User talk:IbraEblal

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (November 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 DoubleGrazing were:  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 User:IbraEblal/sandbox 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, IbraEblal! 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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:IbraEblal/sandbox

A tag has been placed on your user page, User:IbraEblal/sandbox, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be advertising which only promotes or publicises someone or something. Promotional editing of any kind is not permitted, whether it be promotion of a person, company, product, group, service, belief, or anything else. This is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages — user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources or advertising space. Please read the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for Organizations.

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. DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

November 2022

Hello, I'm DoubleGrazing. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello DoubleGrazing, Thank you for your note. Can you point out which section violates the Wikipedia Guidelines that you deemed to be promotional material? I am more than happy to change it if you point it out. IbraEblal (talk) 12:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello IbraEblal. 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.

Hello, I'm Deb. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.Deb (talk) 12:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC) 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:IbraEblal. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=IbraEblal|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. DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

I apologize for the misunderstanding on my part. I edited my my profile talk page and added"

But for the record, I am not being paid for this edit. I work in one of the companies stated in the article, and I wanted to create a page for my company and it's sister companies. It is in no way meant to be promotion, but only an identification page for the company like a lot of companies have in Wikipedia. IbraEblal (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

If you're writing about your employer, then you are by definition being paid, even if they don't pay you expressly and specifically for your Wikipedia editing.

As for promotional content, this does not only mean solicitations to sell, it includes all manner of 'awareness-raising' and 'information-sharing' etc. activity; see WP:YESPROMO.

Please note also that articles must be clearly referenced, so that the information can be verified from reliable published sources. I mention this because your draft was completely unreferenced (which was the reason why I declined it when reviewing).

Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification. One last inquiry if I may: What is considered to be valid reference? isn't the websites of the companies enough? IbraEblal (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

No. There must be multiple independent references. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Deb (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

To expand on Deb's answer, primary sources like a company's website can be used to verify some information, but not very much. If for example the Eblal Group website says that their HQ is located in Baghdad, we can take that as read. But if they say they are the biggest donor to charitable causes in Iraq, or that their products are the best in their field, those statements we couldn't accept; we would need independent verification of such claims.

Also, in addition to verifying information there is also the issue of establishing notability, which is a core requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia at all. Notability basically means that the subject has been covered in independent and reliable secondary sources, ie. for example newspaper articles have been written about it, or TV programmes made, by journalists who are not paid to write those things but who do it because the subject is noteworthy. For the purposes of establishing notability per WP:GNG, primary sources such as the company's website do not count at all. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)