User talk:Ahmed Mehreen

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mehreen Ahmed (January 3)

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

Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Ahmed Mehreen! 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! Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Wiki page biography

I need to help to create a wiki page biography.

I have published 10 books, received innumerable awards and nominations, and published many online literary magazine publications.

Ahmed Mehreen (talk) 07:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

We don't have "wiki page biographies", we have encyclopaedia articles on topics which are deemed notable enough to justify publication.

Please read WP:AUTOBIO, which explains some of the reasons why you should not be writing about yourself. You should instead concentrate on your career, and if you are, or one day become, notable, someone may write an article about you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mehreen Ahmed Novelist (January 3)

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:  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 Draft:Mehreen Ahmed Novelist 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) 09:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Mehreen Ahmed Novelist

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Mehreen Ahmed Novelist, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
• It appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement of https://www.amazon.com/Mehreen-Ahmed/e/B005L6HMHM. (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
  If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions; however, it appears you may have written a Wikipedia article, or a draft for a Wikipedia article, about yourself. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – please see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Notable people who have edited Wikipedia). If you wish to add to or change an existing article about yourself, you are welcome to propose the changes by visiting the article's talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was the page I created deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss this with the deleting administrator. Thank you. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Multiple drafts

Hi, please don't create multiple versions of your draft; you now have Draft:Mehreen Ahmed, Draft:Mehreen Ahmed Novelist, and User:Ahmed Mehreen/sandbox in the system. As previously pointed out, you shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place, let alone like this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you please delete all my drafts. I don't wish to do this anymore. I tried multiple times to delete them but I couldn't. I did this in the first place because I wanted to try out the links which look really professional. Ahmed Mehreen (talk) 07:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Mehreen Ahmed

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Mehreen Ahmed requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/32282425. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Those sentences were written by me on goodreads though. They are my words. But I get your point. Would someone from your team be interested in writing my author page on Wiki. I have phenomenal publications in peer-reviewed journals, not to mention wins and nominations.

I would however, like to keep my user account to complete this process which will be for my view only. Cheers Ahmed Mehreen (talk) 07:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I have also submitted another draft. please delete that too, Ahmed Mehreen (talk) 07:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I have deleted everything from all the other multiple accounts. I am very sorry for my ignorance. But as I said before, I was really intrigued by all the template links possible on Wiki which is why I was trying it out. Ahmed Mehreen (talk) 07:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (January 6)

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: 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:Ahmed Mehreen/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) 08:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I do not see a word on that template. Every single word has been deleted. I didn't delete them. I don't know what's happened. Ahmed Mehreen (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

There never was any content on it. After your previous sandbox was deleted, you created a new one, added the AfC template, and submitted it blank. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

There was content in the original sand box which you also saw. But it's all gone now. Can you please delete my account also. I have no interest in wikipedia anymore. Thank you, Ahmed Mehreen (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there was content in the earlier sandbox. It was deleted because you asked for all your drafts to be deleted ("Can you please delete all my drafts. I don't wish to do this anymore").

User accounts cannot be deleted; you can simply stop using this account. If you wish, you may optionally place the {{retired}} template on top of this page and/or your user page User:Ahmed Mehreen. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of User:Ahmed Mehreen/sandbox

The page User:Ahmed Mehreen/sandbox has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done for the following reason:

G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page – If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND (per Special:Diff/1193913740)

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Is that page retrievable? Ahmed Mehreen (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mehreen Ahmed (January 7)

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 Draft:Mehreen Ahmed 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) 06:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The articles in question as referenced in this bio are from publishers such as Routledge, Cambridge Press. The actual article is not available online. They are in book format.

One article is available online and was published also in a peer-reviewed journal

https://www.lltjournal.org/item/10125-44261/ is a refeered journal and the article is also displayed.

https://old.callej.org/journal/1-2/Ahmed1999.pdf This is also a peer-reviewed journal. I have inserted the article in edits.

For critical acclaim section I have wiki-linked Midwest Book Review which has reviewed two of her books as cited. I have deleted reviews appearing in the word-press. I hope this works. Ahmed Mehreen (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Also for her books, I have inserted link from google books and publisher's site which displays all of her books. Ahmed Mehreen (talk) 07:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

For Best of the Net Nomination which is a prestigious award I have linked them to the Magazines sites which clearly displays the nomination. Ahmed Mehreen (talk) 07:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

So what is the point you're trying to make? None of what you say here negates any of the reasons why I've declined this draft.

Besides, I thought you didn't wish to do this anymore (your exact words)? You create all these drafts, make us review them, then make us delete them, and then start from the beginning again.

And all that after I've already explained to you that you shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place.

I'm genuinely confused as to what your plans are. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

This goes for her other awards as well. Ahmed Mehreen (talk) 07:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I have done errors in the past and I am trying one more time to make it right. People write their bios in third person and is encouraged by every publisher, I am seriously confused why you wouldn't if it is cited with proper evidence. You are not even will to accept Routledge and Cambridge Press as peer reviewed. All my publications are peer-reviewed. Why is it not accepted by Wiki policies. I am confused by this, and by your instructions which are vague. I shall not engage with you anymore. But I thought I should give myself one more chance to fix my errors. I hope I have been clear.

Also, I have seen Wiki pages of author published with really scant information, that too is confusing. Cheers Ahmed Mehreen (talk) 07:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I have pointed you to relevant guidelines and policies, but I get the feeling that you haven't read them, and that is why you think my instructions are 'vague' and why you are confused. I will try once more, in plain language:

1. NOTABILITY

Firstly, you have to understand that Wikipedia is not like LinkedIn etc. where anyone can go and create their own 'profile'. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and we publish articles on subjects which are deemed notable. Your main task therefore is to demonstrate that you are notable, either according to the WP:GNG general notability guideline, or the special WP:AUTHOR one.

The GNG one requires secondary sources (ie. newspapers, magazines, TV or radio programmes, etc.) which are reliable and independent of the subject, and which have provided significant coverage directly of the subject. We need to see multiple such sources. Your draft cites none.

The AUTHOR guideline requires substantial evidence of significant career, to the point where the author is seen by their peers and critics as especially noteworthy. Again, I see no evidence of this in your draft.

2. VERIFIABILITY

Beyond demonstrating notability, everything you say in this draft must be verifiable from reliable published sources. Much of the content is not referenced at all, and some is referenced with non-reliable sources. Articles on living people (WP:BLP) have particularly onerous referencing requirements for privacy etc. reasons. For example, the date of birth must not be given, unless this is already demonstrably in the public domain, and can be supported by a reliable source. Which source provides this? (That is only one example of insufficiently supported content, there are many others.) I am sure that you know your own date of birth, but that isn't the point – you are not meant to write what you know, but only to summarise what reliable published sources have said. This is one of the (many) reasons why you should not be writing about yourself in the first place, as already pointed out several times.

Hope this helps, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Example: This person has a wiki page and it is so scant that it does not even cover half a page who is only written a debut novel with no spectacular notability, awards, Booker, Nobel etc, etc. How in the eyes of WIKI policies she meets all the criteria of notabiity. Please explain without using Jargon. Thank you.

Shazia Omar Ahmed Mehreen (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea why the Shazia Omar article exists. It was published 12+ years ago, and back then the requirements were different. If you are unhappy with the article being there, you are more than welcome to improve it, or else to initiate deletion proceedings. Either way, just because you have found a poor article – which is inevitable, given that the English-language Wikipedia contains over 6.7 million articles – doesn't mean that we should be creating more such problems. New articles must comply with current policies and guidelines. We only assess drafts by reference to those, not by comparing them to existing articles. (See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which elaborates on this point.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I think Wiki policy either has double standards or you don't understand the policies. How else do you explain not accepting my publications with Cambridge Press and Routledge and University of Hawaii publications as peer-reviewed? When the whole world knows who they are. That is shameful.

You hide behind your Jargon which no one but yourselves understands or maybe not, and are very good at quickly dismissing, deleting people's achievements.

I am very sorry and disappointed with reviewers such as yourselves.

Good day. Ahmed Mehreen (talk) 08:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

One other example. None of the links on this person's wiki are valid

Oops--https://us.macmillan.com/author/douglascorleone

Douglas Corleone

And such wiki pages are active? Confusing to say the least to me or readers like me whose only interaction with Wiki is through google. I don't even know what your internal policies are anymore. Who you publish and who you reject. Ahmed Mehreen (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I have already explained to you that just because you find other articles that may not meet policies, does not mean that yours will be accepted. This is a red herring. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

You do not need to repeat yourself. This is harrassment and bully, you also do not get to judge or tell me who is notable and who isn't, wiki full of people who aren't notable. Clearly you do not understand notability when range is so vast. I cannot stop you from responding but you find your threats unacceptable. It is criminal to make threats when all I have done is to understand Wiki wading through its very confusing site as I found innumerable flaws which does not meet your criteria of notability at all, which even you cannot explain. All I wanted was to talk and understand while you made threats and were rude __red herring, and stuff. Please conduct yourself professionally. Rude behaviour is not acceptable in talk. You may respond if you wish, but I shall not. Ahmed Mehreen (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Why do you keep bringing up Cambridge University Press etc.? I haven't said that CUP is not a reputable publisher. I haven't said that your paper in one of their journals wasn't peer-reviewed. These have nothing to do with anything at stake here. This is a classic straw man argument – you create an issue that isn't even remotely relevant, pretend that I have made that argument, and then try to refute it. That is a complete waste of both your time and mine.

The facts are that you are trying to write an article about yourself, which is strongly discouraged, and in any case creates a conflict of interest which you have not addressed. You are furthermore trying to use Wikipedia to promote yourself, your writing, and your career, which is not allowed. If you were notable, we could perhaps proceed on some basis, but you have provided zero evidence of notability, instead you argue over irrelevant matters such as academic publishers or the Omar article.

And on top of all this, when you don't like what you're being told, you resort to ad hominem attacks. That is unacceptable. I think we're done here. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Your words "Some of the sources cited only point to publications etc. mentioned, and do not actually support anything in this draft. ({Many are user-generated (WordPress, Blogspot]) and therefore not considered reliable. Pointing to search engine results is useless, as referencing requires specific sources, not merely gateways to possible sources; in any case, search results are likely to vary over time and from user to user." Have I misread you here? Do you accept my CUP articles? Or have you completely ignored my citations?

Now you threaten me hominem attacks When wiki has published pages of non-reputable people, and broken links in my second example and you continue to argue that it is all my mistake that I point out your folly. It is a waste of time, you are right.

Yeah you told me I couldn't write my own biography for wiki, point noted but you only clarified now in yur previous message why it is so, when it is acceptable by others. Ahmed Mehreen (talk) 09:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing: Are we ready to say they aren't here to build an encyclopedia? - UtherSRG (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@UtherSRG: if that's what you're thinking, you'll get no objections from me.

Or as Sheriff Bell might have put it, if they ain't, they'll do till !HERE gets here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  UtherSRG (talk) 13:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Mehreen Ahmed

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Mehreen Ahmed, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Block

It isn't democratic to block people who genuinely want to engage. Democracy means to allow people to talk. What you have done by blocking me is prove that you are not here to facilitate any encyclopedia, rather fascism. Fascist mindset.

I am not the scammer, I was only trying to write a text corpus based on your "expert opinions" of your reviewers which they had allowed me to edit before blocking. Wiki is not a safe place for writers, this is what I have learnt from my interaction with you over these past few days. Ahmed Mehreen (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

You are not here to write about anything but yourself. We have no need for folks looking only to self-promote. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

That is a fallacy. How can you guarantee that others don't self-promote? Wiki pages are in fact all about authors and achievements. Wiki policies on notability is also ambiguous, as the spectrum is so wide. Shakespeare is notable, Do you think all other 5 millions also have the same ranking of notability? Or is notability relative?

Do you actually believe the author pages which have passed through wiki vetting, are not actually written by the authors themselves or the subjects have no participation? Just because you receive in someone's name through some else's account does not guarantee in anyway that the subject hadn't written them themselves. Their own bios,

You are not here to facilitate encyclopedia in any way. That is noble work. And your attitude proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that you guys are just a bunch of fascist technocrat without transparency and accountability. Blocking genuine people proves just that, you have taken away their democratic right to write. Ahmed Mehreen (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

You can go promote yourself on whatever social media you want. This is not the place for such. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  UtherSRG (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)