User talk:Shakirex

Welcome!

Hello, Shakirex!

I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest: Open University of Sudan

Hello Shakirex. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Open University of Sudan, 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:Shakirex. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Shakirex|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. Vegantics (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Open University of Sudan has been reverted.
Your edit here to Open University of Sudan was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline (see also this list of frequently-discussed sources). The reference(s) you added or changed (https://www.globalscienceresearchjournals.org/articles/the-elearning-readiness-of-higher-education-institutions-during-times-of-crises-110905.html) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 23:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts

Please note that drafts such as Draft:Open University of Sudan are not allowed to be filed in categories next to finished articles, per WP:DRAFTNOCAT. Since I've already had to remove the page from categories twice in less than one hour, please don't readd it to categories again. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bearcat,

I’m truly very sorry for the inconvenience I’ve caused. I was only updating the draft and genuinely didn’t know that adding categories is not allowed in draft space I sincerely apologize for the trouble this has caused you.

It seems that, unfortunately, I made a third edit that still included the categories before I saw your message. I feel terrible about that, and I hope you can forgive me for the added work.

At this point, I’m unsure whether I should go ahead now and remove the categories myself, or if I should simply leave them as they are and make sure never to re-add them in any future edits. Just to clarify, I’ve now completed my edits to the draft and don’t plan to make further changes.

Thank you again for your patience and understanding.

Best regards,

--Shakirex (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Shakirex! Your additions to Open University of Sudan have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license—to request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § Licensing.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Diannaa,

Thank you for taking the time to review and make edits to the article.

I just wanted to kindly point out that the current maintenance tag indicating that the article lacks references may be outdated. The article has recently been updated, and references have been added to most sections using reliable sources.

If you find that the article now meets the necessary referencing standards, please consider reviewing the tag and removing it if appropriate.

Thank you again for your contributions.

Best regards, Shakirex (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The person who added the tag was hoping you could find sources trhat are not primary sources. It needs independent sources. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's correct. There were originally two warning tags, and one of them was removed after I edited the language to make it more neutral. Interestingly, the removed tag was taken down by the same experienced editor who had originally placed it, which suggests that the concerns about tone were adequately addressed.

However, the tag related to the references remained. At the time it was added, the article only had five sources, including the university’s official website.

Since then, I have made significant improvements by adding 15 independent sources to the article. I believe the current referencing situation now warrants a re-evaluation of the article. Kindly consider reviewing the article again in light of the updated and more diverse references. Thank you! Shakirex (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please ask the person who added the tag if they are satisfied. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Diannaa. Honestly, that idea hadn’t crossed my mind before and I’m not sure why. Maybe I didn’t want to bother him, or perhaps I thought he was busy with other articles. I will ask him now. Shakirex (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]