User talk:Doxiados: Difference between revisions

Hello Doxiados. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Mir Mohammad Ali Khan, 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:Doxiados. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Doxiados|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. Stablecoin (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I declare that I am not a paid editor. I have no financial interest in this. However you want my claim to be proven I am ready. Through email. Through phone call or through my real identification revelation.  I am a concerned citizens who does not like malicious campaigns against anyone like previously run by a wiki editor by the name of @saqib who I believe is now blocked on Wikipedia for reasons unknown to me. Saqib has started a malicious campaign based on political bias as you can verify this claim of mine by visiting the original wiki article of Mir and see how Saqib started changing it from a verified balanced article to a malicious negativity only based article.

I have not changed anything negative that was in the article. I just added referenced based neutral and verified content.

Thank you. Doxiados (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok, i don’t see how saqib was adding “malicious” content to the page like you claim. you should be focusing more on the content itself, not the editor who added it.

also, you really should avoid adding promo material to a blp. i can see you removed well-sourced info just because it looked negative to you, so i reverted your edit. before you revert mine, i’d suggest you talk to me and sort this out – otherwise you might risk getting blocked. Stablecoin (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Stablecoin, All the controversial ways stay under the controversies section. We added his accomplishments with references and left the controversy section as it to make it fair and balanced. You seem to have a vendetta again Mir. You are going out of the way to remove all the accomplishments with solid references and that is purely malicious.Why ? All Wikipedia pages are made with fairness. Why a different rule Mir. What else am I to think except of your malicious intent or some hidden agenda.

I have not removed anything negative or added anything promotional. I have added fact and reference based points of the subjects’ life. Why do you want that not to be added ? Do you have something personal against him ? Every article on wiki has full details about a person’s life. Why do you want to prevent this article from that ? Authenticity of the links is there yet you want them removed and you want only negative links why ? Keep the negative links and the positive ones. That is the fairness of Wikipedia. And no I am not a paid person Doxiados (talk) 05:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

first you accused saqib of doing something wrong, and now you’re accusing me. you’re assuming bad faith, so i’m not engaging with you here anymore. Stablecoin (talk) 06:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2025 Pakistan floods, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator.
Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 06:53, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. Stablecoin (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]