User talk:Mandatorylife

Your submission at Articles for creation: Zhala Bayramova (October 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 Qcne 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:Zhala Bayramova 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) 09:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Mandatorylife! 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! Qcne (talk) 09:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Zhala Bayramova

Hello, Mandatorylife. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Zhala Bayramova, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Abzas Media has been accepted

Abzas Media, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

December 2024

Hello, Mandatorylife. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions;
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Axad12 (talk) 06:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it may be useful if you were to disclose your degree of association with Gubad Ibadoghlu and any connection between this account and the previously active account user:Bayramov.zh (which appears to have had an identical agenda and which stopped editing shortly before the Mandatorylife account commenced editing).

Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 06:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Axad12. I do not have any direct connection to Gubad Ibadoghlu, nor am I paid for editing. I am aware of the situation surrounding Gubad Ibadoghlu and have some friends who work in human rights, but I don't. However, I thought it would be a good idea to keep updating the page. Either way, all of this is done on voluntary basis and I just update the page when I have time and when I checked up on the situation. Sorry, but I do not know the identity of Bayramov.zh either. I haven't edited Wikipedia before creating this account and saw this as an opportunity to start editing but haven't gotten to many other pages thus far. Mandatorylife (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your response above.

I'm somewhat concerned about the situation here, as yourself and Bayramov.zh are, between you, responsible for 94% of the text of the exceptionally over-long Gubad Ibadoghlu article, and both accounts are essentially WP:SPAs with an apparently identical agenda. There are, I think, legitimate concerns over conflict of interest editing, advocacy, and whether the article is a encyclopaedic and neutral description of events or an attempt to highlight Dr Ibadoghlu's situation (which, regardless of how noble that may be as an endeavour, is not the purpose of an encyclopaedia).

At present I don't have time to look further into these issues but in the short term can I ask you to try to keep things within the bounds of WP:NPOV? I'm not unsymphathetic to the general situation but I felt that this recent edit [1] was certainly some way over the line.

As an exceptionally minor point of Wikipedia house style, please note that article subjects should be referred to throughout by their surnames and not repeatedly as "Dr Gubad". This sort of thing does little to reduce concerns that the article contents are far from neutral.

I'd also refer you to the advice you received further up this page in relation to an article you had declined for inclusion in Oct 2023. That advice seems to me to be equally applicable to the situation with the Ibadoghlu article.

I trust that you will not find my comments here unfair.

Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. You are definitely correct about that recent edit and some of the other choices made throughout last year. I will try my best to keep to the bounds of the neutral point of view in the future as much as possible. I am sorry if my contributions raise concern; I just tried to present the information the best I could. Mandatorylife (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm currently reading through the article now. Some other concerns, which you may perhaps like to attend to at some point, are:

a) There is a lot of material throughout the article which states that "Currently (something is the case)" or "Recently (etc etc)". Given Dr Ibadoghlu's changing circumstances over the last decade I'm inclined to doubt whether much of this material is still correct (or, indeed, relevant) and it should probably either be removed, or appropriately qualified (e.g. "From 2014-2018 [something was the case]").

b) In relation to potentially non neutral text, I'd give the example of as follows The police planted 40000 US dollars into Dr Gubad's old office. The search was conducted illegally Now, I am unaware of Dr Ibadoghlu's case and I'm unable to read sources not in English, however I assume that those are actually (technically speaking) allegations of police misconduct and should be reported as such in our article rather than being presented as established facts. Similarly the section title "Smear Campaign" is clearly non-neutral.

c) The section on "Health and Ill-treatment" again has a clearly non-neutral title, goes into far too much medical detail and presents historical events as though they were current.

d) There is also a large amount of material which is sourced either to Dr Ibadoghlu's own published work (i.e. not independently sourced), or to Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Twitter/X (none of which are admissible as sources on Wikipedia). All of this material should be removed from the article.

The notes above are based on skim-reading the first half of the article, but I assume that the issues raised are present pretty much throughout the article text and are not restricted to the examples highlighted above. These general issues really do need to be resolved. I would strongly suggest that you address these issues yourself rather than waiting for somebody else to do so.

I would also say that as a general observation it is not necessary to note every time that Dr Ibadoghlu is mentioned in the press, or every time a government makes a statement. Really the relevant sections need to be significantly abbreviated: E.g. "Dr Ibadoghlu's situation has often been highlighted in the press, both domestically and further afield [and then cite examples in the footnotes]".

The section on the 52nd birthday seems to me to be pure advocacy and ought to be removed in its entirety.

Hopefully the above notes are of assistance. It may also assist if I point you towards a few policies which may be helpful: WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTADVOCACY.

Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)