User talk:Sujandahal76

This is Sujandahal76's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Classic Tech (September 26)

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

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:Classic Tech 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sujandahal76! 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! Theroadislong (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Classic Tech (September 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by 331dot 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:

This just documents the existence of the company. It does not summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company.

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:Classic Tech 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.

331dot (talk) 09:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/Classic_Tech

Can this link be used to provide notability regarding the company? I previously submitted my article with title "Classic Tech" and got rejected. Sujandahal76 (talk) 11:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, that site is clearly noted as a copy of the draft you're trying to source. Sam Kuru (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you verify this link whether it satisfies the notability criteria ?

https://www.arthadabali.com/2022/11/03/33199 Sujandahal76 (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Classic Tech (November 14)

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

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.

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:Classic Tech 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Classic Tech

Hello, Sujandahal76. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Classic Tech, 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) 14:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

Hello Sujandahal76. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Draft:Classic Tech, 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 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:Sujandahal76. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Sujandahal76|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. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Usedtobecool, thank you for the review. However, I do not have any links or stakes with the article or the edits I've made to the Draft:Classic Tech. I am a newbie and since this is my first article I am trying hard to provide facts as much as possible. Please guide me if I need to make any changes on the topic. This article is one step towards many more from my side. Sujandahal76 (talk) 13:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Usedtobecool, so I was still waiting for your response. Please let me know if I need to make any changes on the article. Sujandahal76 (talk) 09:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've lost a whole year on this article, Sujan, and there's still no evidence that the subject is Wikipedia notable. I am willing to assist new editors, especially those from Nepal, but I don't do so with articles on companies, products or living people. My advice is that you waste no more time on this. If you need suggestions for what you can do next, I would be willing to help you with that. I recommend you start with making non-complicated improvements to existing articles, but I could be persuaded to suggest topics for new articles as well. Let me know if you are interested. After you've gained sufficient experience, you can revisit this topic with a better idea of whether it is notable of if it is, how to write an article on it that will be accepted. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Usedtobecool, thank you for the helping hands. However, I am an IT student and have gained significant knowledge about situation of ISPs here in Nepal. Like you've said, I've invested quite a huge amount of time in this topic and ISP sector overall. I had taken references from the published articles here in Wikipedia and the references they have taken is same or similar in manner. I am not sure, why this article fails to show the notability.

Also, since there are many ISPs that do not have Wiki page I was hoping to work on another company after finishing this one. Not sure if I'll able to make it work. I can see one article of similar company that was approved on similar time as I first wrote article on this one, that too with similar references. Sujandahal76 (talk) 07:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Social Security Fund (Nepal) (January 2)

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

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.

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:Social Security Fund (Nepal) 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.

Charsaddian (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Charsaddian, Are you sure about the reasons you mentioned? I've cited references from Nepal Government official websites along with International Labour Organization. This is not something you'd write about, the fund is the Nepal Government's organization. Further I'll add if any additional sources is available. Sujandahal76 (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have used 2 Play Store references which can't be considered as reliable sources. Reference number 5 and 6 is not accessible. Reference number 4 is a primary source and the link takes you to list of "Board of Directors" only. Charsaddian (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Charsaddian, references for Play Store were not significant, I just added it as a link to the Applications (will move it to external links). However, the reference number 5 and 6 are not accessible as they are for the ISSA members (globally recognized organization) and it is their policy. I can do nothing on that, I thought the title itself should have been sufficient.

And for reference no 4, I believe the board of directors (its structure) can only be signified by the company itself. I think it'd be best if I remove the reference for that part. Sujandahal76 (talk) 09:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Social Security Fund (Nepal) (January 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 Chetsford was:

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.

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:Social Security Fund (Nepal) 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.

Chetsford (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Chetsford, it'd be best if you could provide me the reasons. Sujandahal76 (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Classic Tech (January 9)

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

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.

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:Classic Tech 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) 10:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

You may be blocked from editing without further warning if you make any further edits without responding to the inquiry you received regarding undisclosed paid editing. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I donot understand which inquiry you are indicating to. I believe I've made myself clear and have provided response to any query I was asked of. Please let me know if I've missed any inquiry. Sujandahal76 (talk) 09:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that I believe you are engaged in paid editing, and need to disclose this. Paid-editing disclosure is a hard requirement under our terms & conditions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DoubleGrazing, thank you for your honest review. As stated earlier, I am not in anyway associated with the article. Being an IT student having interest in IT sector, I have done multiple researches and have vested significant amount of my time in researching ISP/IT scenario of Nepal. When I went through wikipedia, I saw almost all major ISPs article here except for Classic Tech. And thus I decided to go with this article. I have tried my best to provide relevant information with references. This now has become the only thing I am not getting success at, despite of my best efforts and time. Also, I do not know if investing my time in an article is considered as paid-editing. Sujandahal76 (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that already, but you'll forgive me if I don't believe you.

Your very first edit on Wikipedia was to create a draft on Classic Tech. Since then, almost your entire edit history has to do with this subject; for nearly two years you've tried to get your draft published, despite other editors telling you to drop it. Your dedication and determination is truly remarkable for someone with no connection with the subject.

And as if that's not enough, according to LinkedIn, someone with your exact name works at Classic Tech. Are you saying that's just a coincidence?

Given all this, would you like to reconsider your stance one last time? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think you can find various persons with same "full name" if you search on LinkedIn working on IT/ISP industry in Nepal. Like I said I've invested significant amount of time in this sector not only Classic Tech, and my plan (initial and still is) is to write articles on other ISPs in Nepal as well. Further, I had written article on Social Security Fund (Nepal) which was declined and was accepted after someone made minor changes, not sure why. Sujandahal76 (talk) 10:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you're sticking to your story? Okay, then.

I don't see what the SSF article has to do with this, but now that you mention it, the way it was accepted does seem quite odd, and probably needs to be looked into. There exists no evidence of notability in that article, either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, why wouldnot I? If I had such intentions, I'd have just created a profile with random full name. Please don't halt the approval just because you thought me to be someone. If you can't approve then it's alright. May be someday someone will try to continue what I've. Also, as stated earlier, my plan is to continue working on articles for all major ISPs in Nepal.

Regarding SSF, please do look into it. I submitted same thing but was rejected every time citing the article was not notable. Sujandahal76 (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Classic Tech (July 7)

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

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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

I should probably be rejecting this, given the number of earlier declines and persistent lack of evidence of notability, but let's give it one more try.

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:Classic Tech 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) 10:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DoubleGrazing, thank you for quick response. However I am still confused about the "notability" you are referring to. I've added international/national references that have articles on the topic I've submitted. And the comment regarding the declining of the article still doesn't add up. All the reference I've added are of top newspaper, government sites, APNIC, international news media. Please let me know which references doesn't provide sufficient proof for notability. Sujandahal76 (talk) 10:07, 7 July 2024 (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. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]