe as "a social worker running organisation named Junior Justice". That makes your username the same as that of the said organisation, which is against our username policy, and also suggests that you may have more than a casual interest in the subject matter. I am blocking you for that; you can explain in your appeal (should you wish to lodge one) the exact nature of your relationship. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Md Tauseef Alam (December 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Ampil were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

See WP:COI. Unsourced. need more refs.

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:Md Tauseef Alam 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 Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

~🌀 Ampil ^{「💬 / 📝」} 13:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Juniorjustice! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! ~🌀 Ampil ^{「💬 / 📝」} 13:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

Your account has been indefinitely blocked from editing because it has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Also, your username gives the impression that the account represents a business, organisation, group, or website, which is against the username policy.

If you intend to make useful contributions instead of promoting your business or organization, you may request unblock and a username change. In your reasons, you must follow all these steps:

Disclose any compensation you may receive for your contributions in accordance with the paid-contribution disclosure requirement; and
Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked; and
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked; and
Provide a new username.

To do this, insert the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with your new username and replace the text "Your reason here" with your reasons to be unblocked.

Please note that the new username you choose cannot already be taken and in use by another account. You can search to see if the username you'd like to choose is available. If the search returns that no global account with that username exists, that means it is still available.

Appeals: If, after reviewing the guide to appealing blocks, you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal it by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your reason here" with the reasons you believe the block was an error, and publish the page. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Writter93305

Did you just register new user account Writter93305? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing It seems they did. And now their block is as a sock puppet master. Oh dear, what a pity; never mind. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]