User talk:SaddamHosenSaad

Your submission at Articles for creation: Free Document Maker (June 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Như Gây Mê were: 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:Free Document Maker 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.

Halley ^{luv Filipino ❤} (Talk) 01:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, SaddamHosenSaad! 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! Halley luv Filipino ❤ (Talk) 01:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Như Gây Mê – Thank you for reviewing my draft on **Free Document Maker**.

Following your comments, I have now:

- Rewritten the entire article to match a neutral, encyclopedia tone

- Removed promotional language like “100% free” and “no signup”

- Structured the features and reception sections more clearly

- Cited archived versions of Product Hunt, SaaSHub, and AlternativeTo

I understand that these sources may not yet be sufficient, so I’m working to secure reliable, independent coverage (e.g. blogs or third-party reviews). Could you kindly confirm whether one or two external tech blog mentions would satisfy the notability requirement?

Appreciate your time and guidance.

– SaddamHosenSaad (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I understand the concern and will never use AI tools again. I will avoid conflicts of interest and focus on neutral edits. Please consider unblocking. Thank you.

June 2025

Hello SaddamHosenSaad. 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:SaddamHosenSaad. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=SaddamHosenSaad|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. 331dot (talk) 07:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification.

I confirm that I am not receiving any financial compensation for editing or writing about Free Document Maker. I am the founder of the platform and created the draft in good faith, intending to follow Wikipedia’s guidelines for neutrality and transparency.

To comply fully with the Terms of Use, I have now added the following to my user page:

I will continue editing with a neutral point of view and will submit any future drafts via Articles for Creation. I appreciate your time and guidance. SaddamHosenSaad (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm confused because you said you're not a paid editor, and then made a paid editing disclosure. If you are the founder, you are a paid editor under our rules, so the disclosure would be correct. 331dot (talk) 14:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification.

You're right — I understand now that as the founder of Free Document Maker, even though I am not receiving direct payment, I am required to disclose this connection under Wikipedia’s Terms of Use.

To comply with this requirement, I’ve added the following disclosure to my user page:

I will continue contributing with a neutral point of view and will only submit content through Articles for Creation. I appreciate your time and guidance in helping me follow Wikipedia’s policies correctly. SaddamHosenSaad (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Free Document Maker (June 22)

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

Rambley (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Free Document Maker (June 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Kovcszaln6 were: 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:Free Document Maker 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.

Kovcszaln6 (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Free Document Maker (June 22)

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reasons left by Kovcszaln6 were: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Resubmitted without improvement. AI-generated ad.

Kovcszaln6 (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Free Document Maker (June 22)

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

Rambley (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of F A Sumon for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article F A Sumon 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/F A Sumon 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.

CNMall41 (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Free Document Maker (July 3)

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

qcne (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Free Document Maker (July 4)

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reasons left by Kovcszaln6 were: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: The previous draft has been declined four times, rejected once, then the mainspace article got deleted, and now you've recreated this draft. If the product is not notable, it does not merit its own Wikipedia article. Unless you can demonstrate its notability – which you have not done so –, please stop. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion, and what you're doing is starting to become disruptive.

Kovcszaln6 (talk) 07:12, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review my submission. I’m a new editor and still learning how the process works.

Could you kindly guide me on what the exact issues are, and how I should improve or approach this better in the future?

I’m willing to follow all guidelines and appreciate any suggestions.

Thanks again. SaddamHosenSaad (talk) 07:29, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

What you should have done is demonstrate the subject's notability by citing significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see WP:ORG). The first two sources you've cited in the draft are 404, and the third one is not reliable (as it has been discussed here). So please only continue if you can demonstrate that the subject is notable. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 07:36, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you again for your time and review.

Just to clarify — both articles are live and accessible:

• NewsG24 (Google News–indexed): https://www.newsg24.com/technology-news/5849/

• Porjonto (Tech feature article): https://porjonto.com/technology/4688/

Would you kindly recheck when convenient?

I appreciate your time and guidance as I try to learn and improve. SaddamHosenSaad (talk) 07:44, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Please note that you've cited different URLs in the draft. These sources don't look really reliable (for example, on the second website the "About us" link doesn't even work), and judging from the promotional tone, they seems to be PR. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 08:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you again for the response and clarification.

You're absolutely right that I should have selected the correct category — my intent was to write about *Free Document Maker* as a **web software/platform**, not as an organization. I mistakenly chose "Organization" during submission, which likely led to the application of WP:ORG standards. I now understand that **WP:SOFT** is more appropriate.

Regarding sources:

• The two URLs I posted above are the **correct, live articles** with full coverage of the software — both are independent and not self-published.

• NewsG24 is a Google News–indexed media outlet, and Porjonto.com is a technology magazine-style publication with original editorial.

I respect your view about reliability and neutrality and am open to reworking the tone and sourcing if needed. I truly want to learn and follow all Wikipedia standards. Could I resubmit the draft under the correct “Software” category and revise the language for neutrality?

Thanks again for your time and your help.

— SaddamHosenSaad (talk) SaddamHosenSaad (talk) 08:08, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

July 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for advertising or promotion.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}.  331dot (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

This is also for your LLM use. We want to communicate with you as one human to another; also, articles should not be written via LLMs. 331dot (talk) 08:48, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hello, I understand the reason for the block. I am a new editor and was trying to create an article about a browser-based software tool (Free Document Maker), not promote a product. I now see that my repeated submissions — especially under the wrong category (Organization instead of Software) — caused concern.

I apologize for any disruption caused. I’m eager to follow community guidelines and welcome mentorship. I have no intention to misuse Wikipedia and did not realize how my edits might be interpreted.

I kindly ask for another chance to contribute in good faith and learn. Thank you. SaddamHosenSaad (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I gather this unblock request has been superseded. PhilKnight (talk) 01:55, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

---

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.

Thank you for reviewing my case. I understand the block was applied due to repeated submissions related to the same software project, and concerns about promotional editing. I sincerely apologize for any disruption caused — I am new to Wikipedia’s editorial standards and did not fully grasp the importance of independent notability and neutral tone. I now realize that my article was not suitable as it stood, and that Wikipedia is not the place for promotion. I genuinely want to learn, contribute usefully, and respect the community’s rules. If unblocked, I will avoid editing topics where I have a conflict of interest and focus on helping improve existing articles through proper sourcing and discussion. I kindly ask for a second chance to grow as a constructive member of the Wikipedia community. Thank you for your time and understanding. SaddamHosenSaad (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Only one open unblock request is needed at a time. I would also suggest that you click "edit" at the top and not "reply" to edit this page; the reply function is imperfect and doesn't work well in every situation(it does not accomodate unblock requests well, and can make it difficult to post at the bottom to keep posts in chronological order). 331dot (talk) 09:25, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Hi! While waiting for an admin to review your unblock request, can you give examples of edits you would want to make that are unrelated to your software? Giving concrete examples could help reassure reviewers that you are not only here to talk about your software, which is where the promotional issues stem from. Submitting under "Organization" instead of "Software" was not the issue – rather, it was writing about your own product, as well as the promotional tone involved.

By the way, can you clarify whether you have used the assistance of AI tools to write your replies and unblock request? Reviewers usually prefer to hear from you in your own words. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:02, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hello, thank you for reviewing my block. I now understand the concerns about promotional editing.

I created an article about my software (Free Document Maker), but I see that the tone and repeated submissions were not appropriate for Wikipedia’s standards. I apologize for that.

However, I’d like to clarify that I also created the article [F A Sumon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_A_Sumon), which is unrelated to my software. This shows I’m genuinely interested in contributing useful content to Wikipedia.

If unblocked, I plan to improve and expand Bangladeshi music-related articles, tech history, and underdeveloped stubs with proper sourcing and neutral tone. I will strictly avoid editing topics where I have a conflict of interest.

Also, regarding the AI tool comment: I did use a writing assistant (ChatGPT) to help polish my English, but I personally reviewed and edited all my responses.

I'm committed to learning Wikipedia’s rules and being a positive contributor. Thank you for your time and consideration. SaddamHosenSaad (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This unblock request appears to have been written by a chatbot using a large language model. The purpose of unblock requests is to determine whether you, the human operating this account, understand why you were blocked – not to test a chatbot's ability to tell us what we want to hear. A message written (or rewritten) by a chatbot can also cause you to sound like you're making empty promises. It is better to write the unblock request yourself. Please read through the guide to appealing blocks for more help.

Please note that there is a distinction between using machine translation services such as Google Translate, which may use LLMs in their technical implementation but still aim to create a faithful translation of your text in the target language, and AI chatbots such as ChatGPT, which generate all kinds of outputs including ones that are not translations of your text. The use of machine translation services is acceptable in some cases when not done disruptively, but the use of AI chatbots is often problematic for the reasons listed at WP:LLM. — Newslinger talk 12:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

---

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.

• You seem to be defending your use of AI. I would be happier if you said you weren't going to use AI again. PhilKnight (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Same here. 331dot (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I understand the concern and will never use AI tools again. I will avoid conflicts of interest and focus on neutral edits. Please consider unblocking. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaddamHosenSaad (talk • contribs) 19:46, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:Free Document Maker

Draft:Free Document Maker, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Free Document Maker and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Free Document Maker during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 07:53, 5 August 2025 (UTC)