User talk:Edgar.bailey111

Your submission at Articles for creation: Zifa Sadriyeva (April 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Blaze Wolf 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:Zifa Sadriyeva 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.

― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Edgar.bailey111! 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! ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Blaze Wolfe, my article conforms to all other articles about Business Executives, including where they cite press releases from company's own pages. It is, hence, entirely reasonable to be not disappointed, but to question the legitimacy of your decisions, which was what I have done, but was for this immediately blocked - having not done anything illegal whatsoever! I had not published any spam, and had not made any personal attacks! So why have you contributed or directly caused or attracted attention of people who had been commented to have been trolls in other cases and also had been asked by other Wikipedia users to not be unfair in their blocking decisions towards other users? I allege the person who had blocked is involved in illegal activities. I demand dispute resolution, which seemingly is available for other users. And demand to be unblocked, because this is a defamatory and illegal act. Edgar.bailey111 (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Zifa Sadriyeva (April 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Blaze Wolf 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:Zifa Sadriyeva 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.

― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

I have left a message in response on your Talk page apparently, having not seen Reply button here. In addition to what is written there, here is one CEO profile with a reference to a press release on the organisation's own website: Hein Schumacher - Wikipedia, hence, it is not clear why this person, Zifa Sadriyeva, had attracted such odd comments and two requests to re-submit.

Yours sincerely,

Edgar Edgar.bailey111 (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

See other crap exists for that argument, the fact that there are other poorly sourced articles doesn't mean we want more? Theroadislong (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

What is this conversation? Why are you using such insulting words when writing to me? What are you trying to substantiate? Edgar.bailey111 (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

A user who has been previously called by other users a troll, had seemingly submitted the article for speedy deletion.

Could you please help to approve the page as everything had been correct there (if you aren't yourself a troll, of course).

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Edgar Edgar.bailey111 (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Zifa Sadriyeva

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:Zifa Sadriyeva, 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. VViking_TalkEdits 14:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Assuming good faith

Please remember to assume good faith your comment on Blaze Wolf's talk page where you stated that the failure to approve the article was "frankly, disturbing, especially this being a businesswoman" seems to be claiming that the reason Blaze did not approve the article was because they are sexist. This does not assume good faith. You later went on to state, not that just other people have called me a troll, but you specifically called me a troll when you said: "and to investigate why a troll is allowed to "speedy delete"" Please remember to talk about the substance of the article and not make personal attacks that people are trolls or sexist. Doing so may lead to a loss of editing privilege's.--VViking_TalkEdits 15:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

As there had been an unsubstantiated decision to "request re-submit", which does not conform to what could be found on pages about other Business executives, it was, indeed, disturbing, especially given that this woman had been under attack of trolls and went through horrendous discrimination.

Moreover, please note how onerous you are all acting whereby within seconds, having not even been able to receive anything from Help me to review your totally absurd and unfair "speedy deletion", my account had also been blocked! For what exactly? So you are writing things about me, which does not actually correspond to the reality, to the truth, and then block me for doing nothing wrong, having not committed one illegal act, yet, it is your, sir or madam, who had been branded a troll on Wikipedia for seemingly such similar behaviour towards other people.

Immediately apologise to me. There is publicly available information about patents, hence, whoever - another user, who had written about patents something, does not know the topic and should not have chipped in.

This is all completely and entirely illegal.

Yours sincerely,

Edgar Edgar.bailey111 (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2023 (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).

Edgar.bailey111 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello, I have asked Admin Help, however, within seconds was blocked in some most ridiculous totalitarian manner. I can even see, there is "dispute resolution" available for users here, but I had no chance to use this. I had not done anything illegal, had not made any personal attacks, instead am on a receiving end of some odd commentary, which contradicts the content published on Wikipedia, and personal attacks. The page I had created had been in an illegal way branded "promotional", but it only looks the same as for any other Business executive on Wikipedia. Moreover, given her invention i the field of economics, she had already become more notable than, perhaps, Hein Schumaher, himself or any other economist. It is self-explanatory and there should not be so much odd commentary, which is either sexist or racist or both.

I request that my account unblocked. It is totally horrendous, and had caused enormous stress and distress as to why this happened at all.

As one could see below, there is a new attempt to lock me into a false imprisonment in this decision-making because I had made a mistake and posted a Request to unblock in response to BBb23 user's post, who had already committed an illegal act with this unsubstantiated blocking and who now insults me in public calling my legal queries "rant" and threatens to block me further, as if am producing a spam, to create an image of some "illegal activity", in which he or she is himself engaged.

This prison-like style of communication with me will have legal repercussions.

Yours sincereley, Edgar Edgar.bailey111 (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This didn't have to come to this, I urge you to read other stuff exists; articles on other business executives, if they are just like your draft, are also inappropriate and simply haven't been addressed yet. We can only address what we know about. This is not a database of business executives, but an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion. We would have been willing to help you had you been civil and politely asked questions. Instead, you chose to escalate your rhetoric, make attacks, and finally legal threats. You will now need to unequivocally withdraw any and all legal threats in order to be unblocked- and you will now have to use UTRS to discuss this further. You may lose access there as well should you abuse it as you did here. 331dot (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2023 (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 can have only one unblock request at a time. I have almost revoked Talk page access because of your post-block rants and attacks. If you persist, I will.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• I have revoked TPA because of the legal threat.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)