User talk:Sajjad12345678900

April 2021

Hello, I'm FDW777. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Black Liberation Army have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 07:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly an irrelevant link to place in an article about a wholly unconnected organisation that has the same initials. FDW777 (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Sajjad12345678900. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Property management, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

better edit summaries please

Though you have to some extent heeded the request to provide some sort of edit summary, the edit summaries you have been providing are not as meaningful as they ought to be. As an example, in your 20:53, 5 June 2021 edit of Homelessness, you provided the comment

small grammer [sic] corrections

That edit actually consisted of removing a seemingly extraneous space (preceding a ccolon within the title in a citation), removing a "paired" apostrophe (for no apparent reason), and an appropriate use of the word "the". Your explanation of these as corrections to grammar is sketchy at best (that is, none of these are what I would consider to be issues of grammar), but more importantly, this explanation is just not likely to be helpful.

What I mean by this is, if I happen to notice a particular pattern in your editing, in which you are prone to making certain types of questionable edits, a comment with more specific content might help me to focus my efforts on edits of that type.

Every time you make an edit, other editors may choose to review your edit. When the edit summary fails to provide any meaningful clue to what you were thinking, this prevents an editor from focusing on those edits which seem more likely to have similar flaws. The description you provide should help others to understand why the edit was appropriate, or at least, why you think it was appropriate. Admittedly, there are many edits (by other editors) that don't have an edit summary or that have an automatically-generated edit summary. But just because other editors are guilty of what may be "bad practices" does not mean that you should follow their lead.

Additionally, please note that the bulk of your edits should not be marked as minor. Allow me to rephrase that, you should not be marking any edits as minor, since this implies that other editors should not feel the need to review those edits (and even then, this should only be used for specific types of edits), and given the number of your edits which are non-constructive, it's pretty clear that you have not yet acquired the skills to determine which edits fit into this category.

Your efforts to contribute to the improvement of Wikipedia are appreciated, but it's also important that your efforts actually tend to improve Wikipedia. Sometimes, people will be motivated to make a lot of edits because this enables them to achieve certain privileges (thus, this is perhaps not one of the best ideas on Wikipedia). I am not saying this describes your situation, because I can't read your mind. In any case, please be aware that your failure to heed these suggestions (or for that matter, a continuing pattern of making edits which are largely counter-productive) may result in a request for administrative sanctions. Thank you. Fabrickator (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for your comments and feedback. You are right, when I first started I did fail to leave the reasons for my edits. Since being kindly guided by another Wikipedia editor who kindly pointed out I should be leaving comments on the reason for my edits.

So since then, I leave a comment for each and every edit I make.

Moving on to your kind comments for the edits I have made; from my memory, I made some small edits published it and then realised the space was incorrect. I so corrected that.

The edits I make are by reading the page and if I note an error. I then double-check with Grammarly Professional. If Grammarly Professional agrees with the errors I have picked up then and only then I edit the page to correct the errors.

The edits I made the majority of them I would say were minor as such marked them as minor.

I am still learning I don't get it right all the time and your comments and guidance are very helpful which in turn will be a positive contribution to Wikipedia. Thank you, User: Sajjad12345678900

You wrote

The edits I made the majority of them I would say were minor as such marked them as minor.

Per Help:Minor edits,

A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute.

However, over 20% of your edits have been the subject of a "revert", and this started with your first few edits. So we can now disavow any basis for believing that your edits would be highly unlikely to be the subject of a dispute.

As for your methodology (e.g. making an edit if Grammarly Professional accepts the correctness of your proposed change), I urge you to cease and desist. I don't know your background, I have no experience with Grammarly, I just know that you're producing bad results. Additionally, just because you can find some technical basis that there should be some minor change doesn't necessarily justify making such a change. Of course, this is going to be a judgement call, but WP is never going to be perfect, and the cost to actually make a change (e.g. you spending a couple of minutes to make an edit, along with the related computer resources used) are a quite small portion of the total resources used; in particular, other editors may review your changes (as they should) and if they feel it is appropriate, revert them. But this concern applies even if everybody agrees with the change. Yes, there is generally encouragement to make even seemingly inconsequential changes, but I'm just observing that, from the overall "health" of the Wikipedia community, this is probably a bad strategy (and I'm pretty sure there are more valuable contributions you could be making).

I now proffer a specific example, which was admittedly early on in your WP experience: the April 15 edit of "Assured tenancy". This is apparently British terminology and generally "foreign" to Americans. But I will bypass material issues and skip to technical ones ... like why is assured capitalized when not at the beginning of a sentence? Why is an assured shorthold tenancy not considered to be an assured tenancy? Shouldn't "fixed date term" be "fixed-date term"?

So after this conversation, I am not feeling "copacetic" about your editing practices.

Oh, BTW, it's standard practice to sign your "talk page" edits using a series of 4 tildes. By default, this will generate a standard signature format. Fabrickator Fabrickator (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

placement of references and punctuation

Please note in your recent edit of Homelessness in Russia, you have ignored the rule as stated in Wikipedia:Citing sources regarding the relative placement of punctuation and reference tags. Thank you. (I have revised this comment to make it more helpful) Fabrickator (talk) 05:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are lying about Pakistan

Hello, I'm 72.76.95.136. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks.