User talk:BFS Stand

BFS Stand, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi BFS Stand! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like MrClog (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dilip Buildcon (August 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TheBirdsShedTears was:

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 organizations and companies). 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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

We need reliable sources with in-depth coverage about the subject. Adding sources that shows only stats are not sufficient. Please add additional references to backup closely associated sources such as ref. 2, 3. See WP:CORPDEPTH for more information.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Dilip Buildcon and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Dilip Buildcon, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 04:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Dilip Buildcon has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Dilip Buildcon. Thanks! TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 04:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Honasa Consumer Pvt Limited for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Honasa Consumer Pvt Limited is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honasa Consumer Pvt Limited until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

A loose necktie (talk) 07:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Amberstudent for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Amberstudent is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amberstudent until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Teemu.cod (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Ditto Insurance

Hello BFS Stand, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Ditto Insurance, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ditto Insurance.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Cabrils}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Cabrils (talk) 03:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Amberstudent

Hello, BFS Stand. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Amberstudent, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Amberstudent (March 25)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Doesn't meet WP:NCORP and still reads promotional.

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:Amberstudent 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.

Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025

Hello BFS Stand. 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:BFS Stand. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=BFS Stand|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. Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

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. If this block is based off of private evidence, it can additionally be appealed to the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org. For an unblock 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.

Izno (talk) 03:27, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators: if this block includes a Volunteer Response Team ticket number, this block was placed as part of the conflict of interest VRT queue and the user must not be unblocked without the express consent of a user with access to the queue.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

BFS Stand (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am blocked for an unknown reason. Why i am blocked? I am still unaware where i have done promotion? Please let me know in which article i do promotion? Is this article in mainspace? Any promotion of my contributions is purely coincidental; I did not intend for this to occur. I consistently endeavor to adhere to Wikipedia's policies. I assure you that I will uphold the standards of Wikipedia's policies. This is my inaugural experience. BFS Stand (talk) 11:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You haven't actually spoken to the stated reason for the block, which is undisclosed paid editing. I'm finding it difficult to believe that you have no connection to the both past and suggested subjects of your edits, as they're all topics which benefit from marketing services. You may make a new request for someone else to review, but I am declining this one. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

What is your connection to the subjects of your edits, which appear to be exclusively companies? 331dot (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot, I possess no affiliation with any of the articles I have created. I concur that the most of the articles I written pertain to corporate matters, as I possess a keen interest in Business, Finance, and Marketing. BFS Stand (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I think you may be too much of a marketer to be able to edit about companies right now. In my(and Wikipedia's) experience, it is often difficult for marketers to be able to write as Wikipedia requires. They are very different audiences, very different styles of writing. Nothing wrong with being a marketer, it's just a different skill set. Is there anything you want to edit about other than companies? 331dot (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You 331dot for explaining in details. However, i edits most of the company's related pages but i always assume Good Faith to Wikipedia. And i also have interest in Entertainment industry and politics. If I am unblocked, I will refrain from discussing business-related matters in the future. BFS Stand (talk) 09:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]